🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:34:18 UTC No. 15971497
End of an Era Edition
Previous - >>15968413
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:37:40 UTC No. 15971502
fpbp
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:46:33 UTC No. 15971517
>>15971514
I love her
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:46:52 UTC No. 15971518
spwp
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:53:30 UTC No. 15971523
rumor going around that nasa is going to cancel starship HLS.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 08:56:29 UTC No. 15971527
>>15971523
in favor of QI based reusable ascent/lander that can dock to Gateway
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:00:31 UTC No. 15971529
>>15971527
rumor going around that bezos is going to invest in IVO
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 09:08:55 UTC No. 15971543
>>15971539
this February will make it annoyingly fast again
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 10:33:52 UTC No. 15971596
>>15971539
This but unironically
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 11:45:59 UTC No. 15971620
>>15971523
>rumor going around
Funny, I've heard a rumor going around that you suck cock
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:02:52 UTC No. 15971629
>>15971514
Japanese Delta IV to launch in Feb
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:05:58 UTC No. 15971630
>>15971590
i would rather have that bust, please, take a look at those puppies.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:08:30 UTC No. 15971633
>>15971539
this has been talked about before.
the sheer kino of starship launches has ruined our dopamine receptors.
nothing else generates enough excitement anymore, you can see even a brand new medium launch rocket like vulcan wasn't enough to get people truly excited.
we have been cursed.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:13:06 UTC No. 15971638
>>15971633
All to true, but oh what a sight it is
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:20:18 UTC No. 15971645
>>15971638
Superheavy is so gorgeous. I could take or leave Starship, but that booster is sexy
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:32:09 UTC No. 15971659
>>15971645
I think they go pretty well together
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:34:30 UTC No. 15971663
>>15971659
Oh don't get me wrong, they're both great, I'd just love to see a cheap, expendable second stage to get some massive science probes out into the solar system
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:40:35 UTC No. 15971668
i fear for the day where even starship launches become a daily occurence.
it will all become boring, no launches will be interesting anymore, this general will die because nobody finds anything worth talking about.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:42:42 UTC No. 15971669
>>15971633
>a brand new medium launch rocket like vulcan
its nasashit that will launch twice a year at best and cost an unreasonable fortune every time, its all old tech, there is nothing special about it that didn't already exist, I don't even know why it was made.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:44:26 UTC No. 15971672
>>15971668
The day that happens, there will be massive amounts of stuff happening in space, and those things will be the objects of interest instead of the ships making supply runs.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:49:43 UTC No. 15971677
>Starship HLS needs to be refuel up to 10 times in orbit before it can land on the Moon
How long will the refuelling take? Will there be 10 tankers in place or will it be one or two tankers flying up and down?
It still sounds incredibly audacious
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:52:36 UTC No. 15971683
>>15971677
The ship picks up all of its propellant at once from a depot that was filled in advance.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:55:28 UTC No. 15971688
>>15971683
Smart, thanks
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:58:21 UTC No. 15971692
Anyone got any tips for scratch building non flying model rockets? I'm making a rocket lamp for my desk area, with the exhaust being the light element.
Most information I find online is for flying model rockets, and mostly useless for my purposes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 12:59:32 UTC No. 15971696
>>15971692
3D Printers and cardstock are the most popular options for decent quality models.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:03:40 UTC No. 15971702
>>15971696
Thanks, I don't have access to a 3D printer, but I will keep an eye out for services.
The hardest part to scratch build at the moment is rounded nosecones and the rocket engine bell/nozzle
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:28:02 UTC No. 15971716
>>15971681
It is cutting it close but I think a Starship will still make it to Mars this year, if only one.
The main thing stopping SpaceX from achieving it is the FAA's limit of five (5) fucking launches allowed per year. It is essential that they don't fuck up IFT 3 and it goes perfectly, and that IFT4 and IFT 5 are able to test orbital refueling between starships.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:33:04 UTC No. 15971719
>>15971669
it was made to compete in a launch market that no longer exists in the form it did in 2014. they wanted something to replace the RD180's and they thought "w-well surely spacex re-use isn't that big of a deal, we'll just optimize for production and match them in price".
they could have seen the writing on the wall that after vulcan's development time was over, it would already be outdated. but then large govt catering companies are generally not known for their speed and flexibility.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:35:57 UTC No. 15971721
>>15971716
sending starship to mars when you only have 5 flights per year out of boca chica is dumb as hell
We have at least 1 flight this year just to get it suborbital and burning up over hawaii
at least 1-2 more to test soft landing of starship over water
then 2-3+ for testing payload (starlink) deployment and fuel transfer
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:37:51 UTC No. 15971724
>>15971721
They do not need to test soft landing the starship in water for the HLS program, but you're right about the fuel transfer testing
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:14 UTC No. 15971725
>>15971721
I suspect they're actively trying to increase the number of annual launches they're allowed from Starbase, but we'll have no way of knowing until they get them.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:40:17 UTC No. 15971726
>>15971721
>sending starship to mars when you only have 5 flights per year out of boca chica is dumb as hell
Falcon Heavy sent a Tesla to solar orbit on its first flight, it is not unrealistic at alll
>only have 5 flights
Hence why I said IFT 3 needs to go perfectly. Once they get Starship to stop exploding they can simply ask the FAA to edit the number of annual flights in the license from 5 to 20
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:42:05 UTC No. 15971729
>>15971726
After the Starship is refueled in orbit from the demonstration, what better way to dispose of it than send it to Mars?
Launch window to Mars is this year right?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:52:04 UTC No. 15971737
>>15971729
>after the Starship is refueled in orbit from the demonstration, what better way to dispose of it than send it to Mars?
It would need a few more starship launches to fill it, but sure. As long as the FAA lets them keep that one in orbit
>launch window to Mars is this year right?
Sep 26 of this year is the beginning of the nearest window, and it closes in November. November 2026 is the next window after that
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:55:32 UTC No. 15971741
>>15971737
October 17th not September 26th*
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 13:57:17 UTC No. 15971745
>>15971737
Interesting... I wonder if we could see Starlinks around Mars relatively soon
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:01:54 UTC No. 15971750
What happened to the Interplanetary Transport System (SpaceX Sea Dragon)?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:03:55 UTC No. 15971756
>>15971750
Turned into BFR then Starship
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:04:08 UTC No. 15971757
>>15971745
It is a shame martian Starlinks probably can't communicate with Perseverance and Ingenuity, it would help them out a lot. Imagine going onto YouTube in a decade and seeing live video feeds above the Martian surface
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:06:38 UTC No. 15971761
>>15971497
Another day another blunder another delay another setback. When will it finally sink in golems? I'll be here waiting for you.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:16:08 UTC No. 15971776
>>15971761
What blunder? What setback? All the launches this year have been successful stupid flerfer
at least read the news you argue agaist
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:25:01 UTC No. 15971783
>>15971721
>he thinks soft landing testing can't be post starlink-deployment
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:32:01 UTC No. 15971791
>>15971739
So an Atlas V?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:40:43 UTC No. 15971798
>>15971776
Don't bother. It'll be endless goalpost moving. Even if you got himself to the moon he would say something about demonic illusions.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:55:32 UTC No. 15971811
>>15971523
hello spaceguy5
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:57:37 UTC No. 15971817
>>15971739
>using Russian engines
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:14:05 UTC No. 15971844
>>15971791
pretty much
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:26:16 UTC No. 15971857
>>15971672
If Starship ever gets into high tempo, fully reusable launch cadence, then the cost assumptions that have precluded mission architectures involving orbital assembly will no longer be valid. I look forward the the circle jerk here while we watch the Mars Cycler construction Webcams
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:33:43 UTC No. 15971866
>CST-100, Polaris Dawn, Dreamchaser first flight, and Falcon Heavy in April
You could probably throw in a CLPS mission that month.
Gonna be a packed April
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:39:32 UTC No. 15971871
>>15971761
Hey youre back, gonna have a tantrum and post your scat catalogue you jerk off too freak?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:50:48 UTC No. 15971884
>>15971880
you could start by getting that cock out of your mouth, faggot.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 15:52:00 UTC No. 15971886
>>15971880
>When are we
>We
WE aren't going anywhere.
YOU are staying here
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:06:58 UTC No. 15971902
>>15971877
Okay, now whoever made the allegation (causing this investigation) should be liable for wasting everybody's time and slandering innocent people. At least a good caning, beat the bottoms of their feet so they can't walk right for a few days. There have to be some consequences for doing this shit, you can't just keep throwing shit at someone forever and get away with it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:09:55 UTC No. 15971905
>>15971880
Meanwhile I'm getting real tired of seeing of this post.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:14:02 UTC No. 15971910
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/01/12/spa
>Momentus, once valued at more than $1 billion before going public via a SPAC in 2021, abandoned plans for its next mission, which was to fly satellite customers in March.
>The company cited its “inability to support continuing operations for the expected launch date as a result of the Company’s limited liquidity and cash balance.”
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:18:53 UTC No. 15971920
>>15971517
>I love her (male)
fact checked that for you
btw, it's obvious to anyone who speaks Japanese that it's a dude
his speech patterns and word choice are undeniably male
male performers pretending to be women and getting railed (homosexually) by their male fans is a traditional part of the Japanese entertainment industry
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:28:41 UTC No. 15971935
>>15971905
new frog picture every time and I approve (or better yet, a daily rocket picture)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:31:03 UTC No. 15971941
>>15971910
too much competition in the spacetug business I guess and poor execution
> Momentus was among a dozen or so space companies that debuted during the SPAC frenzy. The company was already on rocky footing before it went public, with delayed missions after the departure of its founder and former CEO, its valuation cut in half to less than $600 million and an SEC settlement due to allegations of falsifying results from a prototype spacecraft test.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:37:24 UTC No. 15971950
>>15971935
You dont belong here
>>15971941
Yeah I saw allot of businesses in it but no clear winner unlike spacelaunch, theres Vast's Launcher, Starfish, Momentus here and a bunch more.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:38:08 UTC No. 15971955
>>15971950
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:40:08 UTC No. 15971962
So about that SpaceX company talk? anybody have any info about it? perhaps delayed due to legal/ITAR going through it or whatever
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:48:33 UTC No. 15971973
>>15971941
>too much competition in the spacetug business
who are doing spacetugs besides momentus?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:56:46 UTC No. 15971983
>>15971973
some are mentioned here >>15971950
so Vast, Starfish
but then you have Tom Muellers Impulse Space
Blue Origin is doing Blue Ring (which is a more comprehensive platform than just a space tug)
Rocket Lab has a kick stage which can act as a spacetug https://www.rocketlabusa.com/update
from wikipedia there is even longer list
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:57:11 UTC No. 15971984
>>15971973
D-Orbit and Impulse come to mind. Spaceflight Inc. formerly (bought by Firefly who also plans on tugs). I think there's others.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:58:24 UTC No. 15971988
Angry is really smart when it comes to actual spaceflight news and predictions but the focus on aliens makes him look likw a total retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 16:59:03 UTC No. 15971989
>>15971983
>>15971984
seems like the problem isnt that there are too many spacetugs, but that there arent enough payloads that use them
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:01:52 UTC No. 15971994
>>15971989
not yet, all of these are pretty much banking on Starship (perhaps New Glennn too)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:02:52 UTC No. 15971997
>>15971989
Perhaps they were banking on more payloads. I think SpaceX initially said Transporter would ramp up to monthly launches within a couple years.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:06:58 UTC No. 15972005
>>15971989
Oversaturated market because its low investment and low risk with most of these going in Falcons guaranteed to atleast get up to LEO. Means that any new company can turn a profit if they just tell their customers who are already planning to go on a Falcon transport mission to pay for everything and all they have to do is get a working tug up there with the payload, charge more money than they invested in the tug and boom you got a profitable space business. No need to design a whole fucking rocket and compete with the behemoths that are SpaceX or get a supply chain going for fueling your rocket, dealing with FAA and SEC (as much) when making the rocket licensing etc. That means that its oversaturated and some companies still cant even successfully do the tugging part i.e. Starfish and Launcher, so eventually the ones with the most competitive rates will win and other companies will either pivot or file for bankruptcy.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:13:55 UTC No. 15972011
>>15971529
That would actually make his L5 spinhab ideas possible since lunar ISRU could be focused on crew consumables and structural materials.
