🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:23:53 UTC No. 16001083
Loaded SLS SRB motor segment edition
Previous >>15998337
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:31:30 UTC No. 16001096
Launch the fucking rocket
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:33:22 UTC No. 16001100
>>16001083
First for fuck SRB pork barrel and fuck shelby
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:47:56 UTC No. 16001131
>>16001117
Space planes are dumb, boom, there I said it. Shittle was a mistake
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:53:47 UTC No. 16001142
>>16001131
funny way of saying last gasp of the white man
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:57:19 UTC No. 16001148
>>16001131
Starship is a spaceplane
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:59:55 UTC No. 16001155
How many of you actually have at least a Tripoli or NAR level 1 certification? Is it easier to get certified if you actually work as an engineer at a rocket company?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:00:39 UTC No. 16001157
Neat how Ingenuity completely invalidated the status quo for space probe design.
It used no rad-hardened components, an off the shelf phone processor more powerful than all space probe computers combined (yet over 1000x cheaper than the standard space probe computer), off the shelf lithium ion batteries, etc, and still performed 1440% of the flights it was planned to, only failing due to physically striking something, which would have failed a traditional probe design anyway.
It's time to expose the racket that is traditional probe design architecture and start pumping out $200k Mars rovers and so forth. Total Grifter Death.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:01:55 UTC No. 16001160
>>16001148
No it fails the glide slope test
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:02:11 UTC No. 16001162
>>16001155
Isn't all that a big grift and you can sidestep it by building engines yourself?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:04:22 UTC No. 16001169
>>16001155
I do and level 1 is trivial. it's model rockets with a slightly larger motor. you can make it from a kit in a day with no electronics.
level 2 is a little less trivial but you can still get away with kit rockets and no electronics.
level 3 is where you might actually benefit from an engineering background.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:10:04 UTC No. 16001179
>>16001160
So did the shuttle my g
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:11:04 UTC No. 16001182
>>16001148
starshit is a shit trash can nothing more.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:14:04 UTC No. 16001187
>>16001182
It is a cargo capsule and it will never be human rated
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:14:16 UTC No. 16001188
>>16001179
fuck you.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:16:06 UTC No. 16001189
never making a cargo variant of the shuttle was the greatest failing of the program. minimal design overhauls could have given a super heavy lift vehicle with a per launch cost roughly 1/3 or saturn v. instead we had to end the program and bring it back as Frankenstein's monster SLS
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:16:48 UTC No. 16001191
>>16001169
>>16001162
yeah, the big certs are completely pointless because by the time you can pass the big one you can already build your own motors, which is the only thing they get you
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:16:49 UTC No. 16001192
>>16001138
SLS is Boeing's rocket and it is Boeing who wants to bid it in NSSL Phase 3.
https://aviationweek.com/aerospace/
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:23:51 UTC No. 16001202
>>16001145
Why does he wear that stupid bow tie
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:25:47 UTC No. 16001208
>>16001192
Space Force doesn't want that piece of overpriced trash. Soon they will have Starship and NG for big boys satelliites.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:50:21 UTC No. 16001227
>>16001192
>le nro wants to use sls to counter china
what is this guy on because i want it too
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 17:51:25 UTC No. 16001228
>>16001225
personally I love building sized chunks of mixed oxidizer and fuel
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:20:10 UTC No. 16001258
>>16001227
>Marshall
spaceguy5?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:20:54 UTC No. 16001260
>>16001254
Remember how air superiority changed warfare? Space superiority will do the same. "The ultimate high ground" they call it.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:21:56 UTC No. 16001263
>>16001227
NASA is desperate to get someone else onboard with SLS to share the costs burden, but despite Anon's fever dream of NRO payloads, nobody's interested.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:23:50 UTC No. 16001265
>>16001254
they're the only true space fairing country.
also this may be hard for you to grasp but 75 billion dollars a year just isn't that much for us
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:24:58 UTC No. 16001269
>>16001254
You could edit space for aircraft carrier and it would still be accurate lmfao
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:24:58 UTC No. 16001270
>almost february
>Still no IFT-3 news
Spx bros... Whats taking so long...
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:26:03 UTC No. 16001272
>>16001254
jobs programs
I wonder how much that would decrease if you cut out SLS and other makework programs
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:26:20 UTC No. 16001275
>>16001254
>What's problem with America???
We got cool shit
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:29:01 UTC No. 16001283
>>16001270
launchpad upgrades.
the rocket is ready to go. they've tested all the parts of it
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:29:11 UTC No. 16001284
>>16001269
remove Germany,add Thailand, bump up Spain and UK a bit and it's spot on
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:33:38 UTC No. 16001295
>>16001275
Just in case you want that in more pixels
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:36:31 UTC No. 16001305
>>16001254
>Still China has their own crewed spacecraft, spacion station, mars rover and will send people to the moon this century before the US, evn with a fraction of NASAs budget
Why does China mog amerimutts so bad?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:42:19 UTC No. 16001318
>>16001227
The chance of this happening is exactly 0 percent. But that last part is interesting though. I don't doubt they are working on supersynchronous sats. Centaur V is supposedly able to direct inject after operating in space for a very long time.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:44:57 UTC No. 16001321
>>16001202
its a rich people thing, you wouldn't get it.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:45:14 UTC No. 16001322
>>16001083
>>16001117
>>16001148
>>16001270
>>16001305
So now we all know starship turned out to be a complete failure, they gonna cancel artemis. So whats next sfg bros?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:46:46 UTC No. 16001327
>>16001322
get new bait, please
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:49:40 UTC No. 16001333
>>16001305
I'll respond in good faith even though you don't deserve it.
we have a lot of money in america. you could not even grasp it. we can afford to pay out the ass for the best of the best, and we get it. it's how we ended up with all 5 of the largest air forces on the planet. it's how we ended up with as many aircraft carriers as the next 3 nations combined. it's how we landed men on the moon.
you can do things that look on the surface similar to what we do for much less money. I won't pretend we get the best value for our dollar. but you can't do as well as we do.
so go ahead. have your inexpensive mir clone. have your 250 "5th generation" fighter jets (1000 f35s by the way) have your copy of apollo 70 years later. and we will continue to have the cutting edge at the exorbitant prices that honestly we just aren't that bothered by
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 18:57:30 UTC No. 16001340
>>16001333
this is not acceptable, we need to get back to our roots and make things dirt fucking cheap AND better than everybody else
we need to conquer the world again
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:00:20 UTC No. 16001346
>>16001305
Do tell us what China has spent on its Lunar program.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:00:23 UTC No. 16001347
>>16001254
NASAs budget is only 25 billion, wheres the rest going? space force?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:03:14 UTC No. 16001351
>>16001322
>15 launches
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:03:39 UTC No. 16001352
>>16001347
FY2024 Space Force budget is $30 billion, which still leaves us about $20 billion short.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:04:42 UTC No. 16001353
>>16001352
private sector? NOAA?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:06:01 UTC No. 16001356
>>16001353
CNBC reports $12.5 billion was raised for the space sector in 2023 and I'm not sure that's even limited to the United States. NOAA's budget request was $6.8 billion, and that does seem to add up to the chart values.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:24:33 UTC No. 16001390
>>16001353
space spending could possibly include tribute payments to space-based ayys
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:33:24 UTC No. 16001406
>>16001333
>We spend a lot of money on things that china could do much cheaper and faster and im proud of it
Why are ameriniggers so stupid?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:34:35 UTC No. 16001407
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:34:58 UTC No. 16001408
what does /sfg/ think of operation avalanche?
I liked it. I thought it was entertaining enough and presented one of the few ways the moon landing could have been faked that holds up to any scrutiny whatsoever
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:38:38 UTC No. 16001411
>>16001408
the moon landing? there were several
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:39:56 UTC No. 16001413
>>16001411
and the movie ends ambiguously shortly after apollo 11, what's your point?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:42:46 UTC No. 16001416
>>16001408
I think youre a fat nigger for bringing it up
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:55:23 UTC No. 16001436
>>16001322
A. First launch of Orion and SLS with crew
B. First flight test of Orion ECLSS with crew
C. First human spaceflight launch from LC-39B since STS-116
D. First potential use of LC-39B Emergency Pad Abort baskets
E. First in space approach and maneuvers of Orion in proximity with another space vehicle (ICPS)
F. First operational use of the Orion Crew Survival System (OCSS) IVA suit.
G. First NASA crewed TLI burn in 50+ years
H. First woman sent to deep space
I. First use of Orion communications and O2O system between NASA and crew
J. First crewed flyby of the Moon in 50 years
K. First reentry of Orion with crew onboard
L. First test of newly revised heat shield
M. First test of Orion parachute deploy with crew
N. First test of Orion/NASA/US Navy recovery efforts and procedures
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:58:20 UTC No. 16001443
>>16001083
It must be damp.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 19:58:51 UTC No. 16001446
>>16001202
It's called a tuxedo
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:01:23 UTC No. 16001457
>>16001333
> "We"
Is this how you mentally cope with your scam country being run by 12 mafias who loot the public purse
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:06:36 UTC No. 16001466
>>16001457
Always has been, say we for thing you like, mentally block out all reprehensible shit also done under that umbrella to cope with being a fag.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:13:44 UTC No. 16001477
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:13:44 UTC No. 16001478
>>16001415
>Ship 28 and booster 10 are about to be moved to the launch site
>launch could happen as early as mid February
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:19:38 UTC No. 16001487
>>16001481
good summary of the Ingenuity program
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:23:32 UTC No. 16001492
>>16001470
>its a jeet
good morning sirs. fuck ukraine
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:24:00 UTC No. 16001493
>>16001157
Maybe if we had starship to launch a bunch of them or space based manufacturing, otherwise you've just wasted one launch on something that has a higher chance of failure.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:30:07 UTC No. 16001502
>>16001493
Test starships to Mars better have piles of cheap rover designs to test on the surface and study best colonization methods
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:30:14 UTC No. 16001503
>>16001352
NRO plus some incidentals. KH-11s and Orion sigint birds aren't cheap.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:31:55 UTC No. 16001507
https://twitter.com/esherifftv/stat
Chinese copying Starship
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:35:07 UTC No. 16001517
>>16001189
Daily reminder that the shuttle's 110 tons counts as payload to LEO, as it has for every other space vehicle in history.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:36:41 UTC No. 16001522
>>16001502
Oh yeah definitely, but knowing musk the first one will have a cybertruck driven by an optimus bot on it and it'll get about 5 foot before the batteries explode or the bot drives it into a rock.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:38:33 UTC No. 16001528
>>16001517
Bleesed
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:38:40 UTC No. 16001529
>>16001507
I watched this live. that guy is such a clown and most likely some kind of shill as well.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:50:45 UTC No. 16001550
>>16001179
Nope shuttle passes easily, Starship doesn't get close.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:52:37 UTC No. 16001554
>>16001254
Probably they care about remaining undefeatable
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:55:54 UTC No. 16001560
>>16001413
the point being that moon landing denial is retarded?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:56:38 UTC No. 16001563
>>16001550
wrong
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:57:04 UTC No. 16001564
>>16001560
have you seen the movie?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:57:28 UTC No. 16001567
>>16001473
>silicon based life form bites me
>it instantly receives horrific full-depth chemical burns while catching on fire and fucking dies
>I get a neat scar
lol
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 20:59:28 UTC No. 16001573
>>16001550
The flying brick does? Ok my g
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:00:36 UTC No. 16001576
>>16001493
No proof of increased chance of failure using non-space-rated hardware.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:01:58 UTC No. 16001580
>>16001517
Anyone who has ever counted upper stage residual mass and/or upper stage dry mass in payload-to-orbit figures has been incorrect to do so.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:02:45 UTC No. 16001581
>>16001567
kinda silly to assume that silicon based life will be made from hydrosilanes
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:03:38 UTC No. 16001585
>>16001522
musk derangement syndrome
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:03:56 UTC No. 16001586
>>16001576
shut the fuck up pig.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:04:02 UTC No. 16001587
>>16001580
good think they're not counting the SLET
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:05:04 UTC No. 16001588
remember when we used to make fun of oldspace and Shelbypost and stuff instead of regurgitate their lies?
yeah, good times, good times
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:05:11 UTC No. 16001589
>>16001563
Starship cannot glide. It's not a spaceplane.