>>15971989
Momentus was supposed to be different. They never got around to launching a depot or refilling spacetugs so their costs were too high to be competitive.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:18:07 UTC No. 15972016
>>15972015
https://twitter.com/astrobotic/stat
> Payload teams continue to operate & receive power & telemetry. Below is a video from the moment the COLMENA payload team began receiving data confirming it is now the first Mexican instrument to operate in cislunar space. (Video credit: UNAM)
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:20:29 UTC No. 15972020
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:21:32 UTC No. 15972022
>>15972020
https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:23:17 UTC No. 15972026
>>15971692
>exhaust being the light element
there have been several modelers who did that, and they look fantastic. From the NSF forums about a Saturn V model:
>According to the builder's posts it is not foam, but polyester fill, like that used in pillows (or aquarium filters).
>I see some is actually non-flammable, but I guess it could melt
>aquarium folks seem to dislike the non-flammable variety due to chemical contamination of their fish tanks.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:23:37 UTC No. 15972027
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:24:13 UTC No. 15972028
>>15972015
So is the leak going to stop? Or is it a lose half every day until there's barely any left kind of deal?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:25:26 UTC No. 15972030
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:26:15 UTC No. 15972031
>>15972026
the thread with pics: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/i
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:26:37 UTC No. 15972032
>>15972028
who knows, in one of the other updates it seemed like the leak is getting smaller due to less pressure and the exact mechanics are difficult to predict
I guess it might be possible that at some point the leak becomes neglible
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:31:30 UTC No. 15972044
>>15972032
it really doesn't matter anymore how long they keep it limping along, it's actual useful mission of landing on the moon is already screwed, it has no chance to do anything useful anymore.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:32:01 UTC No. 15972045
>>15971633
natural march of progress. most people don’t have a fit every time a magnificent 747 takes off in spite of it being some hundred ton chunk of metal. 100 years ago it would’ve been astonishing. nobody’s bothered by a cruise to the USA etc. all trivialized
In a few decades you’ll be relishing the mystique and specialness of early space flight. Once everyone’s super, no one will be.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:34:28 UTC No. 15972048
>>15971663
why? whos going to pay for that? please give me some hopium on what the value of multi hundred tonne science probs is. JWST was another jobs fare
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:53:01 UTC No. 15972072
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:53:12 UTC No. 15972074
>>15972005
Hes right you know
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:54:03 UTC No. 15972075
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:58:58 UTC No. 15972080
>>15971910
FUCK
our cubesat was literally at the airport about to be delivered when we got the news. That takes a many clients away from the SpaceX Transporter 10 launch in March.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:15:36 UTC No. 15972099
>>15972080
Andrew?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:37:19 UTC No. 15972122
ChudX wont get away with their bigotry against BIPOC immigrants.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:43:10 UTC No. 15972128
>>15972123
>last meals
Yikes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:45:14 UTC No. 15972131
>>15972123
What is that supposed to be?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:48:47 UTC No. 15972138
>>15972131
that's what they call an "astronaut"
and i think the dish is paella
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:48:53 UTC No. 15972139
>>15972131
jellyfish
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:52:22 UTC No. 15972141
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
Small Rockets
> Vega C return-to-flight mission gets a date
> China completes commercial launch pad.
> Will spaceport make Australia a military target?
> Self-eating rocket engine passes test.
Medium Rockets
> Gravity-1 solid rocket makes a stunning debut.
> Mars mission slips due to HIII delays.
Heavy Rockets
> Vulcan makes an impressive debut.
> Here's what is next for Vulcan.
> NASA delays Artemis missions.
> New Glenn spotted in the wild.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 18:59:01 UTC No. 15972148
>>15972141
>NG is considered heavy lift
God is dead.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:03:25 UTC No. 15972154
>>15972148
What makes you say that?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:05:34 UTC No. 15972159
>>15972148
isn't the cut-off 20 tonnes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:06:34 UTC No. 15972161
>>15972159
and super heavy lift is at 50 tonnes, so New Glenn at 45 tonnes is almost super heavy
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:21:12 UTC No. 15972193
>>15972161
You are now aware that Falcon Heavy is only a heavy lift launcher as well because its payload is hard capped by the Falcon 9 second stage's payload adapter.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:23:29 UTC No. 15972197
>>15972193
capped at what?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:27:13 UTC No. 15972199
>>15972048
>please give me some hopium on what the value of multi hundred tonne science probs is.
100s of experiments on it? quintuple-redundant everything, power generation that will last it 200 years, radiation shielding, a fuck-huge antenna so comms aren't a struggle at voyager distances?
the possibilities of being unconstrained by mass autism are incredible
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:27:42 UTC No. 15972201
>>15972197
Less than the original intended launch mass of PPE/HALO.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:37:00 UTC No. 15972213
>>15972212
starliner isn't helping us return to the moon you stupid fucks fuck you
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:38:45 UTC No. 15972215
>>15972201
wiki says PPE is 5 tonnes, you cant' seriously say that it is capped at 5 fucking tonnes
Falcon 9 has launched something like 18.3 tonnes if I remember correctly and the theoretical max for falcon heavy into leo is something like 60 tonnes
so what is the capped max then? throwing some random ass bullshit is not going to fly
give me a number that says its less than 50 tonnes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:39:41 UTC No. 15972216
>>15971880
kek based and golempilled
keep rubbing it in their faces, eventually they will realize they are worthless cattle and rope
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:39:46 UTC No. 15972217
>>15972212
trying to run some defense for boeing lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:40:32 UTC No. 15972220
>>15972217
It's actually insulting them.
>they still need drop tests for parachutes years after Dragon's parachutes started successfully returning crews
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:54:35 UTC No. 15972231
>>15972159
This is why God is dead. Heavy lift should be moved up and super heavy lift be 100t+
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:55:47 UTC No. 15972233
>>15972225
RIP OG Starbase
https://youtu.be/nVUHHW1tJYA
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 19:55:54 UTC No. 15972234
>>15972216
Not gonna post scat this time flatcel?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:02:37 UTC No. 15972238
>>15972215
To get that 66 ton throw weight to LEO you need to expend all three booster cores.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:12:09 UTC No. 15972248
>>15972238
do you have a point?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:13:42 UTC No. 15972251
>>15972234
Nah you are scat already golem, look in the mirror.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:19:19 UTC No. 15972260
>>15972248
Fully Reusable Falcon Chubby is not Super Heavy Lift.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:21:25 UTC No. 15972265
kill yourself - classic meme
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:23:46 UTC No. 15972272
>>15972238
??????????
everyone already knows this.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:25:48 UTC No. 15972276
>>15972260
nobody ever said it was?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:26:13 UTC No. 15972277
He got it from reddit, didn't he?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:28:11 UTC No. 15972284
>>15972251
don't distract from the topic at hand, that being your mentally ill scat fetish.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:29:17 UTC No. 15972287
>>15972259
incorrect meme, because it failed to deliver it's payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:30:04 UTC No. 15972288
>>15972199
>fuck-huge antenna so comms aren't a struggle at voyager distances?
Brings no value.
> radiation shielding
Brings no value.
> power generation that will last it 200 years
Brings no value.
> 100s of experiments on it?
Explain what value these experiments bring. So far you’ve shown no value can be brought by launching a hundred tonne space probe. NASA is a jobs fare.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:31:57 UTC No. 15972292
>>15972269
sint that thing barely supersonic m=1.3? What’s the point of supersonic travel if you’re not even doubling flight speed? Material science peaked in the 1960s
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:35:02 UTC No. 15972299
>>15972288
You are double gay.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:39:59 UTC No. 15972302
>>15972215
>wiki says PPE is 5 tonnes, you cant' seriously say that it is capped at 5 fucking tonnes
Why are you omitting HALO's mass?
>if I remember correctly and the theoretical max for falcon heavy into leo is something like 60 tonnes
Falcon Heavy has the performance to push 50+ tons to LEO, the Falcon 9 second stage's payload adapter cannot hold 50+ tons.
You need to read slower my non American friend.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:43:31 UTC No. 15972307
>>15972212
Allah curse this capsule
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:46:28 UTC No. 15972311
>>15972292
its a tech demonstrator to prove you can make a sonic boom quiet enough to fly over land/cities
the FAA might change regulations about super sonic planes if it works :3
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:54:15 UTC No. 15972322
>>15972292
It's supersonic while not breaking windows
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 20:54:42 UTC No. 15972323
>>15972307
I think it's pretty cursed already
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:00:29 UTC No. 15972333
>>15972044
It can crash on to Chang'e 5 and kill it.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:02:48 UTC No. 15972342
>>15972288
>all these things that bring value don't bring value b-because i said so okay!
low energy post.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:04:26 UTC No. 15972344
>>15972260
as I said, do you have a point?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:04:43 UTC No. 15972347
>>15972343
Then chart it by upmass per year.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:05:13 UTC No. 15972349
>>15972343
dont worry anon, starlink satellites are in a low enough orbit, they will constantly need new ones launched to make up for older ones falling out of orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:06:04 UTC No. 15972351
>>15972311
Just repeal that bullshit law so you can make normal jets. Weird that Boeing hasn't lobbied for it yet.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:06:24 UTC No. 15972352
>>15972343
The full constellation is over 30k satellites not to mention they will need to be replaced eventually.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:07:32 UTC No. 15972355
>>15972302
give me the source and weight or fuck off
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:08:49 UTC No. 15972358
>>15972351
people don't like when their windows break anon, that's why the laws were made in the first place
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:08:53 UTC No. 15972359
>>15972349
>>15972352
true but I would like to see some real value launches soon other than sky internet, this is why I am counting the days until Starship changes space exploration forever with its payload capabilities.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:09:49 UTC No. 15972363
>>15972269
Burgers really know how to make a pompous speech, it's an art
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:09:54 UTC No. 15972364
why is the audio so weird?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:10:06 UTC No. 15972365
>>15972259
you can do it like that, but its going to result in a rocket that costs more, takes longer to develop and is less performant
in short, its not a good idea
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:10:24 UTC No. 15972366
>>15972343
All Starlink sats have planned obsolescence built in.
They sit low enough in orbit that atmospheric drag will eventually kill them when their thrusters run out of juice.