Shuttle could glide. It was a spaceplane. It is now a museum piece.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:06:33 UTC No. 16001591
>>16001580
would you say that falcon 9 only has a payload of 3.5 tons because that's all you can fit inside a cargo dragon? of course not. you count the whole mass of the cargo dragon, engines and fuel and structure and shit.
that's what what shuttle was. with the first stage engines and some of the plumbing bolted on
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:06:41 UTC No. 16001592
>>16001589
calling what Shuttle did "gliding" is extremely generous, I would go so far as to say disingenuous
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:07:51 UTC No. 16001595
>>16001591
you would say that Falcon 9/Dragon has a pressurized payload maximum of 3.5 tons, just like you would say that the STS has a cargo capacity of 20 tons or whatever
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:08:41 UTC No. 16001596
>>16001592
hes a schizo dude, leave it
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:09:17 UTC No. 16001598
>>16001564
No need. Apollo 11 landing on the Moon is undeniable, we have the photos from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. Whether or not it is possible to construct a conspiracy theory that the landing may have been faked is irrelevant, because we've gone and checked and there is a lunar module descent stage surrounded by footprint tracks which exactly match the Apollo 11 footage sitting at Tranquility Base.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:10:26 UTC No. 16001602
>>16001596
>nooooo don't prove me wrong noooo you can't counter my arguments noooo stop
no
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:11:33 UTC No. 16001605
>>16001573
The flying brick could glide, yes. Starship physically cannot glide, it lacks the ability to aerodynamically control its attitude in anything but the bellyflop heading, which has a lift to drag ratio far less than 1.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:11:59 UTC No. 16001609
>>16001595
exactly. thats the cargo you can fit in the orbiter. but the orbiter itself is a payload on the rocket. a mandatory one but a payload none the less. like dragon but more capable because it has an airlock and a robotic arm and is much larger with more capacity.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:12:56 UTC No. 16001614
>>16001581
Kinda silly to assume I'm talking about hydrosilanes
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:14:41 UTC No. 16001619
>>16001605
You can glide without actually controlling where you land
>>16001602
Quit it schizo
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:16:41 UTC No. 16001622
>>16001591
Dragon has a maximum payload of 3.5 tonnes, just like Shuttle had a maximum payload of 29 tonnes, yes glad we could clear that up.
Falcon 9 isn't Dragon. Unfortunately for Shuttle, the shuttle stack isn't a separate vehicle from the orbiter, so the orbiter's payload is the whole stack's payload, ie 29 tonnes.
Don't blame me, blame NASA for not building shuttle-C.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:18:14 UTC No. 16001625
>>16001614
please enlighten me
>>16001609
>>16001622
reusable rockets fuck up the metrics bad because things aren't as neatly contained, I'm going to play video games instead of thinking about how gay the space shuttle was
We don't count the dry mass of Starship in its payload to orbit, no matter how useful it is once it's on orbit
>>16001605
>>16001619
60 degrees AoA
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:18:24 UTC No. 16001627
>>16001254
Space Victory
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:18:34 UTC No. 16001628
>>16001592
Shuttle had a shitty glide slope, but it could glide. Doesn't matter what you think, it would glide to a runway landing.
Starship cannot glide. It's not a spaceplane.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:19:41 UTC No. 16001630
>>16001628
okay, so you're prejudiced against Starship because it doesn't do a runway landing
I'm glad we cleared that up
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:20:22 UTC No. 16001634
>>16001609
Shuttle isn't a payload of the rocket, shuttle IS the rocket, and its payload is 29T
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:21:20 UTC No. 16001638
>>16001529
I suspected he was a shill. What makes him a clown too? Does he have a red nose
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:22:00 UTC No. 16001641
>>16001619
Starship can't glide. It won't glide during reentry anymore than Apollo was gliding when it used an offset center of mass to shunt air to one side and allow it to control its downrange landing point somewhat.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:22:49 UTC No. 16001643
>>16001641
it will glide during reentry just as much as Shuttle did
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:23:24 UTC No. 16001644
>>16001622
>>16001634
if dragon brought the 9 sea level merlins with it to the ISS would you stop counting dragon itself as the payload on falcon 9? we can split hairs about the rs25s and their plumbing but the rest of the orbiter is undeniably payload mass
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:23:27 UTC No. 16001645
>>16001630
Starship isn't a spaceplane because it cannot glide. It's nothing like a plane in any aspect.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:24:21 UTC No. 16001648
>>16001645
you are in denial
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:24:52 UTC No. 16001649
>>16001148
This.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:26:14 UTC No. 16001650
>>16001643
Shuttle didn't glide during entry. It bellyflopped. The difference is that Shuttle transitioned to a horizontal glide after entry, then landed on a runway. Meanwhile Starship stays bellyflopping all the way down, because it's incapable of gliding, because it has no wings or fins or control surfaces to allow it to point into the air stream.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:27:19 UTC No. 16001651
>>16001650
it has four fins, and all four are control surfaces
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:27:52 UTC No. 16001653
>>16001644
I don't care if the entire fucking stack goes to orbit, it's not payload. No amount of first stage engines attached to the orbiter segment of a launch vehicle will make it a payload.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:29:03 UTC No. 16001655
>>16001653
This man is correct, it doesn't matter how shit you make your architecture, how much crap you attach to your upper stage or orbiter segment, it still won't count as payload
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:29:21 UTC No. 16001658
>>16001648
I am denying and refuting your bullshit arguments, sure.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:30:06 UTC No. 16001660
>>16001658
next comes anger
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:30:58 UTC No. 16001662
>>16001651
None of them allow control with a heading of less than ~60 degrees AoA, which means a glide slope of 1:1 or better is impossible for Starship, which means it cannot glide, which means it is not a spaceplane.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:32:04 UTC No. 16001664
>>16001660
You'll need to try harder.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:35:01 UTC No. 16001668
>>16001591
no you would say falcon 9 + dragon has a payload of 3.5 tonnes
falcon 9 can be launched without dragon, and that will have different payloads
can the shuttle be launched without the orbiter? the orbiter is not payload if its mandatory, its an extension of the launch vehicle just like a spacetug or kick stage or whatever would be
just a very shit one in this case
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:35:24 UTC No. 16001670
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:36:17 UTC No. 16001672
It's clear to everyone who knows anything about aerodynamics that Starship is not a spaceplane. Starship is a totally new archetype of vehicle. It reenters more like a capsule than a spaceplane, it uses large aerobrakes to control its attitude and body shunting for a small amount of lift while maximizing drag, and it couldn't be flown like a plane if you tried.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:38:23 UTC No. 16001675
>>16001644
if falcon 9 would not be able to launch in any other configuration than the dragon, then yes
but it can, the shuttle can't
its that simple
a pure cargo version of the shuttle would have had a higher payload, but that would still not mean the modified stage that is the orbiter and would be something else in the modified cargo version is still not payload
its carrying payload or getting it to its orbit
a kickstage is not payload
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:38:53 UTC No. 16001676
>>16001670
No.
As before, Dragon has a payload mass of 3.5 tonnes, and launches on Falcon 9, a different vehicle.
Shuttle has a payload of 29 tonnes, and IS the launch vehicle, so there IS NO 110 tonne capacity rocket to look at. There is only Shuttle's payload to consider. Parts of the launcher are never payload under any circumstance.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:39:24 UTC No. 16001677
>>16001655
this, the absolute state of shuttle apologists
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:40:36 UTC No. 16001682
>>16001677
When will they learn?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:41:37 UTC No. 16001684
Feels good to btfo a shittle fag first thing after returning to sfg
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:42:22 UTC No. 16001686
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:43:49 UTC No. 16001689
>>16001670
Wow! Spacex should try putting doors on their rockets too!
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:44:11 UTC No. 16001691
>>16001675
>>16001676
I get it. most other launch vehicles don't have a space station built in. but saying the useful space on the orbiter is not payload mass is like saying mercury redstone had a payload of 0 because it always carried the capsule, which somehow isn't payload
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:54:40 UTC No. 16001705
wasnt everyone saying that IFT-3 would be happening by now? what went wrong?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:54:54 UTC No. 16001706
>>16001691
mercury redstone had zero orbital payload, and it had a payload of one asshole in a flight suit
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:55:56 UTC No. 16001708
>>16001705
two weeks
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:57:27 UTC No. 16001711
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:57:34 UTC No. 16001713
>>16001705
FAA has the investigation report. So its up to them to approve of it.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 21:58:51 UTC No. 16001715
>>16001706
orbital shmorbital. not the point. the whole capsule got launched so people count the whole capsule. nobody says it had a payload mass of 130lbs or whatever alan shepard weighed
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:11:22 UTC No. 16001729
>>16001705
Last I checked, right now isn't "sometime in February"
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:11:26 UTC No. 16001730
>>16001711
Trump approved artemis
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:11:47 UTC No. 16001732
Have you disgusting fake smart people done what I told you? Have you written on your mirrors a "red line" for when you will abandon your cult leader Elon Musk? 5 failed Starship launches? 10? How about 10 years behind schedule for Mars? 20 years behind schedule?
How many of his lies will you eat like literal shit sandwiches before you stop? No Seriously I need to know and so do you. Meditate on this REAL ISSUE and WRITE IT DOWN. Hold yourselves accountable. Don't just be mindless cultists who constantly move the goal posts when your faggot ass fake autistic cunt leader fails to deliver time and time again.
Elon is The Great Filter but he couldn't have achieved that lofty goal without his acolytes clapping like brain dead seals as rockets explode. You're why we can't have nice things.
PS, I hate your guts
Love
Sky Hook Chan
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:13:09 UTC No. 16001736
>>16001254
>What's problem with America???
America doesn't spend enough on space
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:14:29 UTC No. 16001738
>>16001730
irrelevant
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:15:05 UTC No. 16001740
>>16001732
Damn that's crazy
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:16:19 UTC No. 16001742
>>16001305
>captura-de-pantalla
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:18:39 UTC No. 16001744
>>16001580
Anything that comes back down from orbit again is payload.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:20:42 UTC No. 16001747
>>16001473
You and your homies are muffins?!
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:22:37 UTC No. 16001750
>>16001691
Mercury didn't go to orbit.
Shuttle isn't a payload, it is a vehicle with a payload limit of 29 tonnes.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:23:42 UTC No. 16001752
>>16001715
You are grasping at straws, it is grotesque to see
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:24:42 UTC No. 16001754
>>16001753
YES IT IS IM FUCKING RETADRED THATS WHY I THINK IT
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:24:52 UTC No. 16001755
>>16001732
Sky hooks won't reduce launch costs btw
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:26:44 UTC No. 16001756
>>16001744
No. Anything launched to orbit which is not a part of the launch vehicle and is not a portion of its residual propellant is payload.
Buran was an Energia payload. Shuttle was a launch vehicle.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:27:35 UTC No. 16001757
>>16001753
not if it's just dropping off starlinks, yes if it has crew and stays in orbit with them. I could accept arguments that the raptors and fuel tank mass don't count, just like I could accept that the rs25s don't count.
if shuttle kept the orange tank I would be willing to accept that that isn't payload either. the vast majority of the orbiter is clearly sts payload mass
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:27:51 UTC No. 16001758
>>16001753
Of course not, it is a vehicle :)
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:30:37 UTC No. 16001761
>>16001757
The orbiter is not a payload. Starship is not a payload. Launch vehicle components are not payloads. If Starship were launched to orbit to act as a space station, its payload would be the station supplies it packed with it. SpaceX would state that Starship is going to orbit for an extended stay and is carrying X tonnes of support and supplies payload, just like how they describe the payload mass a Dragon carries to the ISS.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:30:58 UTC No. 16001764
>>16001730
Thank God for Donald Trump
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:31:11 UTC No. 16001765
>>16001732
You need help
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:31:52 UTC No. 16001766
>>16001705
Their predictions were what went wrong, anon.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:33:48 UTC No. 16001768
>>16001732
Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:33:50 UTC No. 16001769
>>16001732
Starship has never failed a launch. Only Starship prototypes have ever failed, most during test flights and some in ground testing. I know this can get a bit confusing sweetie, we're here for you.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:34:08 UTC No. 16001770
>>16001730
Trump gave NASA retarded timeline causing all those delays.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:34:36 UTC No. 16001771
>>16001756
would buran stop being a payload if it helped energia get up to speed?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:36:33 UTC No. 16001772
>>16001753
Mini Starship could be
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:39:36 UTC No. 16001777
>>16001771
It would be a payload if Energia ran out of propellant before taking Buran to orbit and Buran had to finalize the orbit on its own.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:40:38 UTC No. 16001779
>>16001777
Wouldn't*
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:41:22 UTC No. 16001781
>>16001777
Trips confirm
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:44:16 UTC No. 16001784
>>16001777
So, Buran was a space plane?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:45:20 UTC No. 16001786
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:46:09 UTC No. 16001787
>>16001770
You can give NASA any timeline you want, delays are inevitable.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:49:08 UTC No. 16001791
>>16001322
This is clearly a scam
While I don't think the USG will ever do anything to Musk, they will know better than to blindly trust him at every turn.
SpaceX peaks at Falcon Heavy, just like how NVIDIA has peaked already with the AI bubble popping.