The launches will never stop.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:11:12 UTC No. 15972369
>>15972269
when are they going to show it? and talk about the specs
I don't care about these geezers
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:11:21 UTC No. 15972370
>>15972364
boomers aren't very good at A/V
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:11:28 UTC No. 15972371
>>15972363
We can't help it. We learned it from dad (the british).
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:13:28 UTC No. 15972376
>>15972288
so what you are saying, probes don't bring any value? why didn't you just say so
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:13:44 UTC No. 15972378
They're all fat
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:14:30 UTC No. 15972379
>>15972311
that is pretty cool, there are a number of supersonic plane startups
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:15:16 UTC No. 15972381
>>15972358
>people don't like when their windows break anon
That's just the usual hustle and bustle of a big city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklah
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:15:42 UTC No. 15972382
why so many zoomers in the youtube chat?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:16:35 UTC No. 15972384
>>15972355
>give me the source
Look up HALO's lsunch mass.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:16:46 UTC No. 15972385
>>15972382
Chat is disabled tho
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:17:21 UTC No. 15972386
>>15972381
lmao I love the cold war so much
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:17:57 UTC No. 15972388
>>15972385
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjC
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:18:42 UTC No. 15972390
GET ON WITH IT
https://youtu.be/sXE8LdXzeHM?si=lvf
I WANNA SEE THE FUCKING AIRPLANE
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:19:22 UTC No. 15972391
>>15972343
30k full constellation with 5 year lifetime, so 6k satellites need to be launched per year
the original mass was so starship could launch something like 400 per launch, but the bigger version is maybe something like 100 (might be less but that is an easy number)
so keeping Starlink online is going to require on the order of 60 launches of Starship by itself and before Starship launches get ramped up they are going to keep launching them with Falcon 9s
Starship will have to demonstrate capabilities necessary for HLS first before they can start launching a lot of starlink sats, so F9 will be used in the mean time
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:19:51 UTC No. 15972392
NASA is gay, and acts like they are changing the world with every project they undertake (which they used to do)
But now? The only thing NASA changes are the number of 0s in defense contractor’s bank accounts
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:20:15 UTC No. 15972393
REEEEEEEEEEEEE JUST PULL THE FUCKING TARP ALREADY
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:20:23 UTC No. 15972395
>>15972384
allright then, fuck off
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:21:11 UTC No. 15972397
bro why are zoomers/alphas edging to the plane in the chat?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:22:28 UTC No. 15972399
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:22:39 UTC No. 15972400
Remember when chuck yeager put on lipstick and did a huge, EPIC press conference before breaking the hecking sound barrier??
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:23:05 UTC No. 15972402
60k people watching?
I'm surprised people even know about this, even zoomers apparently
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:23:25 UTC No. 15972403
>>15972397
They are Indian men
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:23:36 UTC No. 15972404
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:24:28 UTC No. 15972406
>the future of air travel is no front-facing window
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:24:30 UTC No. 15972407
>>15972398
>>15972399
>>15972404
Locksneed deserves an award for the lamest supersonic jet ever produced.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:24:37 UTC No. 15972409
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:25:39 UTC No. 15972410
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:26:06 UTC No. 15972411
Doesn't look like a bus.
Won't operate like a bus.
Won't be commercially viable.
Even billionaires wouldn't spend the cash to fly in an uncomfortable box just to travel 20% faster.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:26:10 UTC No. 15972412
Jim Free is a filthy snake
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:26:23 UTC No. 15972413
>>15972395
>ask for source
>get mad when given source
many such cases
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:27:54 UTC No. 15972417
>>15972413
where is the source?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:28:08 UTC No. 15972419
>>15972413
nta, but:
>just look up the source yourself
>I gave you the source, bro
is kind of disingenuous
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:28:54 UTC No. 15972420
>>15972212
I get why they worded it that way but focusing on the drop aircraft and not the chase plane or ground equipment monitoring it makes it seem like the only thing nasa is good for is grunt work that any freight contractor could do
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:28:55 UTC No. 15972421
god damn Jim Free is so fucking boring
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:30:09 UTC No. 15972423
>>15972418
LONGER
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:31:01 UTC No. 15972426
>>15972418
LONGER!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:31:07 UTC No. 15972428
bro said he was fat :skull:
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:32:29 UTC No. 15972430
>>15972404
NOOOOOOOOO
I knew it was gonna happen but the duckbill was so fucking cute, I hate pitot tubes
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:32:33 UTC No. 15972431
>>15972381
> However, in the first 14 weeks, 147 windows in the city's two tallest buildings,
nothing personnel kid
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:32:52 UTC No. 15972433
>>15972364
space is hard
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:32:58 UTC No. 15972434
>NASA gets things done
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:32:59 UTC No. 15972435
Yeah we can totally avoid sonic booms. All we need is a uh.... nose longer than the runway.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:33:05 UTC No. 15972436
>>15972419
>>15972417
Why do you keep dodging the launch mass of HALO as you first did in >>15972215
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:33:30 UTC No. 15972437
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:34:21 UTC No. 15972442
I appreciate that just the written physics and maths of it are enough to know it'll be quiet but it feels a bit presumptuous to make a speech about it before it's actually demonstrated the ability
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:34:50 UTC No. 15972443
TIME TRAVEL??????
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:35:05 UTC No. 15972444
nothing is beyond our reach
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:35:33 UTC No. 15972445
>>15972436
post the total launch mass, an excerpt where it is said that Falcon Heavy could not launch it due to payload adapter and link a source for it
you made very specific claims and just keep shitposting about "google it"
kill yourself
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:35:39 UTC No. 15972446
>>15972443
NOT EXACTLy !!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:36:10 UTC No. 15972447
>>15972442
Such is the way of doing things these days at nuNASA. All hype no widgets.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:36:36 UTC No. 15972448
>2032-2035
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:38:32 UTC No. 15972457
> X-59 Quesst
why is there two ss?
the SS plane kek
based
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:39:56 UTC No. 15972464
https://www.nasa.gov/mission/quesst
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y0j
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:40:19 UTC No. 15972467
>>15972445
If you were honest and stated HALO's launch mass you would be forced to admit it is well below Falcon Heavy's paper specs.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:46:06 UTC No. 15972480
>>15972479
https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:47:08 UTC No. 15972482
>>15972467
I'm not going to waste my time trying collaborate some bullshit you came up with
I simply asked for a source, for some reason you can't do that and keep yapping
"use google" is not a source
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:47:17 UTC No. 15972484
What the fuck happened that triggered so many messages
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:47:23 UTC No. 15972485
https://www.americaspace.com/2021/0
>“Overall length of the pressure shell alone is about 23 feet (7 meters), while the complete HALO with interfacing structures and docking system is almost 29.5 feet (9 meters),” Northrop Grumman told us. “The diameter of the pressure shell is the same as Cygnus: about 10 feet (3 meters). Overall HALO mass is dependent on the final internal layout configuration and launch vehicle lift capability and is expected to be in the range of 17,600 pounds (8,000 kg) to 22,000 pounds (10,000 kg).”
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:48:11 UTC No. 15972487
>>15972484
NASA unveiled the X-69 SeXplane
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:48:46 UTC No. 15972489
>>15972480
The engine section of Vulcan reminds me of a mini SLS
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:48:55 UTC No. 15972490
>>15972467
I'm not going to waste my time trying corroborate some bullshit you came up with
I simply asked for a source, for some reason you can't do that and keep yapping
"use google" is not a source
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:49:38 UTC No. 15972492
>>15972490
>ayo dis blud be yapping fr fr no cap only in ohio
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:51:37 UTC No. 15972499
>>15972489
except it's like 1/4 the upmass for 1/200 the cost
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:55:36 UTC No. 15972508
>>15972489
That’s pretty much what single core Deltas were. Although it’s sort of handwaiving to say an SLS SSME = Delta RS-68
Barkun at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:56:31 UTC No. 15972509
>>15972508
The strength of the miracle made the window.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:58:15 UTC No. 15972510
>>15972508
>Space Launch System Space Shuttle Main Engine
Rolls right off the tongue
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 21:59:28 UTC No. 15972512
>>15972490
Wearing your ignorance as a badge of valor is not a good look, especially when an anon already provided a citation.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:02:03 UTC No. 15972516
>>15972508
Delta IV medium, H2 and H3 are more fitting due to orange rocket snd hydrolox
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:11:02 UTC No. 15972521
what is up with this retard ITT trying to prove to himself that falcon heavy is actually not capable of it's full payload
we really need to start a eugenics program to get rid of these people.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:11:52 UTC No. 15972523
>>15972479
in reply
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
>Congratulations @ULA, @blueorigin & @JeffBezos!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:12:38 UTC No. 15972526
>>15972521
It might be that ULA fag
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:12:53 UTC No. 15972527
>>15972523
sorry I'm a retard, thought the other anon just posted the tweet from Kraus
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:14:56 UTC No. 15972530
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:18:07 UTC No. 15972533
>>15972521
I googled a bit and didn't see anything about the payload adapter that was the limiting factor for HALO + PPE (18 tonnes or something) getting sent to NRHO, seemed more like it was about DV in the GAO report, not the payload adapter
of course the fag didn't want to link those because he pulled that shit out of their ass
why would SpaceX list 63,8 tonnes to LEO if they could not do it?
also reinforcing something as trivial as an adapter does not seem like a problem whatsoever
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:21:15 UTC No. 15972538
total ULA death
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:26:03 UTC No. 15972542
>>15972533
Falcon Heavy is delivering PPE/HALO to LEO not NRHO, PPE/HALO will spend a year flying itself from LEO to NRHO.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:26:45 UTC No. 15972545
If youre with Boeing, youre not going.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:30:28 UTC No. 15972549
>>15972542
I don't believe anything you say anymore
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:31:59 UTC No. 15972551
>>15972533
why do peoplelaways quite the spacex website as a source when they are known to post hypothetical performance rather than real world performance?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:32:53 UTC No. 15972552
>>15972487
nice
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:32:55 UTC No. 15972553
>>15972549
You don't have to believe me, you can read the citations that anon already linked in the thread.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:35:15 UTC No. 15972556
>>15972553
you like like you breathe, I guess that comes naturally to old space
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:40:30 UTC No. 15972563
>>15972556
I don't know what like like breathing is, does it relate to your refusal to read the quote from Northrop?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:46:47 UTC No. 15972571
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:48:44 UTC No. 15972573
What's the lowest effort means of staying apprised of the biggest launches the day or the day before they happen? I want to watch Falcon Heavy, SLS, and big science mission launches live; but I don't want to be bogged down in notifications that don't pertain to aforementioned categories.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:49:24 UTC No. 15972575
>>15972571
KEEEEEEEEK
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:50:36 UTC No. 15972579
>>15972574
You forgot tax + tip for the transbian latinx bipoc womans space grade estrogen pills.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:51:57 UTC No. 15972581
>>15972349
Until the QI thruster is proven to work that is
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:52:07 UTC No. 15972582
>>15972574
16 SLS launches to get 2 crew on a cuckbox to mars for 30 days, total duration of crewed mission 650 days
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:53:51 UTC No. 15972594
>>15972574
What a shit, overcomplicated, overpriced, underperforming plan
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:54:28 UTC No. 15972595
>>15972594
maximizes pork for the minimal boots on ground mission
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:59:30 UTC No. 15972600
>>15972590
ok done watching it, wow that was good
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:59:42 UTC No. 15972601
>>15972590
>RRR space pirate
lel
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 22:59:42 UTC No. 15972602
>>15972595
4 crew to Mars is ludicrous
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:03:14 UTC No. 15972606
>>15972590
KEEEK THEY HAVE A LATINX SHIRT
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:05:56 UTC No. 15972609
>>15972259
>me when i discuss the 'energy' of rockets
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:06:45 UTC No. 15972612
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:10:24 UTC No. 15972622
>>15972609
pretty low energy vulcan next to the delta 4
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:11:48 UTC No. 15972625
>>15972533
but anon, how else can he whine about spacex.