Enjoy the Falcon success, that's all you're getting with SpaceX.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:51:06 UTC No. 16001793
>>16001791
ok retard
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:51:12 UTC No. 16001794
Defund NASA
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:51:46 UTC No. 16001795
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:53:22 UTC No. 16001797
>>16001795
>drop ICBMs on niggers
uh based
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 22:54:18 UTC No. 16001798
>>16001795
give it to me and I will spend it more wisely
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:00:51 UTC No. 16001802
>>16001732
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
look at what this scammer is doing, he can't keep getting away with it
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:01:43 UTC No. 16001803
>>16001802
how is elon posting from the future?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:02:03 UTC No. 16001805
>>16001802
You forgot to post the scammer.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:03:08 UTC No. 16001807
>>16001802
This is pretty insane news to drop with a random Elon tweet
Very cool
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:03:24 UTC No. 16001808
Have we had any big space news lately? Anything really weird? Anything related to technosigantures get anywhere?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:04:10 UTC No. 16001810
>>16001795
you misspelled "black underclass and criminal foreign invaders". >>>/pol/
>>16001798
Unironically true.
Although, a lot of "NASA" budget isn't even desired by NASA. It's Congress. *They* want the boondoggles. NASA is mostly nerds who actually have pretty-decent instincts as to what's interesting and affordable. Like: asteroid missions, nuclear-powered runs to Uranus, maybe a space colony on Deimos.
But not the fucking sample return from Mars. That's all on Congress.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:05:16 UTC No. 16001811
>>16001795
Give the poor to NASA
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:13:41 UTC No. 16001826
We lost the technology...
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:15:05 UTC No. 16001830
>>16001808
Schizodrive test any month now
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:17:25 UTC No. 16001832
>>16001826
Good
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:22:35 UTC No. 16001839
>>16001802
https://twitter.com/SawyerMerritt/s
1min video about what they are trying to do at first
https://neuralink.com/blog/understa
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:25:12 UTC No. 16001844
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:32:13 UTC No. 16001851
>>16001770
ask yourself: would we have seen as much progress by 2024 if the retarded mandate had not been made?
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:33:18 UTC No. 16001853
>>16001848
Yup, bagging on the Shuttle orbiter as dry mass ignores that even with an empty clamshell bay the Shuttle could do useful missions, whether that was crew stuff in the cabin or Hubble repair or pulling something into the bay for retrieval.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:34:10 UTC No. 16001854
>>16001839
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7o
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:38:05 UTC No. 16001858
>>16001848
>total payload capacity: 18 tonnes
Dragon has a 3.5 tonne capacity actually. Hope that helps!
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:38:38 UTC No. 16001859
>>16001826
could you imagine, the blow this would be to humanity. if we just kept trying to build rockets and just couldn't get them to go up consistently
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:40:05 UTC No. 16001861
>>16001858
lmao get fact checked
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:40:27 UTC No. 16001862
>>16001853
Usefulness does not make something a payload. If you think people are saying Shuttle was dead weight because it wasn't a payload, you're a gay retard. Shuttle wasn't a payload because it was a launch vehicle. Shuttle carried payload, and it also did things. It's not a payload.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:41:19 UTC No. 16001864
Earth's moon is escaping by roughly an inch per year. We can counter this with a really long chain tying the moon and Earth together, which can also be climbed for easy lunar access. There are no reasons not to do this except cowardice.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:42:29 UTC No. 16001866
>>16001848
Wait, for real though, why can the Shuttle stack launch a whole orbiter into LEO but SLS's fat ass can barely do Orion
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:45:30 UTC No. 16001876
>>16001866
Declining quality of education in favor of spectacle
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:46:40 UTC No. 16001878
>>16001862
the orbiter was not the launch vehicle. the orbiter had the main engines on it, but it wasn't an orbital rocket without the orange tank and the SRBs. that full combination was the launch vehicle. the engines were bolted onto the orbiter because it was a convenient place to put them if you wanted to get them back. every other part of the orbiter was payload. just like every part of dragon is falcon payload and every part of cygnus is antares payload
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:49:23 UTC No. 16001885
>>16001866
Orion is well below what SLS can deliver to LEO even in the Block I that is handicapped by the Delta second stage.
The Shuttle was extremely limited with anything beyond LEO, requiring a solid kick stage to push anything further.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:57:40 UTC No. 16001899
>>16001878
Adding to what this anon said the Shuttle had no second stage, the EUS alone weights nearly 300,000lb fully fueled.
Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jan 2024 23:59:17 UTC No. 16001905
>>16001892
Is Lore gonna convince this one to attack a colony again?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:01:18 UTC No. 16001911
>>16001892
total silly cone death
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:16:24 UTC No. 16001939
>>16001928
Kill yourself stupid nigger bitch
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:21:07 UTC No. 16001945
>>16001892
>>16001894
Look I KNOW I can't eat it, I still wanna shoot it
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:21:43 UTC No. 16001948
>>16001878
Dragon is a Falcon payload because it is NOT a part of the launch vehicle.
Shuttle was an integral part of the launch vehicle, hence NOT a payload.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:34:03 UTC No. 16001961
based or cringe?
https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/s
quick. call it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:37:53 UTC No. 16001965
>>16001961
gay
the mars anthem should be a techno song
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:45:15 UTC No. 16001973
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9t0
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:54:20 UTC No. 16001984
>>16001965
Darude sandstorm
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:55:04 UTC No. 16001985
>>16001961
kinda cringe, i like the lyrics they're very inspiring but i need to hear an orchestra behind it to get the full picture.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 00:58:35 UTC No. 16001991
how will space force defeat iran's satellites now that war is just days away?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:05:12 UTC No. 16001994
>>16001839
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:06:13 UTC No. 16001997
>>16001994
wow
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:10:55 UTC No. 16002005
>>16001991
Most of Iran's satellites weigh in at about 50 kg. They only have three over 100 kg. What's there that needs defeating?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:11:47 UTC No. 16002007
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:17:03 UTC No. 16002013
>>16001598
Uhh ok nigger. You gonna tell me we didn’t really leave matt damon on mars next? You gonna tell me matthew mcconaughey didn’t really go through a wormhole to another solar system? It’s just a movie. It’s just for fun.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:21:03 UTC No. 16002017
>>16001083
Nuclear propulsion when?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:21:29 UTC No. 16002018
Global Room-Temperature Superconductivity in Graphite", peer reviewed and published in Applied Quantum Materials, presents strong evidence for T=300K superconductivity in cleaved, highly oriented pyrolytic graphite, with an underlying physical theory. Check out the data (1/4):
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:21:33 UTC No. 16002019
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
> In another, arguably more important way, Ingenuity may forever change the way NASA, other space agencies, and eventually private companies explore and settle the Solar System. The program did so by using commercial, off-the-shelf parts.
>The scientists and engineers who built the helicopter had no choice. Flying on Mars is incredibly demanding. The air is so thin it is equivalent to flying at an elevation of 80,000 feet on Earth, or three times higher than the peak of Mount Everest. Helicopters on Earth can max out at an altitude of about 25,000 feet before the air is too thin to support the rotation of their blades. So to meet the demands of Mars, Ingenuity's designers had to be ruthless in their choices. They could not afford the mass of radiation-hardened components, like for batteries and computers.
>So they bought commercially available parts and rolled the dice—with astonishing results. Many NASA missions will never be the same.
COTS wins once again, space is hard mass autists BTFO
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:21:56 UTC No. 16002020
>>16002017
It's a meme
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:23:33 UTC No. 16002022
>>16002017
The DRACO demo is NET 2027, launching on a Vulcan.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:24:26 UTC No. 16002024
>>16002013
I have other ways to have fun.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:24:57 UTC No. 16002025
>>16002013
feeling . . . a little upset?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:26:04 UTC No. 16002027
>>16002017
Once we have a method of doing it which actually out performs chemical rockets
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:26:31 UTC No. 16002028
>>16001878
>the Orbiter was not a launch vehicle, it just had the main engines that carried it from the ground to orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:27:35 UTC No. 16002030
>>16001928
Dreamchaser's heat shield cannot handle Lunar return velocities.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:28:18 UTC No. 16002031
>>16002030
just slow down first
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:31:11 UTC No. 16002033
>>16002013
It's funny how Starship undermines the setting of an Astronaut stuck on Mars because launch cadance is so low.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:32:01 UTC No. 16002036
>>16002030
Activate the QI drive to scrub off velocity to Earth reentry velocity, easy
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:32:13 UTC No. 16002037
>>16002031
With what?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:33:02 UTC No. 16002039
>>16002036
In fact, scrub even that velocity off and just have it drop down over Florida like a feather falling from the cosmos, would be kino.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:51:53 UTC No. 16002053
>>16002019
Hold on, doesn't this mean we can make super high-altitude helicopters here on Earth by just making the blades really big?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:52:17 UTC No. 16002054
>>16001795
use poor people as propellant
they can be converted to methalox
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:54:35 UTC No. 16002058
>>16001994
>Imagine if Stephen Hawking could communicate faster than a speed typist or auctioneer.
>Stephen William Hawking (8 January 1942 – 14 March 2018)
Neuralink will allow us to communicate with the dead
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 01:59:44 UTC No. 16002062
JUST FUCK STARSHIP FUCK SLS FUCK ARTEMIS
GRAB FALCON HEAVY AND GO TO THE FUCKING MOON TOMMOROW
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:00:50 UTC No. 16002064
>>16002022
Big if true
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:04:55 UTC No. 16002068
Wasn't there an anon who was wondering how a simple metal plate for the QI drive could block unruh radiation or something anyways
>Quantized inertia predicts that a new kind of propulsion can be achieved by energizing the vacuum and making gradients in it using synthetic 'horizons' (conductive materials)
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:05:14 UTC No. 16002070
>>16002053
maybe, mars has much lower gravity
not sure about the exact relationship for max height (g vs air pressure)
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:07:45 UTC No. 16002075
>>16002053
a mars rover just flew over my house!
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:14:03 UTC No. 16002089
>>16002068
Yeah that was me. I still don't understand but at least "energising the vacuum" means there's more going on than a simple plate.
I hope it works.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:17:10 UTC No. 16002092
>>16002089
I guess the plate is to make a synthetic horizon, idk I don't understand it well either, I don't think it will work, but the fact that they measured thrust in vacuum in a lab setup is interesting
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:18:17 UTC No. 16002096
>>16002019
> The RAD750, introduced in 2001, is based on 1990s technology. The modern Qualcomm processor was designed for performance and has the benefit of 20 years of advancement in microprocessor technology. In addition to being orders of magnitudes cheaper—the RAD750 costs about a quarter of a million dollars, while the Qualcomm processor goes into inexpensive mobile phones—the newer chip has bucketloads of more performance.
lol
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:20:51 UTC No. 16002099
>>16002096
>the RAD750 costs about a quarter of a million dollars
Why? If I'm selling lemonade but I charge $30,000 a glass nobody's gonna buy my damned sugar water. Why are they like that?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:22:18 UTC No. 16002101
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:23:11 UTC No. 16002104
>>16002099
government bureaucrats being extremely risk averse and also congress funneling money into special interests
there is no competition
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:23:13 UTC No. 16002105
>>16002099
Grift
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:30:25 UTC No. 16002109
>>16002099
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAD75
>The RAD750 is a radiation-hardened single-board computer manufactured by BAE Systems Electronics, Intelligence & Support. The successor of the RAD6000, the RAD750 is for use in high-radiation environments experienced on board satellites and spacecraft.
>The CPU can withstand an absorbed radiation dose of 2,000 to 10,000 grays (200,000 to 1,000,000 rads), temperatures between −55 °C and 125 °C, and requires 5 watts of power. The standard RAD750 single-board system (CPU and motherboard) can withstand 1,000 grays (100,000 rads), temperatures between −55 °C and 70 °C, and requires 10 watts of power.
One is a specialty processor designed for spaceflight operations and that other is used in smartphones. Batch size alone would justify most of the price difference even before you get into the technical specs.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:33:57 UTC No. 16002118
>>16002109
>specialty processor designed for spaceflight operations
otherwise know as massive grift. did you notice the off the shelf processor lasted half a decade without issues?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:41:11 UTC No. 16002129
>>16002118
How can someone post on /sfg/ and still be too dumb to get how economies of scale work?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:43:12 UTC No. 16002131
>>16002129
I get how they work, and that’s why I think you should capitalize on them buy buying the cheap mass produced option that does the same job.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:45:52 UTC No. 16002134
>>16002131
good for Mars at least but probably not lunar surface, outer planets etc, maybe Titan?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:46:19 UTC No. 16002135
>>16002131
or the very least use something derived from the commercial option lightly modified so it enjoys the economies of scale of the commercial option
but looks like even that isn't really necessary
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:49:15 UTC No. 16002139
>>16001862
The S-II stage was a payload. It ignited before the S-II reached orbital altitude (or velocity, smartass).
The Shuttle also ignited before it reached orbital altitude.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:52:52 UTC No. 16002143
> Of more immediate use to some, is a way of extracting tax money for research, and in that measure of usefulness, dark matter has the advantage because the search can go on for an entire career.
lmoaa
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 02:55:35 UTC No. 16002147
>>16002134
voting computers and a little bit of lead foil. the days of crappy mass autism radiation resistant boutique components are over
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:06:15 UTC No. 16002153
>>16002147
>voting computers
Can I put my mom's brain in there?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:23:58 UTC No. 16002174
>>16001810
planetary science decadal has been demanding msr, it's nasa's fault completely for complexifying it so much that it's an unpalettable failure
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:24:55 UTC No. 16002176
https://web.archive.org/web/2013120
>Q: So, these flight computers on Dragon – there are three on board, and that's for redundancy?
>A: There are actually six computers. They operate in pairs, so there are three computer units, each of which have two computers checking on each other.
>Q: But there's nothing on the spacecraft in the way of radiation-hardened parts?
>A: The parts aren't hardened, the design as a total system is hardened. What it is is each part does not go through the screening that is typical of radiation hardened parts.
>Q: What's the downside to buying radiation-hardened hardware or software? Is it expensive, or just not widely available?
>A: It's really not the expense that drives it. We're committed to having the best possible parts in all of our designs.
>And what really is more important to us than the cost of the parts is the capability of the parts –
>how much power do they use, how much memory do they hold, how much do they process, and how physically big are they.
>That's the first thing.
spacex is already well aware of the scam that is rad hardening. sorry about that link by the way
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:27:39 UTC No. 16002177
>>16002030
not my problem
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:29:22 UTC No. 16002180
>>16002176
all space rated hardware is a scam like this
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:31:29 UTC No. 16002183
>>16002180
Yeah, bro just go with a shit ton of food that Is going to rot or add weight to the payload, space rated food is a scam bro
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:43:57 UTC No. 16002197
>>16002139
the S-II stage was not a payload, it was a stage.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:45:14 UTC No. 16002201
>>16001227
>GEO to GEO ASAT
I'm so fucking erect right now. Are there any knowers here who can fill me in on this glowie shit?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:45:44 UTC No. 16002202
>>16002174
it's JPL's fault
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:46:42 UTC No. 16002205
>>16002183
I wonder how much the NASA space rated(tm) astronaut mashed potato flakes cost compared to the exact same thing from Bass Pro.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:46:52 UTC No. 16002206
>>16002183
you're a retard and you should leave
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:47:19 UTC No. 16002210
>>16002202
Jpl killed ingenuity
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:48:49 UTC No. 16002212
>>16002206
I was here before you fuck you
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:49:32 UTC No. 16002215
>>16002212
you've been here since december 2018? you should have left long ago.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:54:26 UTC No. 16002224
>>16002215
Hey, don't mess with me brotha i made this place kneel
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:55:03 UTC No. 16002225
>>16002222
Damage the O-rings intentionally, disgruntled employee.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 03:56:55 UTC No. 16002231
>>16001225
>manned SRBs
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:01:25 UTC No. 16002239
>>16002183
are you retarded? non-space rated long shelf life food exists and mass autism is retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:03:10 UTC No. 16002242
>>16002225
On that note...
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la
Furthermore, why didn't the subcontractor who actually manufactured those o rings ever, through all of 1985 and before the Challenger launch, say to Thiokol and NASA, "hey, since o rings don't work worth a damn in the cold, we do not recommend using our product below 53 degrees"
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:05:18 UTC No. 16002246
>>16002239
>are you retarded?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:13:00 UTC No. 16002255
>>16002224
your accomplishments are dust. I killed the asukafag.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:14:37 UTC No. 16002256
>>16002255
Then its personal you dingbat
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:15:06 UTC No. 16002257
>>16001100
fuck that tumor shelby
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:16:54 UTC No. 16002261
>>16002231
I'd ride one, imagine how badass you'd feel riding an ICBM to space.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:17:55 UTC No. 16002266
>>16002183
>space rated food is a scam bro
This absolute fool has never even HEARD of Steve1989MREinfo.
Point at him and laugh.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:17:58 UTC No. 16002267
>>16002053
I suspect that a chopper optimized for 80k' would have issues near sea-level
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:21:27 UTC No. 16002269
>>16002267
the helicopter altitude record was set in 1972. it can't be that hard to beat.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:28:11 UTC No. 16002277
>>16002261
You could put a Mercury capsule on top of a Minotaur IV and still have plenty of payload to spare.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:30:15 UTC No. 16002278
>>16002277
Imagine how rad that'd be, I'd even ride that out to the moon and back if it were capable.
>"oooh you're stuck in your seat for a week, who could take such a strain?"
Me. I can take it. Happily.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:39:55 UTC No. 16002283
>>16002242
They did and the engineers knew and told the administrators multiple times but they ignored them and launched anyway
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:41:56 UTC No. 16002285
>>16002278
We never should have retired Mercury. The Soviets got so much mileage out of repurposing their old Vostok designs some of them are still flying today. A single-seat capsule would weigh less than 2000 kg so it could be lifted by even the more ambitious small launchers and could be used for actual orbital tourism or zero-g synthesis and return.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 04:57:14 UTC No. 16002292
>>16002290
what is it about?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:08:10 UTC No. 16002303
>>16002269
>42500' altitude record for a helicopter
80000 is a lot higher up bruh. You could maybe, MAYBE get a little RC toy like ingenuity up there, but a helicopter that could carry any usable payload would have enormous blades whit tips going Mach Jesus. Reminded that Ingenuity had a blade span of ~4' and weighed 3lbs
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:09:25 UTC No. 16002307
>>16002290
>Swift
cringe
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:13:19 UTC No. 16002311
>>16002292
stuff
just started a week ago
>>16002307
its not swift doe
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:17:19 UTC No. 16002315
>>16002311
Looks cool
>its not swift doe
wait what is it then
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:19:18 UTC No. 16002318
>>16002315
godot
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:48:42 UTC No. 16002334
>>16001083
It's so cool to see the SRBs like this. You never get to see it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:49:46 UTC No. 16002335
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:50:50 UTC No. 16002338
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 05:59:43 UTC No. 16002343
>>16002332
>1.9k replies
why are rightoids so hostile to the moon landings and space in general?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:03:10 UTC No. 16002347
>>16002343
>Why are rightoids
They aren't. Your schizophenic imagined enemy that exists solely in your head is.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:04:17 UTC No. 16002348
>>16002311
Oh that's fucking neato burrito, keep going anon
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:05:29 UTC No. 16002350
>>16002347
lol yes they are
the moon landing deniers and flat earthers are all part of the schizo right that thinks everything is a conspiracy
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:07:59 UTC No. 16002351
>>16002350
A few points
>Calling it a conspiracy theory doesn't automatically disprove it
>You don't know the political affiliations of the people who don't believe it
Stop trying to gaslight the thread into believing your bullshit.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:10:56 UTC No. 16002353
>>16002351
yeah bro we all know that flerfs are actually leftist
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:11:23 UTC No. 16002354
>>16002343
Also applies to leftoids.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:12:51 UTC No. 16002356
>>16002353
Actually from what I've seen it seems to be quite apolitical even if /pol/ has a lot of schizo conspiracy theorists
I don't think you can make the deduction that flerfers are right-wing just because /pol/ is mainly right wing and has some flerfers
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:12:52 UTC No. 16002357
>>16002354
the difference is that they don't deny the science about it
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:14:20 UTC No. 16002358
>>16002354
This always makes me kek. $8 a day in the 60s/70s to feed a niglet? Bitch please that was a whole fucking basket of groceries back then.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:15:31 UTC No. 16002360
>>16002356
being schizophrenic is right wing
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:16:32 UTC No. 16002362
>>16002356
>even if /pol/ has a lot of schizo conspiracy theorists
Is this your first day in the internet? The overwhelming majority of those are well poisoners, either real glowniggers or their bots. They don't like people talking about real, genuine conspiracy theories so they unload a bunch of spastic bullshit like flat earth and religious walls of text into their camp to discredit anything they talk about.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:21:37 UTC No. 16002367
>>16002356
>Actually from what I've seen it seems to be quite apolitical
Horseshit
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:25:47 UTC No. 16002375
>>16002176
I mean, I don't make space shit, but we rad harden all of our computers and that amounts to the design of the shell, not the actual internal components themselves (except for a nuke circuit). thermals are the main limiter. also I question the reliability of high performance parts meeting real time software goals, they are absolutely riddled with hacks to make them as fast as possible in the >99% case with no regard for the <1%.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:26:27 UTC No. 16002376
>>16002362
yes, but that is kind of irrelevant to my point
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:35:58 UTC No. 16002390
>>16002343
They are hostile to The Narrative (because a lot of it is false) and since a lot of them are too stupid to evaluate claims themselves they default to thinking everything said by the media and state institutions is false. Lefties do the opposite and think everything is true. This is equally if not more retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:38:00 UTC No. 16002392
>>16002390
leftists also don't like the establishment
you are confusing them with the neoliberals, who are the establishment bootlickers
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:39:05 UTC No. 16002395
>>16001802
Never forget.
https://globalnews.ca/news/9328626/
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:39:13 UTC No. 16002397
>>16002027
Well I have great news for you then anon.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:39:30 UTC No. 16002398
>>16002392
No, leftists pretend to dislike the establishment because that's important to their self-conception as rebels but they agree with the establishment on everything, except foreign policy sometimes
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:41:04 UTC No. 16002402
>>16002398
>sometimes
the left has always been anti-war
again, you are confusing them with neo libs, who aren't the same even though its convenient to bunch them together
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:45:19 UTC No. 16002409
>>16002402
>the left has always been anti-war
nope, not when its war on whites, they were massively gung ho over the balkan conflict and they're the only ones who care even slightly about ukraine
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:46:55 UTC No. 16002412
>>16002392
>leftists also don't like the establishment
the entire academic establishment is massively leftist as is the media establishment, hollywood and most of the federal bureaucracy.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:50:19 UTC No. 16002414
>>16002409
im talking about the American left,
and they are actually pro Russia in this case lol
and it gets even more confusing when you hear about so-called "MAGA" community or nazbols
by "anti-war" I mean more like anti-American intervention in any conflict
>>16002412
if that's true, then why don't we have universal healthcare or other aspects of a socialized economy? If you have a capitalist system in place, then you are still not left-wing, even if you are progressive in social values.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 06:58:43 UTC No. 16002425
>>16002414
ok you're retarded
goodnight
america is a communist country btw
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:01:14 UTC No. 16002429
>>16002153
Naoko was a crazy bitch.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:03:24 UTC No. 16002431
>>16002425
If Biden is a communist, then what does that make Bernie? A super communist? What about the CPUSA? Are they super DUPER communists?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:04:31 UTC No. 16002432
>>16002431
yeah
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:05:38 UTC No. 16002433
>>16002432
so using this logic, republicans are liberals and trump is a center-right moderate looool
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:06:47 UTC No. 16002435
>>16002433
that's pretty accurate
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:08:23 UTC No. 16002437
>>16002433
why a moderate? why not go far right?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:09:37 UTC No. 16002438
>>16002433
Trump is a nineties democrat
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:12:41 UTC No. 16002442
>>16002438
would a '90s Democrat have people storm the capitol for them?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:13:37 UTC No. 16002443
>>16002201
There is a rumor that part of the push for LEO swarms and cheaper launch was that the Russians had placed exploding suicide sats next to many of our big birds in MEO, HEO, and GEO to be detonated the minute a war started. GPS, nuclear detection, launch monitoring, comms, battlefield imaging, etc. That's why they were so disproportionately shitter shattered when Starlink nerds were able to push patches to slice through battlefield jamming, they have no corresponding ASAT capability. GEO to GEO ASAT would need SLS because you'd need a single turboclassified launch to put a BIG FUCKING KILLSAT armed with missiles or megawatt lasers directly inserted into GEO to either countersnipe those hajjisats or directly target Russian or Chinese military GEO birds.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:13:55 UTC No. 16002444
>>16002442
Police opening the doors and escorting a bunch of retarded boomers around is not "storming the capitol". Just fuck off already.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:14:47 UTC No. 16002445
>>16002444
would these retarded boomers believe in the moon landing?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:15:47 UTC No. 16002449
>>16002442
Bill Clinton pardoned a Jewish terrorist who set a bomb at the Capitol in the 80s so yeah.