it's hard enough to come up with legitimate reasons to root for ULA as it is, don't take this from him :(
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:15:24 UTC No. 15972632
I wonder how close X is to increasing the video quality, 1080p at least would be nice
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:17:08 UTC No. 15972635
>In 8 years I think we would have landed on Mars, sent people to the Moon and if we are lucky we would have sent people to mars within 8 years
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:17:30 UTC No. 15972637
>>15972563
>n-nooooo you cant just slightly reinforce a docking adapter
>it's impossible
>falcon heavy must not be able to launch it's publicly stated capacity because I SAID SO
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:18:09 UTC No. 15972639
>>15972590
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:25:08 UTC No. 15972655
>There is a path for Starship to do 200 tonnes to orbit with full reusability
at 18min
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:26:39 UTC No. 15972658
>>15972654
>we are not overshadowing oldspace enough
>they must be embarrassed further.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:27:39 UTC No. 15972660
>>15972655
sounds like long-term optimism, maybe in 15 years they will get there after really optimizing the mass.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:28:22 UTC No. 15972661
>As of last year the dragons fleet time on orbit exceeded the time on orbit of Shuttle fleet
>over 1300 days of time on orbit as of last year
>dragon has visited the space station more than the space shuttle as well
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:30:46 UTC No. 15972667
>>15972590
>let's go through everything that spacex has done, that you have achieved, it will take a while.
but i thought musk only took credit for his engineers, wtf journosisters how could this be?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:31:44 UTC No. 15972669
>>15972623
>suite redesigned to be mobile
>whole dragon will be evacuated and people in dragon will be in vacuum as well
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:34:08 UTC No. 15972675
> another great milestone to get a spacewalk
> we want to have a spacesuit you can walk around in, walk around on the moon and mars
> a high mobility spacesuit that isn't crazy expensive and can walk around in comfortably is a big deal and a important thing that needs to be developed and ultimately made in large numbers
>if we send a million people to mars, that is a million spacesuits or a million marssuits
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:37:41 UTC No. 15972685
>>15972683
Tb honest it's true, other than GPS I can't think of another space project that genuinely improves quality of life
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:39:23 UTC No. 15972689
>>15972686
9k active spacelasers
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:39:45 UTC No. 15972690
>>15972689
wow, that's more than i actually expected.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:41:05 UTC No. 15972694
>>15972661
Isn't most of that because the shuttle had fuel cells instead of solar panels and couldn't draw power from the station to recharge them?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:42:30 UTC No. 15972699
>>15972694
probably
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:43:52 UTC No. 15972703
>>15972693
>the bright line on the eastern ukrainian border
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:44:52 UTC No. 15972705
>>15971719
>large govt catering companies are generally not known for their speed and flexibility.
or cost effectiveness
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:46:41 UTC No. 15972710
orbital test when?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:47:05 UTC No. 15972713
>>15972693
damn, i never realised how big sweden is, it literally extends from north africa to the nigerian coast!
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:48:18 UTC No. 15972714
>>15972710
well the next launch should be in February, not sure if its going to be orbital
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:49:35 UTC No. 15972717
>>15972714
fag.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:51:50 UTC No. 15972718
> with some upgrades Starship will probably have over 20 million pounds of thrust compared to Saturn 5s 7.5 million pounds
>there is a pretty good chance it will do earth-to-earth transport as well
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:52:39 UTC No. 15972721
>>15972694
Fuel cell cryogenics limited the shuttle to 12-14 day missions, but when the Station-to-Shuttle Power Transfer System was installed in 2006 the max duration only jumped to 16 days so there had to be some other things that weren't that far behind the cells. My guess would be something in the life support system like CO2 filters.
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:52:57 UTC No. 15972722
>>15972654
>rest of the world is on the decline
what went wrong?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:54:38 UTC No. 15972730
>>15972689
>laser beams that are 3000km long
what the fuck
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:54:41 UTC No. 15972731
>>15972675
nah, pretty sure most people in a Mars city won't ever do an EVA
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:55:21 UTC No. 15972732
qrd on Musk's update?
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:56:04 UTC No. 15972733
>>15972717
not me btw
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:57:13 UTC No. 15972736
>there were so many upgrades between flight one and two it would take hours to get through them all, but one of the big upgrades was going from hydraulic to electric actuation of the engines
> that saved a lot of mass and complexity
>we also massively upgraded the heat shield
>the engines were massively upgraded
>there might have been thousands of upgrades between flight one and two
>also many improvements between flight two and three
>we got a whole development plan to get to a fully reusable rocket that does over 200 tonnes to orbit on a regular basis
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:57:37 UTC No. 15972738
>>15972732
try and stop us.jpg
Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jan 2024 23:59:48 UTC No. 15972742
>>15972731
well maybe not, but people will still need one for emergencies if there is a breach or problem with scrubbers or whatever
and when I think about it, why wouldn't they? It will probably be a requirement for basic survival to know how to do an EVA even if most don't need to do it regularly
a bit like knowing how to swim if you live in a archipelago and have to go from island to island
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:06:11 UTC No. 15972749
>>15971663
I'm more excited by how much Starship can cut down probe travel time. SLS could deliver Europa Clipper to Jupiter in 3 years compared to 6 years by Falcon Heavy. A cheap and ready SHL rocket would be amazing for outer solar system missions. Also great for telescopes since you can make them big without all the folding complexity.
>>15972048
I'm crossing my finger some billionaire will take interest in space exploration beyond just paying to fuck around in LEO for a few days. I wish Musk had autism for Alien life the same way he has for space settlement.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:07:00 UTC No. 15972752
>Flight 2 almost made it to orbit
>in fact ironically if it had had a payload, it would have made it to orbit, the reason it quite didn't make it to orbit was that we vented the liquid oxygen and the liquid oxygen ultimately lead to a fire and an explosion
>we wanted to vent the liquid oxygen because we normally would not have that liquid oxygen if we had a payload
>ironically if it had a payload, it would have reached orbit
>I think we have a really good shot at reaching orbit on flight 3
>rapid cadence to achieve full and rapid reusability
>the mindblowing thing is that there is an actual path we are on to make life multiplanetary, can you freaking believe that
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:09:02 UTC No. 15972755
>>15972749
For probes we need investment and R&D in in-space propulsion- electric sails, plasma magnet, so we don't have to rely on slower, less efficient gravity assists because the chemical rockets are doing most of the legwork including slow ass ion engines
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:10:03 UTC No. 15972760
>>15972752
>the reason it quite didn't make it to orbit was that we vented the liquid oxygen and the liquid oxygen ultimately lead to a fire and an explosion
what, how?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:10:52 UTC No. 15972763
>want to get to a high cadence
>every time we launch we learn something new
>always better to sacrifice hardware than sacrifice time
>time is the one true currency
>the fastest path to a rapidly reusable and reliable rocket
>version 2 ship that will be more reliable, better performance and endurance
>we got a version 3 ship design that will stretch, be even taller, probably end up being 140 meters before its all said and done. maybe even 150 in the end
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:12:09 UTC No. 15972768
>>15972761
lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:12:35 UTC No. 15972770
>>15972761
vulcan seggs
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:12:41 UTC No. 15972772
You think there is a fighting chance the U.S. hits 200 orbital launches this year?