>Rosenberg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:17:24 UTC No. 16002451
>>16002449
Clinton W
just like how he canceled the lunar outpost program
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:18:00 UTC No. 16002452
>>16002451
kys mudfoot
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:19:27 UTC No. 16002457
>>16002452
i never watched Fat Albert
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:36:52 UTC No. 16002475
>>16002442
That never happened so we will never know.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 07:40:32 UTC No. 16002480
>>16001994
This is good because now Christian hackers can insert feelings of religiosity into scientists' brains and bring them back to Christ ^w^
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:28:14 UTC No. 16002513
>>16002480
Neuralink is currently an output-only system.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 08:30:47 UTC No. 16002515
>>16002513
The input is the targeted content, silly ^_~
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:18:10 UTC No. 16002534
Goos night
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:30:25 UTC No. 16002543
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 09:40:03 UTC No. 16002552
>>16002414
>universal healthcare or other aspects of a socialized economy?
That shit is just window dressing. Elite leftists have never cared about the so-called People.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:38:49 UTC No. 16002589
>>16001802
https://youtu.be/G70S5fumHso
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:49:18 UTC No. 16002601
>>16001866
SLS's fat ass is launching an entire upper stage to GTO in addition to Orion
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 10:59:48 UTC No. 16002607
>>16002170
too many stages, too much hypergolics, the guidance, control and heat shielding wasn't there yet
but yeah, TSTO fully reusable architectures are the meta for Earth, VTVL is a proven technology now so you can just use that for your first stage and do boostback
>>16002311
>calling it Terra
godspeed
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:00:33 UTC No. 16002608
>>16001770
Delays are just how NASA is, no president can touch that
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:04:09 UTC No. 16002612
>>16002513
Neuralink would be ludicrously useful tool if it stayed that way
but we're inevitably going to get input/output and its going to be used for evil by the small hat tribe
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:06:42 UTC No. 16002616
>>16002612
Free Will used to be real. It was a biological construct. It has been taken from us. Free will has finally been conquered, and we're all the better for it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:07:27 UTC No. 16002619
>>16002285
mercury wasn't orbital silly.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:08:36 UTC No. 16002622
>>16002285
TKS is the Pete Best of spacecraft
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:10:15 UTC No. 16002625
>>16001155
Can someone redpill me on the appeal of model rocketry. I feel like it is closer to building Warhammer figurines than designing your own rocket, and it doesn't tickle my particular autism.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:11:04 UTC No. 16002627
>>16002375
Falcon 9 is currently the longest success streak of any rocket. Safe to say the philosophy works.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:11:32 UTC No. 16002629
>>16002619
Redstone-Mercury was not orbital
Atlas-Mercury was orbital
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:12:33 UTC No. 16002634
>>16002625
model rocketry is a subset of hobby rocketry
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:15:34 UTC No. 16002636
>>16002625
You are correct. Designing and building remote control drones is more fun, not just because of the options you have but because driving an RC submarine or rover around is way more fun than watching a model rocket go up and come down over like two minutes after 19 hours of prep.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:16:50 UTC No. 16002638
>>16002629
Gemini is the capsule we should have kept flying and improving.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:18:11 UTC No. 16002640
>>16002638
you have drunk the poisoned wine of contractors desperate to keep the gravy train rolling, it was fine
the thing we needed to keep was the will to do orbital assembly and renezvous
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:28:28 UTC No. 16002653
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:39:55 UTC No. 16002662
>>16002652
yeah, we've seen it
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:44:21 UTC No. 16002667
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:46:19 UTC No. 16002671
>>16002662
Hard to be excited for anything else by comparison. I'm not willing to pretend to be excited for most other stuff.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:50:11 UTC No. 16002676
>>16002671
I like how purple it is
I'm looking forward to Starlink launches from the cape, I hope it looks purple from my beach
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 11:58:39 UTC No. 16002688
Leading scientist for the Long March 5 & 7 rockets expelled from China’s top advisory body after a meeting on Monday, amid Beijing’s investigation into leaders of the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force on suspicion of corruption.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:26:51 UTC No. 16002707
>>16002703
>that pic
Jesus christ. It really is over.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 12:33:35 UTC No. 16002713
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:27:16 UTC No. 16002758
>>16002713
Tesla Drago 9 is where SpaveX peaked
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:39:13 UTC No. 16002811
>>16002443
I've gotta wonder wonder what sort of counter measures they have installed on the KH-11s. If they have a means to maneuver quickly/ DEWs to blind or disable other sats, ect
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 14:43:33 UTC No. 16002814
>>16002180
scientific and industrial equipment in general is ridiculously overpriced
industrial panel PC costs like $2000 - for a "rig" with 1.7Gh Celeron CPU and 2GBs of RAM
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:06:48 UTC No. 16002840
>>16001145
>implying Musk wouldn't take the bog pill instead
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:07:35 UTC No. 16002843
>>16002814
Are scientists fucking retarded
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:22:27 UTC No. 16002857
>>16002811
I've always liked the idea of parasitic pusher sats. Imagine a little cube sat with an ion thruster that gets deployed from one of the spy birds (or a purpose made carrier in a higher grave yard orbit), latches onto an adversary's satellite and just pushes it around. Not enough to deorbit, but enough for to burn up station keeping propellant. I don't know what the capabilities are as far as surveillance in GEO, but if you could do this undetected, you have the other guys on the ground thinking that they'd sprung a leak
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:28:11 UTC No. 16002863
>>16002857
>sprung a leak
your dad sprung on the bed last night, if you get my drift.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 15:41:03 UTC No. 16002873
>>16001202
>Why do we have to wear these ridiculous ties?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:18:28 UTC No. 16002911
>>16002350
There's something broken in your soul.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:19:38 UTC No. 16002913
>>16002625
It is neat to see a thing you built go 'woosh' and fly up really high.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:24:24 UTC No. 16002919
>>16002338
>>16002335
>>16002334
Literally one company, one country, on this entire godamn planet does this all for political reasons and it led to the deaths of 7 astronauts
crazy
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:31:50 UTC No. 16002923
>>16001117
omg he said the title of the movie
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:38:27 UTC No. 16002931
>>16002350
Yep I noticed this too, they'll call you vaxxer out of nowhere when debunking them and will believe in even crazier shit like Tartaria and chemtrails, and sometimes Q anon and Trump truthers.
They don't just believe in one conspiracy in isolation, they believe in a whole slew of them, sometimes often contradictory ones too I've noticed but they don't reconcile that.
That's why I noticed its often not worth debunking them, because they are just more conspiracy minded by default, some of the ones I argued with on /pol/ to the point of them not replying with their shitty out of context webms and images on one thread just ended up posting the exact same webms and arguments in another thread the next day (ISS is in a pool its underwater its all fake), like talking to a brick wall they retain nothing, its too deeply tied up with their identity or something
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:42:57 UTC No. 16002934
>>16002931
They are doing it with the super bowl and taylor swift now. It's like anything can be taken and turned into a conspiracy against them.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:44:55 UTC No. 16002935
>>16002934
>>16002931
Are these conspiracy theorists in the room with you right now?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:45:57 UTC No. 16002936
>>16002935
No they're on /pol/ and a sizable number on twitter, you'll find them in the comments of almost every fucking spaceflight post, flat earther accounts with over 100k followers, (one of which blocked me lmao)
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:46:59 UTC No. 16002937
>>16002935
No they are on /pol/ and twitter.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:49:11 UTC No. 16002941
>>16002936
>>16002937
Way to not make it obvious you are running on the same talking points.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:50:06 UTC No. 16002944
>>16002941
That's such a conspiracy minded thing to say,
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:55:36 UTC No. 16002955
>>16002931
There are many conspiracies which are obviously true, and there are many which are very obviously astroturfed nonsense. Inorganic ones have a certain stink to them, I can't describe it accurately enough. There's just something about mudflood that rings hollow when you hear it, versus JFK getting domed by CIA/Mossad which is pretty obviously true.
The ones I hate most are the "space is fake", "earth is flat", "nukes aren't real" shitters. They have no point, they're doggedly convinced, they desperately want (you) to believe too. I have a hard time believing any of it is organic, its too stupid and I simply don't believe it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:57:22 UTC No. 16002958
>>16002311
Cool stuff, Anon. How do you plan on dealing with multiple celestial bodies, going to keep it simple without dealing with all the complex n-body problem?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 16:59:34 UTC No. 16002961
>>16002958
I'm planning on using patched conics, so yes just a two-body simulation based on the craft entering the sphere of influence.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:00:05 UTC No. 16002964
>>16002955
Associating credible things with the batshit insane is boilerplate propaganda.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:00:42 UTC No. 16002967
>>16002761
Interesting how now both CRS spacecraft launch on falcon. Hows that for dissimilar redundancy.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:01:16 UTC No. 16002968
>>16002955
>Inorganic ones have a certain stink to them, I can't describe it accurately enough. There's just something about mudflood that rings hollow when you hear it, versus JFK getting domed by CIA/Mossad which is pretty obviously true.
I unironically can't image a worse state of mind then just believing things based on my own "intuition". You are literally just an automaton following the whims of your own brain chemistry.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:02:56 UTC No. 16002970
>>16002967
NASA/DoD don't like it at all but have no choice
other companies simply can't compete!
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:03:02 UTC No. 16002971
>>16002311
>>16002290
Very impressive for only two weeks, do you have previous game dev experience? Also this is in godot right?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:03:09 UTC No. 16002973
>>16002968
>don't believe your eyes and ears, only whst you are told to think
I bet you thought that cloth mask did something.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:04:10 UTC No. 16002978
>>16002955
>"space is fake", "earth is flat", "nukes aren't real" shitters.
The nukes one is wild, my guess is that once they are open to disbelieving basic facts like the shape of the Earth and the daily reality of spaceflight and the 99% steady historical record then believing nukes are fake despite ALL the evidence is just not much a stretch huh, Maybe the common theme is these are all past major events we don't see anymore (moon landings and open nuclear testing)
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:06:58 UTC No. 16002984
>>16002713
get an ad schizo.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:07:04 UTC No. 16002985
>>16002973
The irony is palpable. You can go grab a spray bottle and test out how it works with a cloth mask vs without one. But you would rather believe what you are told then test it yourself.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:07:07 UTC No. 16002986
>>16002971
yeah, its in godot.
I first started on scratch(block coding) when I was in middle school and had some of my games reach 50K plus views
I switched to Godot in 2020, but I've only made prototype games so far. This isn't the first time I've tried to make a 2D space game, but this is the most developed one I've made so far. I posted some pics of my older attempt during the ift-1 thread
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:10:14 UTC No. 16002990
>>16002986
Pretty cool, it looks great. I've been working on my own godot game, but it's not spaceflight related. You should post it in >>>/vg/agdg demo day when it comes around again.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:13:03 UTC No. 16002995
>>16002985
If you haven't admitted to having been wrong this late into things you never, ever will.
Talk about a terrible state of mind, damn.
>>16002978
I wish a rogue state WOULD test a nuke in the open simply to shut those faggots up for five minutes.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:13:25 UTC No. 16002996
T*rks need to fuck off from the NASA livestream, this mission doesn't even concern you
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:15:54 UTC No. 16003003
>>16002995
>"Hey man you can test these things for yourself, you don't need to believe what you read online"
>"No you are wrong, I know it already. I will not test things myself, I will not use my own eyes and ears, I will only believe what I am told by my conspiracy websites"
Ok. No skin off my back.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:16:25 UTC No. 16003004
It's that easy in rocketry
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:16:32 UTC No. 16003005
Kino landing
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:18:33 UTC No. 16003013
>>16003005
it never gets old
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:19:22 UTC No. 16003016
why the chode nozzle?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:20:06 UTC No. 16003020
>>16003016
It's kenough
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:21:43 UTC No. 16003028
>>16001148
How much lift does it generate?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:23 UTC No. 16003030
>>16003028
kenough
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:22:57 UTC No. 16003033
>>16003016
Cheaper. Doesn't need the higher specific impulse of the full nozzle.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:27:37 UTC No. 16003040
>>16003003
Admitting to having been wrong is something smart people are capable of, you can take the minor hit to your ego in order to be more factually correct and feel better for it. I'm sorry anon but you were tricked, the masks did nothing. There's no debate to be had, if you want to argue that they were effective for anything go argue it at a wall, nobody is listening anymore. You've pigeonholed yourself into a corner, and it will take an act of internal courage to escape it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:31:47 UTC No. 16003045
>>16003040
Why are you so scared to test it yourself then? Afraid of what your eyes might see or your ears might hear?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:32:46 UTC No. 16003049
>>16003045
At the wall it is then, godspeed.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:33:38 UTC No. 16003051
>>16003049
>don't believe your eyes and ears, only whst you are told to think
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:33:51 UTC No. 16003053
Hard to believe we're getting 22 launches this month! January used to be the slowest with only a launch a week expected. Looking forward to tonight's recovery attempt by Rocket Lab.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:34:36 UTC No. 16003054
>>16003043
I don't think they terribly mind it, the Falcon 9 was specifically engineered for horizontal transport for logistics purposes.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:40:44 UTC No. 16003063
>>16003051
Don't (you) me, cultist wacko.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:42:04 UTC No. 16003065
>>16001848
One could put it this way. The F9/Antares rockets have a certain payload capacity. The orbiting Dragon/Cygnus spacecraft have a certain payload capacity, which is lower than that of their respective carrier rockets. Since the Shuttle was both part of the rocket and the orbiting spacecraft, it's its payload capacity that is of interest, and it's 27 tons.
Really though, I'd say the reasonable way to state it is that whether the Shuttle orbiter counts as payload or upper stage dry mass depends on the mission.
If getting the orbiter (including the wings and SSMEs) to orbit is considered an end goal by itself, then the orbiter counts as payload.
If getting the payload bay contents into orbit is the end goal, then that's what counts as payload and the orbiter counts as final stage and fairing.
If getting the payload bay contents into a high orbit is the end goal, then what counts as payload is the payload bay contents minus the extra kick stage.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:43:14 UTC No. 16003071
>>16003043
SLC-6 will be the first vertical Falcon facility
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:45:22 UTC No. 16003074
>>16003030
If that's the requirement to be considered a spaceplane, then every working spacecraft is a spaceplane
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:48:38 UTC No. 16003079
>>16003074
yeah but they don't have flapperinos
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:48:50 UTC No. 16003080
>>16003076
booster stole the show from Cygnus lmaooo
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:49:40 UTC No. 16003082
>>16002442
I think the people trying to disrupt the Kavanaugh confirmation vote were agitated by Democrats, however that happened in the late 2010s, not the 90s
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:53:50 UTC No. 16003088
>>16003065
The point of interest with the Orbiter's mass being that without it, like with Shuttle-C, the STS became a SHLV.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 17:56:24 UTC No. 16003097
>>16002099
>Why are they like that?
No economies of scale
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:11:24 UTC No. 16003112
>>16003088
The Shuttle-C would indeed have been a SHLV, however, the Shuttle-C isn't the same as the actual Shuttle, and Shuttle-C wasn't built. In my opinion, it's not fair or meaningful to use the numbers for another design that would have been better.
Besides, I don't think Shuttle orbiter mass is exactly the same as Shuttle-C payload mass would have been, because Shuttle-C still had to contend with fairing and SSME mass.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:16:38 UTC No. 16003120
>>16002652
>>16002671
Consider it this way. Competition is necessary for the long-term progression of spaceflight, both geopolitical competition as well as commercial competition. Thus it matters what no 2 does, both the domestic no 2 as well as the foreign no 2.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:22:38 UTC No. 16003125
>>16003120
Geopolitical competition and technology competition are interrelated subjects, but speaking strictly towards technology, no vehicles generate interest like Starship.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:22:51 UTC No. 16003126
>>16001227
>some kind of spacecraft that uses a very eccentric beyond-geostationary orbit to get beyond the reach of Chinese anti-GEO weapons
Developing and building a new weapon is probably a lot cheaper for the Chinese than developing and building such a spacecraft would be for the US
Besides, what useful work can you do from a highly eccentric beyond-geostationary orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:29:42 UTC No. 16003141
>>16002005
Depends on whether those satellites have the resolution to provide effective targeting data for Iranian ballistic missiles, or at least provide deniability for targeting data provided by Russia and China
Also, Iran bought a bigger turnkey satellite from Russia
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:33:02 UTC No. 16003148
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcu
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:35:40 UTC No. 16003152
>>16003125
That's if you only care about the most cutting edge technology. But even not-state-of-the-art technology can be interesting.
For example, it can be interesting to look at the various variations of F9-style rockets that Blorigin, Rocket Lab, Chinese rocket developers, etc, are going for, and speculating on why they make those choices, such as variations in size class, fuels, tank diameter, tank material, landing mechanisms, engine combustion cycle, etc. Or the merits of solid-propellant rapid launch systems. Or the relative merits of sea launch versus conventional land launch. And so on.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:38:27 UTC No. 16003157
>>16003152
If they were trying to match or catch SpaceX's flight rate with Falcon 9, I'd agree, but it's hard to find evidence of other organizations in the launch industry making the strategic choices that would make that possible.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:44:28 UTC No. 16003165
>>16003148
Wrong website sister. You want the reddit
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 18:54:22 UTC No. 16003173
https://www.tracingwoodgrains.com/p
This explains a lot why the FAA hates musk.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:14:09 UTC No. 16003203
>>16003157
>If they were trying to match or catch SpaceX's flight rate with Falcon 9
They absolutely are. For example, Space Pioneer aims to build a factory with a production capacity of Space Pioneer is building a factory with a stated final design capacity of 30 rockets and 500 engines per year. This likely refers to the TL-3 using the TH-12 engine. Each booster uses 7 engines I think, and is intended to be reused at least 10 times according to their website. Each upper stage uses 1 engine. So this factory would support a launch cadence of ~300 per year.
https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=Mj
Landspace's factory is intended to build 30 rockets and 300 engines per year. The ZQ-2 uses only 4 enginers for the first stage and 2 for the upper stage, so I assume this number also includes planned production of the future ZQ-3, a mox Falcon 9 equivalent which uses 9 engines for the first stage, intended to be at least 20 times reusable.
https://weibo.com/7299821485/NqR7Qp
AALPT is building a production line for 300 engines per year of type YF-102 and YF-209. The YF-102R variant of YF-102 is supposed to be reusable from 2026. These will likely be used for future reusable SAST rockets.
https://spacenews.com/chinese-state
Orienspace is building a ¥3B R&D center and factory in Wuxi with a design capacity of 300 liquid propellant rocket engines per year. Their YL-2 rocket is also intended to be reusable.
https://www.taibo.cn/p/92833
I think Jeff Bezos certainly intends for NG to match the F9 in capacity, at least in terms of payload launched per year.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:14:27 UTC No. 16003204
>>16002919
If SRB production is done by one company and is so important for national security, it should be nationalised.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:17:27 UTC No. 16003210
>>16003173
Do the FAA is preferentiqlly picking blacks, women and people with disabilities to become air traffic controllers to increase diversity
Going as far as to introduce ladt minute biographical questionnaires right before graduation with 90% fail rates and questions like "what was your lowest grade in in high school" and then rewarding those who answer "Science"
This is pretty fucking bad, you could die because of this in a planecrash
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:18:22 UTC No. 16003213
>>16003210
>what was your lowest grade in in high school" and then rewarding those who answer "Science"
How is this not just racist as all fuck
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:18:46 UTC No. 16003214
>>16003203
So the chinese are going to brute force starship capacity
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:19:00 UTC No. 16003216
>>16002978
The "nukes are fake" ones are basically retards who don't understand how we survived the Cold War.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:20:21 UTC No. 16003220
>>16003213
Mental acrobatics
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:20:26 UTC No. 16003221
>>16003210
>>16003213
I'm not a DEI obsessed freak, and have worked with a lot of cool people but this is N U T S. This is worse then anything I've ever read
>In 2014, the FAA rolled out the new biographical questionnaire in line with the Barrier Analysis recommendation, designed so that 90% or more of applicants would "fail." The questionnaire was not monitored, and people could take it at home. Questions asked prospective air traffic controllers how many sports they played in high school, how long they'd been unemployed recently, whether they were more eager or considerate, and seventy-some other questions. You can take a portion of it yourself here to see what they were up against. Graduates of the CTI program, like everyone else, had to "pass" this or they would be disqualified from further consideration. This came alongside other changes de-prioritizing CTI graduates.
What the fuuuuuuccckkk
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:23:28 UTC No. 16003227
>>16003221
And the correct answers to these were given to select groups
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:27:39 UTC No. 16003236
>>16003221
>>16003213
We tried to warn you and you made fun of us for it. Now you see the ramifications. You could have listened.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:28:28 UTC No. 16003239
>>16003236
I'm not some DEI champion/supporter retard
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:28:37 UTC No. 16003241
>>16003210
you trumptards are completely fucking delusional
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:29:56 UTC No. 16003242
>>16003239
Silence is violence
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:30:39 UTC No. 16003246
>>16003216
this shit doesnt even make sense. the "speak without speaking" thing using social media is the same as writing a letter to someone. the "see without seeing" thing is the same as seeing a photo and arguably even the same as seeing a painting representing a real place or person. Wake me up when everyone has brain chips and can actually talk without talking and see without seeing using the brain chip.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:30:40 UTC No. 16003247
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:34:53 UTC No. 16003253
>>16003241
Is this bait? What does this have to do with trump?
Read the fucking article, these are facts from a lawsuit
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:40:52 UTC No. 16003262
>>16003253
they arent facts, it's completely made up. alt facts for alt right nutjobs
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:42:38 UTC No. 16003265
>>16003262
The guy who wrote the article donated to Pete Buttigieg, and worked on a centrist podcast. I know you are trolling but you aren't helping anything. This shouldn't be a partisan issue, anyone can tell this is retarded as fuck.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:45:49 UTC No. 16003275
>>16003203
I have my doubts: I don't think any of these cited guys are actually in a position to produce 300 upper stages a year, engines or no engines.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:45:55 UTC No. 16003276
>>16003262
Enjoy getting killed by an incompetent air traffic controller lmao
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:49:57 UTC No. 16003289
>>16002811
>what countermeasures
ground based lasers that fried sensors and literal kinetic weapons
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 19:55:28 UTC No. 16003302
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:07:11 UTC No. 16003340
>>16003265
>>16003276
if you have to go back 10 years to take some nonsense out of context and somehow tie it to Boeing being a shitty company youre a fucking retard, and then somehow painting all of aerospace + FAA as DEI youre a buttfucking simpleton
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:11:29 UTC No. 16003350
>>16003340
>People will turn this into a culture war issue, and in one sense, that is perfectly fair: it represents a decades-long process of institutional failure at every level. A thousand things had to go wrong to get to this point, and if people want to harp on it—let them. But this is not a fundamentally partisan issue. Virtually nobody, looking dispassionately at that questionnaire, wants to defend it. Everybody wants competent, effective air traffic controllers. Everybody, I suspect, can sympathize with the people who paid and worked through years of education to have their career path suddenly pulled away for political reasons far beyond their control.
>I am confident that Buttigieg can see that just as well as the rest of us, that for many, it is simply the same neglect everybody else has shown towards the case that has led it to linger awkwardly unresolved for a decade. There is nothing to be gained from fighting the suit further. It is a black eye on the FAA, a black eye on the DOT, and a black eye on our public institutions as a whole.
If you can't just say "Yeah that's fucked up, those effected should be compensated and the people who put these practices in place should be removed" then you are lose in the sauce.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:18:40 UTC No. 16003366
>>16003340
I diagnose you with terminal leftism
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:19:13 UTC No. 16003368
https://www.pcmag.com/news/starlink
>Starlink's Laser System Is Beaming 42 Million GB of Data Per Day
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:20:26 UTC No. 16003370
>>16003368
>Brashears also said Starlink’s laser system can connect two satellites over 5,400 kilometers (3,355 miles) apart. The link is so long “it cut down through the atmosphere, all the way down to 30 kilometers above the surface of the Earth,” he said.
This is crazy
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:20:56 UTC No. 16003372
>>16003040
>don't listen to the shills with their liebrary of photographs, data, telescopes, pre colonial seafaring cultures navigating by stars etc... look at my grainy YouTube clips and poorly cropped Facebook memes. Those are the real facts.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:24:03 UTC No. 16003380
>>16003350
>If you can't just say "Yeah that's fucked up, those effected should be compensated and the people who put these practices in place should be removed"
That's not enough: the people who enabled the practitioners and the people teaching and promoting the practices in politics and higher education need to go just as much, if not more so.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:27:00 UTC No. 16003388
>>16003370
What the fuck thats insane
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:27:21 UTC No. 16003389
>>16003372
>liebrary
cause it's full of LIES, I see what you did there
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:41:38 UTC No. 16003413
>>16003173
Kek this is quite stupid, but for anyone not reading the article
>Happened in 2014
>Forbidden by law in 2016
>Nowhere does it say there weren't skill-based tests later on
All this is about is seeking recompense for a wrong that was stopped 8 years ago, so significance for current situations is minimal
Also if they'd just offered the skill test to everyone and not just just the college students instead of that braindead retarded questionnaire it would just be colleges seething while the FAA gets easier access to candidates. They shot themselves in the foot
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:42:44 UTC No. 16003417
>>16003173
With race mandates as primary fit check, this will bring disaster
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:54:44 UTC No. 16003431
>>16003368
https://spie.org/photonics-west/pre
Wish there was a video of that presentation
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:55:38 UTC No. 16003432
>>16003221
>>16003210
>>16003173
Yeah, it is insanely bad. The FAA made a >90% fail rate biographical questionnaire. The question weights were specifically made to be passed by minorities, (or anyone with the "cheat codes"). A black advocacy group, the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees, specifically told blacks what values to fill in to pass the filter.