-144 Falcon 9 launches
-16 ULA launches are on the manifest this year
Rocket Lab has 20+ electron launches scheduled this year
-Let’s say 1-3 launches for New Glenn, Firefly, RS1
-1 launch for Neutron
-??? Starship launches
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:12:47 UTC No. 15972773
>South Korea's science ministry said Thursday it aims to launch a full-fledged space agency in May
>Korea AeroSpace Administration (KASA)
its amazing to me that countries are so far behind on spaceflight, even advanced ones
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:16:10 UTC No. 15972778
>>15972772
No way ULA and Rocket Lab meet those figures
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:16:13 UTC No. 15972779
>with flight 1 the goal was not to blow the pad up
>with flight 2 it was to get past staging, we achieved getting past staging almost to orbit
>with flight 3 the goal we want to get to orbit and do an in-space engine burn from the header tank and prove that we can reliably de-orbit
>we want to do a tipping point header-to-main propellant transfer, this is important for NASA Artemis programme
> we also want to demonstrate the payload door (pez dispenser) for starlink, V2 non-mini, probably V3 technically, really giant satellites
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:16:14 UTC No. 15972780
KEY POINTS FROM THE TALK
IFT2 failed because they vented excess LOX to compensate the lack of payload and the LOX exploded
New mini Starlink router that fits in a backpack
Starship will do 200t to orbit with full reusability
Starship will be 150m tall
They will do the first spacewalk, starlink dispender and refilling tests this year
Elon mentioned point-to-point again
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:17:49 UTC No. 15972784
>>15972780
>IFT2 failed because they vented excess LOX to compensate the lack of payload and the LOX exploded
>IFT2 failed because they vented excess LOX to compensate the lack of payload and the LOX exploded
that sounds easy to fix
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:17:54 UTC No. 15972785
>>15972780
>spacewalk
he is talking about the Polaris space suits here?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:18:27 UTC No. 15972786
>>15972785
yes, the one with Dragon
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:18:29 UTC No. 15972787
>>15972780
pretty good summary, they are planning to do a in-space burn during flight 3
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:18:34 UTC No. 15972788
>>15972784
lol why not vent after seco?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:19:09 UTC No. 15972789
>>15972773
What gets to me is How all the companies looking to take advantage of commercial space launches seems to be mostly commercial, several of which has a backround in working at SpaceX
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:19:56 UTC No. 15972792
>>15972785
yes when that pic comes up >>15972623
>>15972669
>>15972675
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:20:09 UTC No. 15972793
>>15972780
so IFT2 would have succeeded if they stuck a dummy payload in it? shame. here's hoping they stick a 100 ton concrete block in the next one
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:20:28 UTC No. 15972794
>>15972780
>Starship will do 200t to orbit with full reusability
>Starship will be 150m tall
That's a big rocket
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:22:00 UTC No. 15972801
>>15972623
when
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:22:08 UTC No. 15972802
>>15972752
So the second stage "leak" was not actually a leak?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:22:44 UTC No. 15972803
>>15972794
getting closer to BFR
ITS when?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:23:12 UTC No. 15972804
>we also want to demonstrate on-orbit refilling
>this is really important for the NASA Artemis programme
>I'm really grateful for NASA for their support and for trusting us to take astronauts and cargo to orbit and be an integral part of getting astronauts to the moon
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:27:41 UTC No. 15972813
>>15972810
how do I get the green space babes?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:27:51 UTC No. 15972814
BRILLIANT PEBBLES
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:28:18 UTC No. 15972816
>in order to go and land on the moon one of the technical challenges we have to solve is orbital refilling, where starships dock on orbit and transfer propellant
>we have got very good with docking because we have docked with dragon to the space station, which is actually more complicated than docking with our own spacecraft
>I'm confident we will solve this, ideally we want to solve it by the end of this year, but certainly by next year
>its one of the fundamental technologies to build a city on mars and have a moon base
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:30:31 UTC No. 15972821
>>15972804
kino
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:34:41 UTC No. 15972822
> we want to far exceed what NASA has asked us to do
>we want to go far beyond NASAs requirements so we can get enough mass with enough frequency to have a permanently occupied moonbase
>that is the next really big threshold from Apollo, to have an actual moonbase
>we need a real moonbase alpha
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:34:57 UTC No. 15972823
>>15972780
I love SpaceX so much it’s unreal
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:35:53 UTC No. 15972825
>>15972822
>moving the goalpost from mars to the moon
lmao figures
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:36:16 UTC No. 15972827
>this is the long term goal, this is what we want mars to look like
>starships coming and going
>an incredible and beatiful mars city
>a flourishing civilization on mars
>ultimately we can transform mars to an earthlike planet with terraforming
>we could extend life from earth to mars
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:38:08 UTC No. 15972830
>>15972780
>Starship will do 200t to orbit with full reusability
Starship can put a fully loaded Space Shuttle orbiter into Orbit with full reuseability
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:38:10 UTC No. 15972831
>>15972802
>>15972752
>>15972760
Because there was no payload there was excess propellant which would have made Starship a giant bomb in orbit/suborbit. To counter this SpaceX dumped LOX, which somehow got into the engine section and caused a detonation. This started a fire which triggered the AFTS.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:38:52 UTC No. 15972832
>>15972825
what are you talking about, that is just for Artemis
Musk just wants moon to be occupied as well
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:39:12 UTC No. 15972834
>>15972825
How is that the takeaway you got from that?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:39:14 UTC No. 15972835
>>15972831
ahhh I see
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:39:37 UTC No. 15972836
>>15972830
yeah and? so could space shuttle
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:40:20 UTC No. 15972838
>>15972831
that makes sense
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:40:36 UTC No. 15972839
What caused SH to fail?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:41:21 UTC No. 15972841
>>15972836
>with full reusability
come_on_now.jpg
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:43:16 UTC No. 15972842
>>15972836
The shuttle couldn't carry a fully loaded shuttle into orbit
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:44:55 UTC No. 15972843
>>15972752
>having to throw oxygen overboard cause their failure to orbit
wew lad
shoulda put some fucking cheese wheels in that bitch
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:45:52 UTC No. 15972844
>>15972772
It's not impossible, but it requires Vulcan pulling off an absurd flight rate for a rocket in its first year of business, and it requires Kuiper to process the data from their test satellites and get to mass production faster than OneWeb (eleven months) or Starlink (fifteen months) so that Atlas and Vulcan have enough payloads to meet that high cadence. It also expects that Rocket Lab isn't going to fuck up another upper stage and have to pause for a few months, and that all of those twenty payloads of theirs show up on time. One of these payloads is a solar sail test and is likely cursed. 144 Falcon 9s is also very ambitious. I'm not saying they can't after what they did in 2023, but it's a big achievement if they do.
Neutron isn't flying in 2024. If they don't start making some progress on Archimedes then 2025 might even be in doubt. RS1 could get two launches, and four for Firefly doesn't seem impossible, but Alpha really need to get some indisputable successes if they want to keep their customers. New Glenn gets maybe one launch.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:46:40 UTC No. 15972845
>>15972780
>refilling this year
BROS???? BROS WHATS GOING ON RIGHT NOW MY HEAD FEELS LIGHT
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:51:42 UTC No. 15972850
>>15972830
A space shuttle orbiter would never fit in it.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:51:59 UTC No. 15972851
So the Starship stack is about 120m now and up to 150m in the future
going to have to build that other tower before they can start testing stretched ships if they want to keep high cadence
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:52:23 UTC No. 15972853
>>15972780
I just remembered he said we wouldn't have humans on Mars in 8 years, which is weirdly unoptimistic for Elon
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:54:50 UTC No. 15972862
>>15972857
what is this guy's "mobile workflow" that he needs backpack sized satellite internet instead of a regular mobile connection? is he doing remote work IT from a mountaintop?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:55:06 UTC No. 15972863
>>15972857
yeah we know
>>15972780
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:55:10 UTC No. 15972864
>>15972853
I wonder why
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:55:33 UTC No. 15972865
>>15972839
water hammer
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 00:57:35 UTC No. 15972870
https://twitter.com/whoisheartbreak
Girltalk
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:00:54 UTC No. 15972873
>>15972851
>>15972870
Shut up nigger
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:02:53 UTC No. 15972878
>>15972862
He's a professional spaceflight photographer. His job is to be at every major launch with a camera.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:04:00 UTC No. 15972881
>>15972763
>+20-30 meters
it's only 50 as it is
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:04:39 UTC No. 15972883
>>15972862
that's a fairly reasonable thing to be doing though isn't it? linemen, search and rescue ops, fire lookout, game wardens etc may all want fast internet in the middle of nowhere
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:07:40 UTC No. 15972888
>>15972590
33min cut version (down from 1h)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:08:14 UTC No. 15972890
>>15972888
thank you so much for linking it
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:13:03 UTC No. 15972902
>>15972017
>NOT
>>15972020
>FOR
>>15972022
>FLIGHT
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:13:38 UTC No. 15972904
>>15972870
jesse "pierced nipples" anderson?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:13:39 UTC No. 15972905
>>15972898
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/st
Polaris mission objectives
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:14:20 UTC No. 15972906
>>15972902
>all these people getting hyped up over a pathfinder designed to test the launch pad fittings
lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:14:41 UTC No. 15972909
>>15972905
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/st
Jared is optimistic it will happen this year
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:15:37 UTC No. 15972914
>>15972905
the idea of prebreathing makes me queasy. I would rather just wear a balloon suit which i can barely move in.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:16:39 UTC No. 15972917
>>15972914
you dont have the right stuff
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:16:47 UTC No. 15972918
>>15972870
https://twitter.com/haleykesparza/s
>>15972904
yes
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:19:15 UTC No. 15972924
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:24:19 UTC No. 15972932
>>15972927
it doesn't matter.
they're not landing anymore.
what's the point of continueing other than to say they did?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:29:50 UTC No. 15972943
>>15972927
>Moon is not where the spacecraft is now
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:30:57 UTC No. 15972944
>>15972939
huh the statue of liberty is shorter than I realized
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:31:48 UTC No. 15972946
>>15972918
if enough of us ask if she has an onlyfans she'll be forced to answer
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:34:16 UTC No. 15972950
>>15972905
>raise awareness for saint judes
literally everybody who buys groceries knows of their existence
>would you like to donate another dollar to help muh chillins hospital
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:35:19 UTC No. 15972953
>>15972927
the navajo nation has defeated them
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:36:32 UTC No. 15972956
>>15972952
If they all angled in towards each other could they form a psuedo-aerospike?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:39:49 UTC No. 15972963
Fucking finally . An update where Musk actually brings new information AND gets me excited like a few years ago.
>>We are going to build Moon base Alpha
Yes yes yes ,thats what i want to hear
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:41:01 UTC No. 15972965
>>15972956
No. An aerospike doesn't work without a spike.
You would just increase your cosine losses
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:43:21 UTC No. 15972967
>>15972965
the exhaust from the middle three engines could be the "spike"
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:43:42 UTC No. 15972968
>>15972898
>first commercial spacewalk
do the iss ones not count? i thought the russians took some tourists on spacewalks.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:46:35 UTC No. 15972970
>>15972950
going to school in the late 90s no one ever stfu about it. you would think it's the only hospital worth a shit
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:46:43 UTC No. 15972972
>>15972888
>>15972590
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8G
youtube version of the 34min cut
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:47:47 UTC No. 15972976
>>15972850
Car crushing technology exists. I see no reason we can't scaling it up to a shuttle consolidator.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:48:09 UTC No. 15972977
>>15972927
Updates like this should be mandatory for every NASA contractor.
I applaud them for being as transparent as seemingly possible about it.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:48:13 UTC No. 15972978
>>15972963
it's been a while since we saw a talk from him where he's not just repeating his basic multiplanetary shtick.
he actually added new information this time.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:48:58 UTC No. 15972981
>>15972972
https://twitter.com/farzyness/statu
Original 34 min on X
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:50:55 UTC No. 15972983
>>15972978
Literally name one new thing he talked about that hasnt been said already
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:52:37 UTC No. 15972985
>>15972932
Say, this guy's right.
*applies handbrake*
*Peregrine screeches to a stop*
*gets run over by moon*
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:52:46 UTC No. 15972986
>>15972902
>>15972141
>Sources confirmed that this is the actual flight hardware
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:54:44 UTC No. 15972988
>>15972986
Just like mk1/mk2/sn1 were
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 01:57:16 UTC No. 15972990
>>15972952
Damn that's really fine and really quick control.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:02:10 UTC No. 15972997
>>15972994
The stretch is obviously gonna be partly in the booster you fucking retard
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:02:26 UTC No. 15972998
>>15972983
5 of the points mentioned in >>15972780 are new.
are you mentally special?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:03:26 UTC No. 15973001
>>15972994
you're a baka ass nigga
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:03:36 UTC No. 15973002
>>15972994
>>15972997
contrary to popular belief all the extra length is going exclusively to the interstage
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:04:42 UTC No. 15973005
>>15972994
This kills /sfg/
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:08:22 UTC No. 15973012
>>15972755
>plasma magnet
This is a scam btw
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:12:48 UTC No. 15973016
>40+ falcon reflight certifications
>Looking forward to 150 launch this year
>Looking forward to 24 hr pad turn around time this year (2023 say 3 day pad turn around time)
>Two crew arms at Florida
>Two towers at Starbase, TX
>Starship Flight 2 would have made it to orbit had they not vented the excess LOX (which caused the fire/explosion) as the excess LOX wouldnt be naturally there with a payload
>Starship Flight 3 will have goal of reaching orbit, in orbit propellent transfer (risky imo) + pez dispenser + in orbit engine relight
>200 T fully reusable starship
>Also extending from 120 meter to 130/140/150 meter tall Starship
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:15:46 UTC No. 15973022
>>15972976
this kills the orbiter
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:18:24 UTC No. 15973024
>>15973016
I think Flight 3 would have the in orbit engine relight, but not necessarily propellant transfer or pez dispenser stuff
what makes me say this is that during the Artemis delay conference call the SpaceX representative said that they would not do prop transfer during the next flight, so i think prop transfer and pez dispenser are things they will try on Flight 4 and onwards
maybe I misheard
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:22:31 UTC No. 15973028
>>15973024
Watch it again. Thats the flight 3 goals. Get to Orbit, In orbit burn, Pez dispenser, fuel transfer.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:24:02 UTC No. 15973030
>>15972780
>New mini Starlink router that fits in a backpack
dronechad here
i am CUMMING
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:25:02 UTC No. 15973031
>>15972830
>>15972780
wait does this mean we could send a shuttle to the moon? moonfall bros?!