For example,
>>Question 15:
The high school subject in which I received my lowest grade was:
A.) Science [15 points]
B.) Math [0 points]
C.) English [0 points]
D.) History/Social Science [0 points]
If you answered A, you got 15 points. If you answered any of the others, you got zero.
>>Question 29:
My peers would probably say that having someone criticize my performance (i.e. point out a mistake) bothers me:
A.) Much less than most [8 points]
B.) Somewhat less than most [4 points]
C.) About the same as most [8 points]
D.) Somewhat more than most [0 points]
E.) Much more than most. [10 points]
Sucks if you entered D, no points for you!
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:56:01 UTC No. 16003434
>>16003368
Also they can maintain those laser links for weeks at a time uninterrupted. And when change is required, can change in few ms.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 20:57:59 UTC No. 16003438
>>16003417
I think it already has, the number of near misses has been increasing
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:09:39 UTC No. 16003462
>>16003210
>>16003417
>>16003438
>>16003432
Try actually reading, niggers (maybe you'd score highly in this test), it is not happening anymore and has been forbidden by law.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:10:35 UTC No. 16003464
>>16003462
please, you can't seriously try to tell me with a straight face they aren't trying to do DEI through something else now?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:11:57 UTC No. 16003470
>>16003432
This is especially insidious, as these are explicitly anti competency. Did well in a subject related to the field (even though it was back in highschool), then we don't want you. Handle criticism well, get the fuck out. It is a self assessment so basically meaningless, but it selects for the exact type of person you wouldn't want to get the job.
I have to assume they did this so only those fed the answers, IE those in the black coalition would pass, because the answer people would expect to be what the agency is looking for is instead the worst. Thus you need to know to put the secret code of all wrong answers to pass.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:14:09 UTC No. 16003475
>>16003470
yep, with 70 questions its basically impossible to get the right answers if you aren't given the answer key
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:16:24 UTC No. 16003481
>>16003464
Your feelings of what you want to believe is happening now don't matter for the facts of this particular practice not happening and having been forbidden. If you want to discuss current DEI, show proof of it occurring and not being skill-filtered out later anyways.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:20:02 UTC No. 16003487
>>16003462
This isn't talking about the past thing, Biden admin issued a new mandate for FAA just recently
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:25:28 UTC No. 16003495
>>16003487
No, the article these posts are responding to and quoting from is about the class action about the questionnaire practice from 2014 that was forbidden in 2016.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:27:54 UTC No. 16003501
>>16003481
posts like this is the reason why it was absolutely critical for Musk to buy twitter
I'm not talking to you anymore, but everybody else reading this, can you see? This is not a problem that is going to solve itself
the people perpetrating it will keep dodging and gaslighting as long as they can and when it doesn't work, they slip by to do something else
quite an insidious slow process which started in Universities in the 70s
it needs to be stopped or it will stop due to a collapse or war of some kind eventually
debating people that perpetuate it doesn't work, just like debating flat earthers is not going to convince them, its pointless
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:37:35 UTC No. 16003511
>>16003275
You don't think China, of all countries, can start producing 300+ aluminium tanks per year?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:38:36 UTC No. 16003514
>>16003275
>>16003511
Or what is it that you see as the bottleneck, if not the engines or tanks?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:40:48 UTC No. 16003518
>>16003514
Rocket upper stages are a lot more than just tanks. Pressure management, guidance, navigation and control, ullage volume, and propellant settling all require very good engineering and the upper stage is the most mass-sensitive part of a launch vehicle. Keeping the vehicle's quality control up, building it in quantity, and having it actually work is not a trivial problem.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:44:01 UTC No. 16003520
>>16003511
this isn't a video game
modern manufacturing isn't a couple bits of shitty scrap metal welded together like orks, but tens of thousands of unique individual parts even in an ideal case
the tolerances and requirements are tight enough that only the very best manufacturers can be trusted to do the job, since this is first and foremost a prestige theatre and failure means someone is getting fucking shot
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:52:12 UTC No. 16003532
>>16003518
What about upper stages is significantly more difficult to scale up production of than the engines themselves?
Keep in mind that China is a country that produces precision metal products like aircraft, high speed trains, missiles, rocket engines, turbofans, marine turbines, machine tools, robots, nuclear power plants, etc, on a very large scale already, and they've been on a fast upward trajectory.
Indeed, Chinese manufacturing value added greater than the US and EU combined, and that isn't just low-tech stuff. They've pretty much taken over the global photovoltaics and battery market and are about to swamp the global EV and >14nm microchip market. They have 2/3 of global high speed rail and associated rolling stock, since years all manufactured domestically. They produce 150-200 dual-engine fighter jets per year and the associated engines. Etc. Their history shows they can ramp up production of advanced stuff.
I don't see what about rocket upper stages there is that would be so hard for them to ramp up production of over the next 5-10 years.
Mass efficiency might not be particularly important anyway because for Guowang/G60 payloads it might be that the constraint is volume rather than mass, due to the stacking and dispensing mechanisms. Landspace decided they will make their reusable ZQ-3 rocket out of stainless steel, as did Space Epoch.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:54:12 UTC No. 16003534
>>16003520
>isn't a couple bits of shitty scrap metal welded together like orks
Well, no, it's not, but it need not be *that* high-tech either. It's 1950s technology, assuming you don't need the most super-efficient solution, which you don't.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:54:41 UTC No. 16003536
>>16003532
>What about upper stages is significantly more difficult to scale up production of than the engines themselves?
Inherent fragility, quality control requirements, and utterly unforgiving systems if anything's wrong with them.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:56:56 UTC No. 16003540
>>16003536
So? Chinese industry manufactures many such products at ludicrously large scale already.
What did the Russians do in the 1950s that the Chinese would have trouble replicating at scale today?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:58:54 UTC No. 16003545
>>16003413
>so significance for current situations is minimal
Was this whole thing a freak accident, or was it done for reasons?
What are those reasons? Were they "Forbidden by law" too? Why should we expect they aren't continuing to fuck up "current situations" in other ?
Any answer(s) that really lead to a conclusion of minimal significance should be amusing.
>>16003470
Well, if filtering for competence gets you too many whites, filtering to exclude whites is necessarily going to look a lot like filtering against competence.
>I have to assume they did this so only those fed the answers, IE those in the black coalition would pass,
I doubt it. More likely, they used statistics from a bunch of surveys to construct a scoring filter that should've got them exactly the results they wanted, assuming people answered the same way they did on those surveys.
But it turns out people seeking a job are motivated to lie (in greater degree and/or different directions vs. on the initial consequence-free surveys), so unaware blacks were putting down the "white" answers they assumed were wanted.
When it failed like this, someone came up with handing out the answers as a band-aid.
Just speculation, but that's how I see it having gone down.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 21:59:53 UTC No. 16003547
>>16003540
>So? Chinese industry manufactures many such products at ludicrously large scale already.
No, they don't.
>>16003540
>What did the Russians do in the 1950s that the Chinese would have trouble replicating at scale today?
Seeing as the Soviet Union topped out at 61 launches in one year, it's wise to calibrate one's expectations.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:02:08 UTC No. 16003550
>>16003535
the second tower sections are being pre-assembled in the cape before being shipped over, so building might take even less time than expected
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:01 UTC No. 16003552
>>16003545
>too many whites
The fact this is even a thing should warrant a double take and a good, hard look at what the actual fuck one's priors are.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:03:11 UTC No. 16003553
>>16003550
chopsticks being worked on
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:04:19 UTC No. 16003558
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:05:22 UTC No. 16003561
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:05:53 UTC No. 16003563
>>16003547
>No, they don't.
> aircraft, high speed trains, missiles, rocket engines, turbofans, marine turbines, machine tools, robots, nuclear power plants
>Seeing as the Soviet Union topped out at 61 launches in one year, it's wise to calibrate one's expectations.
The Soviet Union at its peak had a population of 290 million and a $2.6T GDP PPP in 1990 levels, which is $6T in 2023 if you adjust for dollar inflation. China has a population of 1409 billion, and an economy of $35T GDP PPP.
The Soviets also had to build a first stage for every launch, and those are a lot more expensive than the upper stage.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:08:57 UTC No. 16003570
>>16002627
but this is specifically in reference to radiation, which will get significantly worse the further away from earth you get and the longer you spend out there
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:09:20 UTC No. 16003572
>>16003563
Engines are one of the things that China still does not do well. Most of everything else listed above involves turbines that don't have weight limits to their performance. Reactors are something that have formed in nature, so they're not spectacularly complicated until you have to design them to fail safely even if the operators are actually retarded—and those are solved problems too. The only reason why the rest of the world doesn't have shitloads of nuclear power plants are because the fucking environmental shitbags bankrolled by the USSR and other "non"-government opposition that specifically oppose it.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:13:55 UTC No. 16003580
>>16003572
>That Chinese stuff isn't all state of the art
So? It doesn't matter that a lot of what China produces might not be the absolute top tier state of the art, because rockets don't have to be. Again, upper stages are 1950s technology, and of the stuff I mentioned that China produces, they do it way beyond 1950s level, even if it might not all be at the 2024 level.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:16:40 UTC No. 16003583
>>16003580
The reason why this matter is because you either need a lot more manpower with the skillset to produce the thing you're trying to make in quantity or you need to have your skilled technicians produce the same work a lot more often than usual, and if they make any mistakes, it blows up. I'm not trying to say "they can't do it because they're China," I'm saying that shit's really hard and nobody on Earth has ever successfully built rockets at the scale you're suggesting. SpaceX has come close, but they haven't actually hit a triple-digit annual flight rate yet, let alone three hundred.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:21:23 UTC No. 16003590
>>16003583
>nobody on Earth has ever successfully built rockets at the scale you're suggesting
There hasn't been an economy of China's size before. And Falcon 9 style first stage reusability is a pretty novel paradigm anyway, so it's not really possible to compare numbers rocket-for-rocket with what came before.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:25:46 UTC No. 16003599
>>16003547
Didn't the USSR top out at 108 orbital launches in 1982?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:25:51 UTC No. 16003601
>>16003590
Being big is not equivalent to a solution.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:28:42 UTC No. 16003608
>>16003599
Looks like they did. I was mistaken.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:29:31 UTC No. 16003609
>>16003601
When the problem is to ramp up the quantity of production of something that you know how to produce, a large economy and labor force is certainly a solution
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:29:59 UTC No. 16003612
Deleware Judge just voided 55 billion of Musk's net worth saying Tesla should not compensate for Musk growing the company.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:31:54 UTC No. 16003616
>>16003609
The problem isn't having enough people that exist, it's finding enough people who are capable of doing the job and training them up to the required standard. It's doable, but it's time consuming and can be very expensive.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:32:45 UTC No. 16003617
>>16003612
yep
btw Delaware is majority democrat and the opinion starts with
> Was the richest person in the world overpaid?
like the wealth of the person getting compensated should have any bearing on the package itself being approved or not
this was something that the board and shareholders agreed with and now some random person with a few shares and one judge can overturn
https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinion
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:34:23 UTC No. 16003620
>>16003617
>Rich = bad, therefore Musk doesn't deserve money.
How do they come up with these decisions lmao.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:39:11 UTC No. 16003626
>>16003616
Sure, however China already is manufacturing a lot of precision metal products, so while the needed % increase in the rocket production would be large, the % increase to China's precision metal production wouldn't be that great.
Besides, quickly and dramatically ramping up production is something China has managed several times before
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:40:20 UTC No. 16003628
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:43:54 UTC No. 16003631
>>16003612
Sorry for off topic but
Why was the company incorporated in Delaware? Was this a Musk idea? He fucking deserves this if so.
Same with SX. Musk deserves to get burned for keeping it in Cali, unironically. Many of you will disagree with me but I wish you could see my point of view
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:47:22 UTC No. 16003637
>>16003617
Some immediate gold nuggets
>Delaware courts have been presented with this question thrice before, when more adroit judges found ways to avoid definitively resolving it.1 This decision dares to “boldly go where no man has gone before,”2 or at least where no Delaware court has tread.
>The primary consequence of this finding is that the defendants bore the burden of proving at trial that the compensation plan was entirely fair.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:47:33 UTC No. 16003638
>>16003631
Delaware has really low corporate taxes.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:48:51 UTC No. 16003640
>>16003631
how would you know something like this would happen 20 years ago when the companies got incorporated?
Delaware is used for incorporation due to some corp law
but clearly people are going to rethink incorporating anything in Delaware at this point if judges can arbitrarily cancel
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:49:25 UTC No. 16003641
>>16003631
>>16003640
- For companies operating outside of Delaware, there isn't any state income tax. This can save a lot of money for companies that are incorporated in Delaware, but not conducting business within its borders.