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:25:50 UTC No. 15973032
why is transferring propellant within starship so difficult? you're just moving liquid between pipes. if i were nasa, i would fail spacex until they demonstrate starship-to-starship transfer
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:29:07 UTC No. 15973036
>>15973012
It's not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magne
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:33:28 UTC No. 15973043
>>15973035
nobody cares
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:33:49 UTC No. 15973044
>>15973002
they are going to vertically intergrate the 2nd stage's launch pad into the interstage
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:34:30 UTC No. 15973046
>>15973043
I care
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:35:06 UTC No. 15973048
>>15973030
>drone mounted with mini starlink on roaming
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:36:07 UTC No. 15973051
>>15973032
it isn't
people have overhyped prop transfer as an impossible challenge for years now.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:36:58 UTC No. 15973055
>>15973046
trannies dont count
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:37:35 UTC No. 15973056
>>15973055
does that mean you not caring counts as caring, because you're a tranny?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:37:52 UTC No. 15973059
>>15973030
my sister is always in the middle of nowhere exploring caves, rivers and moutains, I should give her one
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:38:10 UTC No. 15973061
>>15973051
muh TRL
muh models
muh fluid dynamic simulations
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:38:26 UTC No. 15973062
It will take years before spacex attemots propellent transfer. Years more to get decent at it. Years after that to reach cadence high enough for it to be useful and meet HLS requirements. See you all in 2030
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:38:53 UTC No. 15973064
>15973062
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:40:01 UTC No. 15973065
>>15973059
I've got something to give your sister too
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:40:30 UTC No. 15973068
>>15973028
yes he talked about them right after but the pause just makes me think they are on future flights
doing all that stuff on the same flight seems kind of ambitious
I guess neither pez dispenser and fuel transfer testing should interfere with getting to orbit testing or in orbit burn testing
Starts talking about Future flights those at 52 min
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
after listening to it a few times I think you might be right
so the engineer at the Artemis call was wrong then? or confused
I listened to it again, a question is asked at 50:00 about the third testflight and the engineer says "ship-to-ship" propellant transfer is not happening, but then she talks about the tipping point testing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJV
that would also track with stuff known before so it makes sense
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:41:10 UTC No. 15973069
>>15973065
thanks
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:41:27 UTC No. 15973071
>>15973068
>the engineer
It was a PR lady, and she mentioned tipping point would be attempted too I think
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:42:48 UTC No. 15973074
>>15973062
Eric Berger's prophet expects Artemis 3 NET 2028, so not far off
https://arstechnica.com/science/202
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:46:08 UTC No. 15973077
>>15973048
>with added rpg warhead
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:47:18 UTC No. 15973081
>>15972994
Unacceptable AND reckless
24 month environmental assessment NOW!
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 02:49:59 UTC No. 15973085
>>15973016
>Two towers at Starbase, TX
Will we see 2 Starships launch seconds apart Armageddon style?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:00:17 UTC No. 15973098
>>15972830
A shuttle is like 100 tons. They could launch one on either side to balance out the loading
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:02:53 UTC No. 15973101
>>15973059
dronechad here, i got a payload for your sister
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:04:47 UTC No. 15973103
>>15973101
thanks
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:08:16 UTC No. 15973109
>>15972574
The graphic even has a typo in it, they repeated the line about crew rendezvous with the rover and decent to Mars, rather than a line about the assent stage lifting off and meeting up with the hab for return. Just sloppy.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:10:34 UTC No. 15973114
>>15973109
its not an official graphic
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:12:56 UTC No. 15973121
how long for shortest trip to Mars? and how long for longest?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:15:37 UTC No. 15973126
>>15973121
>how long for shortest trip to Mars?
1 picosecond
>and how long for longest?
infinity
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:17:13 UTC No. 15973128
>>15973126
even teleporting there you'd still waste 15 minutes or something on the way
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:21:43 UTC No. 15973134
A transit time to Jupiter of 25 days was reported for a 21 kg spacecraft design launched in a 16 U Cubesat format.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:35:16 UTC No. 15973147
>>15973134
You should kill yourself
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:36:51 UTC No. 15973148
>>15973147
can't teleport otherwise. quite literally
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:38:37 UTC No. 15973152
>>15973147
Why the fuck would you say that? Incredibly offensive
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:39:31 UTC No. 15973155
>>15973035
>US is doing nuclear tests again
the cold war really is back after all
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:39:52 UTC No. 15973156
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:40:18 UTC No. 15973157
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:40:53 UTC No. 15973159
>>15973152
See >>15973147 stupid nigger
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:41:28 UTC No. 15973160
>>15973147
Superconducting coils do not require continuous power (except possibly for cooling); however, the plasma magnet design does, as specified in equation PM.3. An estimate for the plasma magnet power supply mass assumes ~3 kg/W for nuclear power in space. Other mass was assumed to be 10 tonnes for MS and 1 tonne for PM and MPS. Acceleration a a is the thrust force F F from the first row divided by the total mass (coil plus other). An optimistic approximation is constant acceleration a a, for which the time to reach a target velocity V of 10% of the solar wind velocity is T V ≈ V / a {\displaystyle T_{V}\approx V/a} and time to cover a specified distance D D ≈ 7.8x108 km (approximate distance from Earth to Jupiter) is T D ≈ 2 D / a {\textstyle T_{D}\approx {\sqrt {2D/a}}} . For comparison purposes the time for a Hohmann transfer from Earth orbit to Jupiter orbit is 2.7 years (almost 1,000 days) but that would allow orbital insertion whereas a magnetic sail would do a flyby unless the magnetosphere and gravity of Jupiter could provide deceleration.[17] Another comparison is the New Horizons interplanetary space probe with a 30 kg payload that flew by Jupiter after 405 days on its way to Pluto.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:42:07 UTC No. 15973162
>>15973160
ChatGPT nigger jump off a bridgr
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:42:55 UTC No. 15973163
>>15973162
Using f o f_{o}=1 creates very optimistic performance numbers, but since Slough changed this to f o f_{o}=2 in 2011[23] and 2012,[18] the case of f o = 1 {\displaystyle f_{o}=1} is not compared in this article. An example for f o f_{o}=2 using solar wind parameters ρ \rho =8x10−21 kg/m3, u u=500 km/s then r g r_{g}=72 km and B m p {\displaystyle B_{mp}}=4x10−8 T with R m p {\displaystyle R_{mp}}=105 m results in r g < L {\displaystyle r_{g}<L} where MHD applicability occurs. With a coil radius of R c R_{c}=1,000 m yields B 0 B_{0}=4x10−4 T from equation MFM.2. The required RMF power from equation PM.3 is 13 kW with a required AC coil current I c I_{c}=10 A from equation PM.3 resulting in an induced current of I i c {\displaystyle I_{ic}}=2 kA from equation PM.7 . With C d C_{d}=5 the plasma magnet force from equation PM.3 is 197 N. The magnetic force only for the above parameters is 2.8 N from equation MFM.5 and therefore the plasma magnet thrust gain is 71. The performance comparison section gives and optimistic estimate using constant acceleration for f o f_{o}=2 results in a transit time of ~100 days.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:43:45 UTC No. 15973166
>>15973163
KILL YOURSELF
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:45:00 UTC No. 15973170
>>15973166
The RMF-induced rotating disc of electrons has current density (A m-2) j θ ( r ) {\displaystyle j_{\theta }(r)} at distance r from the antenna for f o = 1 {\displaystyle f_{o}=1}[16]:Eq (5) and for f o = 2 {\displaystyle f_{o}=2},[23]:Eq (6) which states that flux conservation requires this falloff rate, consistent with a criticism of M2P2 by Cattell[34] as follows:
j θ ( r , f o ) = 2 f o B ( R 0 ) R 0 f o μ 0 r f o + 1 , r > R 0 {\displaystyle j_{\theta }(r,f_{o})={\frac {2f_{o}\,B(R_{0})\,R_{0}^{f_{o}}}{\
where B ( R 0 ) {\textstyle B(R_{0})} T is the magnetic field flux density at radius R 0 ≈ R c {\displaystyle R_{0}\approx R_{c}} m near the antenna coils. Note that the current density is highest at r = R 0 {\displaystyle r=R_{0}} and falls off at a rate of f o + 1 {\displaystyle f_{o}+1}. A critical condition for the plasma magnet design[16]:Eq (1a) provides a lower bound on the RMF frequency ω R M F {\displaystyle \omega _{RMF}} rad/s as follows so that electrons in the plasma wind are magnetized and rotate but the ions are not magnetized and do not rotate:
ω R M F > ω c i = Z e B ( R 0 ) m i {\displaystyle \omega _{RMF}>\omega _{ci}={\frac {Z\,e\,B(R_{0})}{m_{i}}}}
where ω c i {\displaystyle \omega _{ci}} is the ion gyrofrequency (s-1) in the RMF near the antenna coils, Z {\displaystyle Z} is charge number of the ion, e e is the elementary charge, and m i {\displaystyle m_{i}} kg is the (average) mass of the ion(s). Specifying the magnetic field near the coils at radius R 0 R_{0} is critical since this is where the current density is greatest. Choosing a magnetic field at magnetopause yields a lower value of ω R M F {\displaystyle \omega _{RMF}} but ions closer to the coils will rotate. Another condition is that ω R M F {\displaystyle \omega _{RMF}} be small enough such that collisions are extremely unlikely.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:49:29 UTC No. 15973175
Derogatory (Nigger)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:53:18 UTC No. 15973179
>>15973159
You're completely messed up! Stop posting
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:54:24 UTC No. 15973181
>>15973179
Ur momma
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 03:57:58 UTC No. 15973185
>>15973150
>>15973157
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart
Neat, I hope it lands . I wanna see those little hopping rovers work, those sound funny.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:00:33 UTC No. 15973188
>>15972997
>The stretch is obviously gonna be partly in the booster you fucking retard
Starship is optimized for RTLS, any stretching will come from the second stage.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:20:25 UTC No. 15973212
>>15973211
Ken to not make entire arguments out of old proposals.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:22:27 UTC No. 15973216
>>15973212
NASA bad
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:26:42 UTC No. 15973218
The paper makes the case that a statite free-falling toward the Sun from an initial position at 1 AU and then deploying its sail away from the Sun at perihelion can achieve speeds of up to 25 AU/year, making it possible to deliver payloads to the outer Solar System.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:29:25 UTC No. 15973222
>>15973218
ChatGPT fuckwit YWNGTS
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:31:04 UTC No. 15973225
>>15973222
Imagine you could take a train ride to space. Tracks that slope up into the sky, higher and higher, until you reach a plateau above the planet where it’s a straight line up to orbital velocity.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:34:11 UTC No. 15973229
>>15973211
13 SLS block 2 Cargo launches could place almost 1700 tons of payload into low earth orbit. That's more than enough to assemble Von Braun's 1969 dual NTR vessel Mars expedition. You probably wouldn't need more than ten SLS launches for that.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:36:50 UTC No. 15973231
>>15972713
getting towards the same demographics, too
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:41:47 UTC No. 15973237
>>15972727
if they aren't informally named Orthanc and Minas Ithil, I will be severely disappointed. (Minas Ithil would be especially nice, since it is named for the Rising Moon.)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:44:04 UTC No. 15973240
>>15973211
>Orion to LEO with SLS
What a waste
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:45:46 UTC No. 15973242
Oh look ULA just doubled the vibration levels in their payload planners guide
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:46:06 UTC No. 15973244
>>15973231
Stop being racist chud
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:47:11 UTC No. 15973245
>>15973218
>free-falling toward the Sun from an initial position at 1 AU
So you 'just' need 30km/s of delta-v to kill orbital velocity, and then you can use the power of the sun to get anywhere in the solar system a little faster?
Brilliant, thanks for not linking the paper.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 04:55:40 UTC No. 15973252
>>15973242
real?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:09:15 UTC No. 15973264
>>15973242
>>15973252
>real?
No
https://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/defa
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:14:43 UTC No. 15973267
>>15973155
Russia broke all the old treaties so now we have to keep up.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:18:57 UTC No. 15973277
>>15972574
>fission power stack
perhaps the most exciting and realistic part of the plan. nasa should work on it so it can provide power to the spacex base.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 05:58:43 UTC No. 15973315
>>15973312
I mean rendering lol
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:06:27 UTC No. 15973324
>>15973277
I would be totally fine if NASA insisted on using SLS to launch fission reactors to TMI and use custom autistic reentry protection because it would mean getting fission reactors on Mars.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:14:15 UTC No. 15973332
>>15971866
Over/Under on only one of those actually happening in April? I'm gonna say quite likely.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:15:25 UTC No. 15973335
>>15973312
SpaceX are married to this shitty Marvelslop suit design. Wtf was isaacman talking about? How is this reminiscent of "master chief" lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:37:03 UTC No. 15973357
>>15973335
you dont remember master chief space diving in leo to nuke the covenant ships?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:40:56 UTC No. 15973361
>>15971497
Literal nazis: put a man on the moon
"""diverse""" engineering team: Can't even put cargo on the moon
Yeah ok maybe the nazis were onto something
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 06:45:19 UTC No. 15973368
>>15973361
The Nazis were at least smart enough to test equipment in LEO before going for a moonshot.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:00:24 UTC No. 15973390
>>15973357
>John-117 vibes
it's literally exactly as cringe as before
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:20:36 UTC No. 15973416
>>15973368
They were also smart enough to do an all up test of the entire rocket at once.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:31:40 UTC No. 15973434
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:35:42 UTC No. 15973437
>>15973416
It's almost like...
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:44:17 UTC No. 15973449
>>15972822
>we need a real moonbase alpha
When he said that I stood up and yelled "kino!" and then another chinese earthquake hit
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 07:53:53 UTC No. 15973457
>>15973449
erbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbbrbrbr
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:10:32 UTC No. 15973468
>>15973335
Tell me you're a Zoomer without saying you're a Zoomer.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:13:55 UTC No. 15973471
>>15973312
>photo
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:37:57 UTC No. 15973494
>>15973335
spacex is good at rockets but not fashion or suit design. not a surprise really
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 08:43:06 UTC No. 15973497
>>15973494
Style aside I'm just glad it's not obnoxiously puffy like the A7L or Shuttle/ISS suits. Return to Gemini/Vokshod sleekness.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:00:18 UTC No. 15973524
>>15973497
Only trannies like Gemini
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:10:07 UTC No. 15973537
Wind and solar production is currently ramping up in Germany.
https://www.agora-energiewende.org/
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:17:35 UTC No. 15973548
>>15973524
Less cumbersome EVA suits are a hard requirement for offworld colonies.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:45:28 UTC No. 15973580
>>15973537
wind and solar is scam
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:46:35 UTC No. 15973581
>Half of Germany's electricity production is a scam
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:47:23 UTC No. 15973583
>>15973537
Elon was right yet again
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:48:02 UTC No. 15973584
>>15973537
spaceflight?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:53:38 UTC No. 15973594
You need nuclear.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:55:09 UTC No. 15973596
>>15973594
Debunked by Elon
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:55:14 UTC No. 15973597
>>15973581
Yes.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 09:59:28 UTC No. 15973599
>>15972994
It's ugly.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 10:01:11 UTC No. 15973601
>>15973581
>half
Only during a few windy days.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 10:54:00 UTC No. 15973646
>>15973581
solar is based thoughever
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:08:25 UTC No. 15973660
>>15973646
Only in space.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:09:03 UTC No. 15973661
>>15973537
so are coal plants.
because trying to do pure wind and solar is retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:20:53 UTC No. 15973672
>>15972830
Kek, it's the Porsche test all over again.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:25:22 UTC No. 15973680
https://youtu.be/NVahUj9qj6Y
Cute girl
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:29:14 UTC No. 15973685
>>15973537
Good, but nuclear would be better.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:30:31 UTC No. 15973686
>>15973685
krauts have some weird aversion to nuclear power
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:38:30 UTC No. 15973696
>>15973646
Agree. The only problem is the intermittency. Luckily pumped hydro can take care of this.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 11:49:34 UTC No. 15973707
>coal
based
>gas
based
>nuclear
based
>solar, beyond atmosphere
based
>solar
cringe
>wind
cringe
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:10:34 UTC No. 15973719
>>15973707
Solar off grid is generally useful. Solar AS grid is a giant waste of land area, unless it's rectennas for beamed power from orbital solar.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:11:41 UTC No. 15973720
>>15973680
adorable tomboy
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:12:18 UTC No. 15973721
>>15973719
you do realize most countries have a lot of land that isn't used for anything? Just look at Calofornia
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:13:35 UTC No. 15973722
>>15973696
it can't
more anti-nuclear cope.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:15:27 UTC No. 15973724
>>15973721
The reason why ground based solar is a waste of area is because it can't match the demand curves with supply.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:15:32 UTC No. 15973725
Reminder that nuclear power cannot be justified on an economical basis. In case of a accident the cleanup is absurdly expensive. Just look at Hiroshima. $150 billion. It's over for nuclear.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:17:09 UTC No. 15973729
>>15973725
The economic hurdles are regulatory and could be greatly reduced if there was any government will to actually make nuclear power affordable. The cost to rebuild Hiroshima and Nagasaki both was around $550 million.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:18:07 UTC No. 15973731
>>15973725
you can pick any cope you want, simple matter of reality is that solar and wind won't be able to keep up supply whereas nuclear would.
if you want to still have power, you either pick coal and gas or nuclear.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:18:16 UTC No. 15973732
>>15973724
But it can still be useful even is it can't always provide power. When it it working it is off setting carbon emissions and being cheap.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:20:47 UTC No. 15973734
>Fukushima being a nucleohazarous deathtrap is a purely regulatory issue
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:22:07 UTC No. 15973736
>>15973732
If you wanted to offset carbon emissions you'd eliminate actual carbon waste sources, not try to mitigate them with laughably small percentages of the overall supply that feel good to people who don't understand the scope of power and energy usage and needs and maximize global dependence on fossil fuels.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:23:26 UTC No. 15973738
>>15973734
The response to Fukushima was pure panic by state officials. None of the extreme evacuation measures they used were necessary.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:24:07 UTC No. 15973740
>>15973736
>laughably small percentages
you're stuck in 2005. On some days Germany produces more solar and wind power than it can spend.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:27:05 UTC No. 15973746
>>15973740
That isn't actually a good thing. Power that's generated needs to be used or else the unbalanced load fucks shit up, and fossil fuel plants that aren't gas generator peaker plants are incredibly bad at spooling up or spooling down on time spans shorter than literal days. That power needs to go somewhere, and it's difficult to find people to sell it to.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:27:13 UTC No. 15973747
>>15973738
>None of the extreme evacuation measures they used were necessary.
I don't think that falls under the $150 billion bill anyway
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukus
>estimated the total cost of dealing with the Fukushima disaster at ¥21.5 trillion (US$187 billion)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:28:25 UTC No. 15973748
>>15973032
>if i were nasa
NASA haven't ever done it either, why would they punish SpaceX?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:28:30 UTC No. 15973749
>>15973746
Sure, but just because on some days there is more power than we know what to do with, doesn't mean it's bad.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:29:21 UTC No. 15973750
>>15973747
>all areas with radiation levels above 1 millisievert per year would be cleaned.
>no-entry zones and evacuation zones designated by the government would be the responsibility of the government.
Well there's your problem.
>>15973749
It literally does.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:32:38 UTC No. 15973751
>>15973062
>It will take years before spacex attemots propellent transfer
Got any reasoning for that? Or are you just pulling it out of your ass?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:34:17 UTC No. 15973754
>SpaceX spends years trying to get Starship to orbit
>somehow expect them to get propellant transfer right on the first try
sorry for dooming bros
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:37:47 UTC No. 15973761
>>15973725
>muh economical basis
Green propaganda
They always say the same shit.
>it's too expensive
>if we build it, it would take too long
30 years pass and the time that could be spend to build nuclear plants was wasted on talking and complaining. Just look what happened to Europe. A whole continent fell for that green scam and energy prices due to have skyrocketed, thanks to (((cheap renewables))). Anyone who promotes renewables as a main source of power is a part of degrowth scum.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:42:47 UTC No. 15973766
>The Webb data, though, revealed that some very large galaxies formed really fast, in too short a time, at least according to the standard model. This was no minor discrepancy. The finding is akin to parents and their children appearing in a story when the grandparents are still children themselves.
It was not, unfortunately, an isolated incident. There have been other recent occasions in which the evidence behind science’s basic understanding of the universe has been found to be alarmingly inconsistent.
>Take the matter of how fast the universe is expanding. This is a foundational fact in cosmological science — the so-called Hubble constant — yet scientists have not been able to settle on a number. There are two main ways to calculate it: One involves measurements of the early universe (such as the sort that the Webb is providing); the other involves measurements of nearby stars in the modern universe. Despite decades of effort, these two methods continue to yield different answers.
Cosmologybros?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:43:11 UTC No. 15973767
>>15973754
Like you said yourself, it's the difference between making the entire launch system get off the pad and making it into space, and adding a capability to that rocket.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 12:45:56 UTC No. 15973771
Someone keeps debunking all the post I'm making in this thread bros
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 13:47:51 UTC No. 15973804
>>15973752
will they fake it again tho?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:25:18 UTC No. 15973820
Did "The Talk" trigger some fucking skitzo?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:28:00 UTC No. 15973823
>Vulcan's Centaur 5 will have 40% more endurance and two and a half times more energy than the upper stage ULA currently flies. "But that’s just the tip of the iceberg," Bruno elaborated. "I'm going to be pushing up to 450, 500, 600 times the endurance over just the next handful of years. That will enable a whole new set of missions that you cannot even imagine doing today."
Can't fking wait for this.
Absolutely nuts.
This is more energy than SLS' EUS
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:28:27 UTC No. 15973825
>>15973740
true, and on others it has fucking nothing.
exactly the problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:30:33 UTC No. 15973827
>>15973211
Let’s see Dr. Z’s Mars architecture
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:31:14 UTC No. 15973828
>>15973823
>40% more endurance
AKA half our hydrogen doesn't fizzle away in the first hour of coasting.
good that they're trying to eliminate weaknesses though.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:34:56 UTC No. 15973832
>>15973823
This is actually kinda sad for SLS. The ICPS and Centaur V are both about the same height, so a theoretical SLS/Centaur V stack could get SLS block 2 performance but would still fit on ML-1. You wouldn't need to spend billions on EUS or ML-2, and Centaur V would come out cheaper that even ICPS because ULA has Centaurs in mass production right now.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:38:09 UTC No. 15973835
>>15973828 >>15973832
>TLDR: Tory is laughing at this trajectory
Jupiter DIRECT
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:39:20 UTC No. 15973841
>>15973835
centaur V may some day come about, falcon heavy is real, you've seen it down at already in deep space.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:40:44 UTC No. 15973845
>>15973211
16 fucking SLS launches?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:43:02 UTC No. 15973849
>>15973845
And the last of those is a fucking taxi flight to bring the crew back from NRHO after the mission is completed
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:45:58 UTC No. 15973852
>>15973849
Fuck's sake isn't SLS like $1.1bn per launch or something ridiculous?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:46:56 UTC No. 15973853
It is what it is
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:48:12 UTC No. 15973855
>>15973853
it is what it is
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:49:02 UTC No. 15973856
It isn't what it could be
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:49:49 UTC No. 15973857
Mars is way too expensive right now (shocker); SLS did absolutely nothing to lower the cost of getting humans to Mars; and I wish someone would call a spade a spade within NASA and propose CANCELLING IT!
(along with Mars Sample Return)
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:50:46 UTC No. 15973858
>>15973852
Probably way more than that now only adjusting for inflation.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:51:09 UTC No. 15973859
>>15973823
If ULA makes a depot then all of their sins will be forgiven.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:52:10 UTC No. 15973861
>>15973857
>SLS did absolutely nothing to lower the cost of getting humans to Mars
Silly, the main purpose of SLS is preserving jobs and getting votes, not space exploration.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:52:23 UTC No. 15973862
>>15973856
but it wouldn't be what it is
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 14:52:28 UTC No. 15973863
>>15973852
I heard it was closer to $2B (not counting the cost of Orion). NASA was talking about how they wanted to get the price down to $1B and everyone was shocked by just how badly they missed that target.
The worst part of all of this is that the ML-2/EUS are only needed to deliver the last two modules for Gateway. There haven't been any other serious proposals to make use of SLS's increased launch capacity.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:04:13 UTC No. 15973869
>>15973754
There are three problems:
>boiloff control
>valves
>docking hardware with airtight seals
The first one is the actual hard part for an established space company because nobody has done it in orbit yet, but it's a LOT easier not having to deal with LH2.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:07:47 UTC No. 15973873
>>15973832
Centaur V is what we saw launch on Vulcan. That quote is referencing Centaur III from Atlas V... but ICPS is literally just a Delta IV upper stage with some mods. SLS Block 2 with LRBs would still be useful now that Vulcan exists but Block 1 is worthless for anything other than the early Artemis missions.
https://www.ulalaunch.com/interim-c
>ICPS is a modified Delta IV Cryogenic Second Stage for NASA's Artemis program.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:12:13 UTC No. 15973880
>>15972682
I laughed too. Fuck amazon.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:21:14 UTC No. 15973891
>>15972682
>musk mentions they're going to launch kuiper sats
Unless ULA/BO can get off their ass and start producing more rockets, SpaceX will end up launching a majority of the kuiper constellation. If Amazon wants to keep their section of orbit the FCC granted them.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:28:50 UTC No. 15973903
>>15973891
I don't even think Amazon can produce hardware fast enough. Kuiper was a backwater joke of a program for years.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:29:27 UTC No. 15973904
>13 days into they year
>still only 3 falcon flights
it's so over
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:32:24 UTC No. 15973907
>>15973873
For all the shit we give Tory about "high energy high performance" Centaur V is a better upper stage than ICPS or EUS. It's got just over twice the propellant as ICPS (27 tons vs 55) and a better mass fraction than EUS (9% vs 11%). A SLS 1/Centaur V can get comparable TLI performance to a block 2 SLS.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:33:28 UTC No. 15973908
>>15973869
They don't have to solve boiloff right away though, this is something they can iteratively improve yet again
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:35:13 UTC No. 15973910
>>15972752
>SpaceX destroyed their rocket just because
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:42:18 UTC No. 15973919
Are there any galaxy brain engineers on-site at Starbase? I imagine they can just email the instructions to their Mexican welder crews from CA or McGregor..
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:45:11 UTC No. 15973922
>>15972752
Yes, autists make poor public speakers. They do get shit done though.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:45:45 UTC No. 15973925
>>15973907
ACES would have made SLS almost completely irrelevant which is why Shelby killed it. Hydrologgs with IFV is actually a genius architecture for the outer system where ice is abundant and solar is weaksauce if you can solve the embrittlement and seepage problems. I can see ACES based tugs shoving payloads between the moons of Jupiter or Saturn. All you'd need nuclear power for is ISRU, powering habs, and interplanetary transit.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:46:32 UTC No. 15973928
>>15973908
part of the reason why header tanks are deeper inside the vehicle is that it reduces boiloff, as the skin of those tanks are not directly connected to the outside.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:46:43 UTC No. 15973929
>>15973098
that's kinda gay
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:48:05 UTC No. 15973930
https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/stat
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:48:36 UTC No. 15973931
>>15973910
not just because, did you read the post?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:52:14 UTC No. 15973940
>>15973919
thats responsable for discrepancies in starship build quality such as half the tiles falling off at launch
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:56:27 UTC No. 15973946
>>15973766
they were predicting the mass of the galaxies using the assumption that the milky way's stellar mass distribution is representative of all galaxies forever, which is a really stupid assumption to make
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 15:58:51 UTC No. 15973951
>>15973946
At some point they're going to have to admit the universe is not isotropic.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:02:59 UTC No. 15973958
>>15973939
It's -13(-25), wtf
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:05:12 UTC No. 15973962
>>15973939
Damn Scott Manley is getting old
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:06:33 UTC No. 15973964
>>15973958
good weather for grillin
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:07:27 UTC No. 15973967
>>15973958
Yeah this is an absolute freakish winter. Record highs in December, now record lows.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:07:33 UTC No. 15973968
>>15973939
>If you only knew have bad things are
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:18:50 UTC No. 15973982
>>15972573
Write a scraper for nextspaceflight.com and get alerts.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:25:04 UTC No. 15973989
>>15973967
I meant that he's outside wearing only that shirt. Mad man.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:36:06 UTC No. 15973996
lol
https://youtu.be/BAqy-N26RbY?list=R
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:52:44 UTC No. 15974024
>>15974021
>beat me because i had to go through a dozen cloudflare captchas
MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOT
https://twitter.com/StarshipGazer/s
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:54:11 UTC No. 15974029
>>15974021
Jesus, imagine the money coming from all those soiboys
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:57:50 UTC No. 15974033
>>15974029
Hey retard its being built directly next to the launch site theyre putting it there so workers that live on site dont have to leave.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 16:59:09 UTC No. 15974037
>>15974021
the restaurant
rio grande drive, its in the same area as rocket ranch
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:00:31 UTC No. 15974042
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:01:30 UTC No. 15974045
>>15974037
My fear is cartel members will now cross the river to hold up these stores since its so close.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:02:53 UTC No. 15974049
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:04:18 UTC No. 15974051
reminder that the stores only accept scrip
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:07:11 UTC No. 15974056
>>15974049
Again, cartel members just cross the river like that. What then?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:08:53 UTC No. 15974058
>>15974037
seems to be a viewing location for rocket ranch, the camping ground itself is further towards brownsville
assuming these are public retail stores and restauraunts, people that go check out the build and launch sites will have toilets much closer
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:09:09 UTC No. 15974060
martian marines are providing security. cartels are the ones that are scared.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:10:34 UTC No. 15974063
>>15974056
you know where masseys is? its just beyond the river similarly
the cartel probably doesn't want the attention of US military or something if they started doing petty crime like that over the border
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:11:44 UTC No. 15974066
>>15974021
This is our chance to work at SpaceX.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:15:33 UTC No. 15974072
>>15974066
This is YOUR chance to work at SpaceX fool. My chance is going to be working on rockets since thats what I'm actually studying
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:18:40 UTC No. 15974075
>>15974037
>>15974021
Boring tunnel between South Padre Island and Starbase
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:19:46 UTC No. 15974078
>>15974072
I wanted to study aerospace too, but I was too afraid of leaving my hometown.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:21:04 UTC No. 15974080
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:21:50 UTC No. 15974082
>>15974072
I would move down there to dishwash at the SpaceX diner, but I'd have to live outside in a tent for a while. Would Elon mind?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:24:37 UTC No. 15974085
>>15974082
most employees at SpaceX, especially at Boca Chica work super long hours. youre going to need more than a god damn tent, just rent a house in brownsville and work from there its not hard to take out a loan if you can get the job
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:28:11 UTC No. 15974090
>>15974072
You're gonna be a dishwasher either way
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:32:21 UTC No. 15974101
>>15972850
It all depends on how you prepare it as cargo.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:36:48 UTC No. 15974112
>>15974101
Oof
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:46:22 UTC No. 15974129
>>15973229
>13 SLS block 2 Cargo launches
At the rate they are manufacturing SLS, you could expect the mission NET 2040.
>You probably wouldn't need more than ten SLS launches for that.
Okay, that made me laugh.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 17:48:48 UTC No. 15974133
>>15973996
Marxists propaganda seething about Elon : The TV series lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:01:34 UTC No. 15974153
>>15974133
I didn't even watch that trash, I posted the edit because it was funny
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:06:45 UTC No. 15974160
>>15972813
Keep your dead femstronauts in a moist, dark place and they'll turn green naturally.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:22:04 UTC No. 15974182
>>15972943
The moon knows where it is
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:24:16 UTC No. 15974184
>>15972994
benis XD
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:31:20 UTC No. 15974199
>>15973216
True though
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:37:43 UTC No. 15974210
>>15973244
I will live my life in such a way that future generations will also be racist.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:39:54 UTC No. 15974214
>>15973324
>implying NASA could do any of this
are you havin' a giggle?
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:40:55 UTC No. 15974218
>>15973357
No, I don't play video games
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:42:44 UTC No. 15974220
>>15973581
>Half of Germany's population is Turkish
It's like pottery
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:44:20 UTC No. 15974224
>>15973721
>Just look at Calofornia
wtf, no
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 18:50:58 UTC No. 15974240
>>15974072
>accomplished literally nothing yet
>already smug about it
I've already read this one. It doesn't end well.
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 19:09:27 UTC No. 15974261
>>15973449
JOHN MADDEN
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 19:50:44 UTC No. 15974317
>>15973437
what
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 20:20:57 UTC No. 15974358
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 20:32:49 UTC No. 15974389
>>15974056
>>15974045
>>15974063
The cartel aren't some singular evil boogieman you dumb fucks. The Gulf Cartel based in Matamoros. They made a mistake killing those two niggers but they apoligized and turned their killers in to local police
Anonymous at Sat, 13 Jan 2024 21:02:59 UTC No. 15974465
>>15973680
oh my booba