- There isn't an inheritance tax on stock held by non-Delaware residents. This means that if the owner of a Delaware company passes away, inherited stock won't be taxed if the owner lives outside of the Delaware.
- Delaware does not have a state sales tax on intangible personal property (such as royalty payments); and shares of stock owned by non-resident aliens are not subject to Delaware taxes.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:49:53 UTC No. 16003642
>>16003637
it being fair is irrelevant, this is about contracts
why the fuck do people talk about "fairness"
fucking absurd
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:51:05 UTC No. 16003645
>>16003631
A lot of companies are incorporated in Delaware. I think Delaware is the incorporation capital of the US, because the rules are generally seen as preferable. I don't think Musk can simply re-incorporate Tesla elsewhere, at least not without shareholder approval
It's likely not easy to move SX company operations. The facilities are where they are, the relevantly skilled labor pool is where it is, and not many employees are willing to simply uproot their households and move to another state.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:51:39 UTC No. 16003647
>>16003370
is this because with the distance between the two sats and accounting for the curvature of the Earth, the link cuts deep into the atmospheric well of the Earth in order to "reach" the other side?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:55:12 UTC No. 16003652
>>16002955
>They have no point, they're doggedly convinced, they desperately want (you) to believe too
I've always seen it as something that these smooth brains can hold up to make themselves appear as superior or 'in the know' when in reality they recognize themselves as bottomfeeders. They get hooked on the feeling and then internalize their own self worth and identity to the conspiracy theory which is why when presented with evidence to the contrary they don't know how to even process or try to rationalize it away (remember that video of the guy doing the curvature experiment over a lake "interesting, interesting"), or become offended as if personally insulted.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:59:33 UTC No. 16003655
>>16003631
It's not off topic, because (a) it affects his ability to inject money into SX, and (b) if he can't get more compensation packages like this then he'll probably leave Tesla soon, meaning he'l have more time for SX
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 22:59:37 UTC No. 16003656
>>16003647
Yes, but the crazy part is that it cuts deep into atmospheric well. You know, something that people have argued that lasers cant work.
If you can connect 2 small sats over 5400 km apart with laser, imagine a fucking laser weapon with more advanced beam where beam attenuation is minimal. Its fucking crazy. These are instantaneous signals too, thus any powerful enough lasers (lets say 10-20 kw of laser weapon) could literally continuously target missiles/jets from the space instantly over thousands of miles away.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:01:03 UTC No. 16003658
>>16003640
>>16003631
Lot of Musk's problems came from his early days of not knowing enough and trusting things/people too much. Thats what I see as his weakness
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:03:36 UTC No. 16003663
>>16003612
FYI, its the same judge that forced Musk to buy twitter. The judge wiped out $100 billion of Musk's money lmao. Also, Biden's home town judge.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:05:00 UTC No. 16003664
>>16003663
kind of based 2bh
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:06:42 UTC No. 16003668
>>16003663
looks like more reason Musk should have got down on his knees and started suckin u cle joe's cock n balls happily. but no,musk had to be a tough guy so he pays the price.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:08:07 UTC No. 16003672
>>16003655
Also, (c), supposing this ruling is part of a larger Democrat campaign against Musk, then it indicates problems for SX's federal contracts and regulatory environment in the future
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:10:48 UTC No. 16003675
>>16002955
The inorganic ones stick out like sore thumbs. They just dump infographics, and never engage in discussion.
Different psyops come in waves. Mudflood used to be everywhere but now you never see it. Agartha and hollow Earth was a big one, but now it's been shelved for a "space is fake" campaign. Likewise "the sun is going to go micronova on a specific date and the elites know it"
Sometimes they make a mistake. There was a big push for "vaccines are actually snake venom" but this was laughed off /pol/ and immediately dropped.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:11:10 UTC No. 16003676
>>16003370
neat
According to this (http://www.braeunig.us/space/atmos
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:12:39 UTC No. 16003679
>>16003677
Talk on the street is they are reverse engineering it and coming out with a new plane design
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:13:02 UTC No. 16003680
>>16003677
On top of it are 2 flat white starlink dishes. Just fyi.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:17:00 UTC No. 16003686
Al ittel birdey toled me spacesx OFT-3 scheduled for February 29
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:17:22 UTC No. 16003688
>>16003677
Hideous livery.
They should be ashamed.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:20:05 UTC No. 16003691
>>16003688
That's what you get when Elon fires all the painters.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:22:02 UTC No. 16003694
>>16003656
Did they say how good signal quality was on that link? But still, 30 km sounds crazy even if you're probably above most of the interferences
>>16003688
I was thinking it's probably supposed to be Starship-like?
>>16002931
>some of the ones I argued with on /pol/ to the point of them not replying with their shitty out of context webms and images on one thread just ended up posting the exact same webms and arguments in another thread the next day
I've seen this as well, fucking disgusting.
>>16003631
Delaware has very favourable tax and laws for companies, basically every US company is incorporated there
If you manage to somehow get a decision on corpo law decided against you in fucking Delaware you really fucked up beyond belief. I doubt this'll stick in appeal but even getting this far means Musk really shat the bad with that compensation plan lmao.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:23:55 UTC No. 16003697
>>16003694
>you really fucked up beyond belief
These days it just means saying anything that goes against the party.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:23:58 UTC No. 16003698
>>16003247
back to /pcg/
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:24:40 UTC No. 16003699
>>16003694
the judge was appointed by a democratic governor, this is lawfare
there was nothing wrong with the compensation package
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:25:13 UTC No. 16003700
>>16003694
>this far means Musk really shat the bad with that compensation plan lmao.
Imagine being dumb enough to believe this
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:26:13 UTC No. 16003703
>>16003694
>Did they say how good signal quality was on that link? But still, 30 km sounds crazy even if you're probably above most of the interferences
Yeah, but the beam is prob weak by then and likely subject to clear weather conditions. It doesnt happen all the time, but is likely one of the rare conditions
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:26:24 UTC No. 16003704
>>16003694
>If you manage to somehow get a decision on corpo law decided against you in fucking Delaware you really fucked up beyond belief. I doubt this'll stick in appeal but even getting this far means Musk really shat the bad with that compensation plan lmao.
The Judge literally is setting new precedent here rather than proving "Musk fucked things up." It reeks of politically motivated decision making, and this decision will get a lot of corporations to look at relocating.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:28:25 UTC No. 16003705
>>16003532
Yes China strong my wumao friend.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:30:20 UTC No. 16003708
>>16003704
Literally, the decision was that a shareholder didn't appreciate how much the compensation package was worth, and now because they think it's an awful lot of money, they wanted the compensation plan nullified and the shares returned to Tesla Inc. The Judge decided he agreed that it was worth more than he liked and ordered the shares returned.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:31:16 UTC No. 16003710
>>16003704
>this decision will get a lot of corporations to look at relocating.
I don't think so. Most corporations don't have highly politically active executives, and don't act in unprecedented ways that allow judges to create new precedents
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:31:17 UTC No. 16003711
>>16003704
yeah this basically means Delaware judges can retroactively overturn anything the shareholders agree and vote on
how the fuck can you run a corporation with that over your head? the judge is a board member with veto rights at this point, fucking ridiculous
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:32:16 UTC No. 16003713
>>16003710
Being politically active is literally a constitutionally protected right.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:32:31 UTC No. 16003714
Someone stage it, and make it Felongated Huskrat BTFO Edition with Delaware as pic
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:32:36 UTC No. 16003715
>>16003708
they? it was one fucking person with like 9 shares, probably a short seller
>>16003710
anything can be political from some points of view, you don't understand the gravity of this situation
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:32:38 UTC No. 16003716
>>16002652
>>16002653
Mars colony? Not so fast
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:33:52 UTC No. 16003719
>>16003713
The constitution is just a piece of paper. What matters is who interprets the constitution and the law, and enforces the interpretations.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:34:46 UTC No. 16003720
>>16003719
The Constitution is the standard by which all Law must hold. If it's just a piece of paper and everything can be interpreted freely, the nation is lawless.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:35:19 UTC No. 16003724
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:35:46 UTC No. 16003725
>>16003704
Yeah. Look at the first sentence of the opinion. It is a political statement.
Further the justification is that Musk has overarching influence on the board/company, therefore the board cannot make independent decisions. And then there's the claim that shareholders weren't told how easy it would be to hit all the targets Tesla back in 2017 when the $2B compensation package (back then) was being voted on by shareholders. As if Musk or any of the board members, or anyone in the world at the time knew how the future would turn out. I remember Tesla being on the verge of bankruptcy in 2017, so did everyone else. So back then, everyone scoffed at the compensation package and claimed it was just a trick and the money was fake.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:36:00 UTC No. 16003726
>>16003715
>anything can be political from some points of view, you don't understand the gravity of this situation
Sure, however most companies likely aren't worried that they'll be punished in this manner, because their executives keep their head low and don't take any political sides
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:37:02 UTC No. 16003729
>>16003697
>>16003699
>>16003700
>>16003704
>it must be lawfare
>muh persecution complex
>it cannot be that Musk overstepped the mark
Again, I doubt it'll stick, but lel.
>>16003708
Literally no, go read the actual decision, the judge lays out that Musk overly controlled the not-as-independent-as-presented board which just molded the plan to fit his wishes instead of doing proper analysis and setting milestones based on that. The board couldn't prove that the compensation was independently designed and appropriate, which is a rather low bar.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:37:08 UTC No. 16003730
>>16003720
Welcome to reality
>The laws of physics are the only requirements, everything else is a recommendation
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:37:09 UTC No. 16003731
>>16003726
why take the risk?
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:38:03 UTC No. 16003734
>>16003711
>Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:38:17 UTC No. 16003735
>>16003730
If you willingly reduce a nation, its ideals, and its laws to nihilistic will to power, people who would seek to change something for the worse have to be stopped by any means necessary.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:38:25 UTC No. 16003736
>>16003731
Because Delaware has the most favorable rules for incorporation of any US state
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:39:18 UTC No. 16003738
>>16003729
>Literally no, go read the actual decision, the judge lays out that Musk overly controlled the not-as-independent-as-presented board which just molded the plan to fit his wishes instead of doing proper analysis and setting milestones based on that. The board couldn't prove that the compensation was independently designed and appropriate, which is a rather low bar.
In other words, "I don't like how much it turned out to be worth and so I'm using this pretense to overturn it."
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:40:05 UTC No. 16003740
>>16003726
>because their executives keep their head low and take the current political power's sides
fixed. Most executives follow the political current. Musk ride against the wave.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:41:08 UTC No. 16003742
>>16003736
That was the case 20 years ago. Now its not anymore. The last few years of political turmoil made Delaware into a landmine. Its erupting in front of Musk's face as he's become the lightning rod for political activists targeting him and his companies.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:41:19 UTC No. 16003743
>>16003736
was the most favorable, now your shareholder votes can be retroactively overturned with arbitrary decisions
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:43:13 UTC No. 16003746
>>16003738
lmao
People were already criticising how not independent the supposedly independent board members were and how ludicrous the amount was when the compensation plan was made
All Musk had to do was let the board design a proper plan and then let the shareholder decision be actually independent, but no, it had to be just like he wanted.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:46:17 UTC No. 16003751
>>16003746
The plan wasn't even overturned for a significant shareholder, but a single guy who argued that he didn't like how much money the compensation was ultimately worth, even though the majority of shareholders agreed with it and Tesla was verging on bankruptcy at the time. Retroactively deciding that the decision was too great of compensation because the executive leadership through the crisis turned out to make the company incredibly valuable is pure political bullshit from a Biden-controlled judge.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:48:14 UTC No. 16003754
>>16003677
Finally a true spaceplane has been posted in this thread.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:48:35 UTC No. 16003755
>>16003751
Calling it "biden controlled" is a stretch. There's barely enough pudding left in that cup to call it a rubber stamp
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:49:04 UTC No. 16003756
>>16003755
Biden's Handlers controlled, then.
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:51:59 UTC No. 16003759
>>16003755
Biden is from Delaware literally, are you fucking kidding me
Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jan 2024 23:59:03 UTC No. 16003763
>>16003746
>People were already criticising how not independent the supposedly independent board members were and how ludicrous the amount was when the compensation plan was made
No they weren't. LMAO. The skeptics/critics were calling its all fake/illusion.
https://archive.is/yanRr
https://archive.is/lh9ZH
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:01:00 UTC No. 16003766
>>16003763
Also, people being revisionist because Musk has now succeeded in bringing the company in a prosperous state, and try to claim it was inevitable is laughable.
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:24:18 UTC No. 16003816
>>16003763
Yes, they were. Criticism around board independence already happened around the SolarCity bailout and there were absolutely people saying it was too much. I can post random articles, too.
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/t
https://deadline.com/2017/07/tesla-
Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jan 2024 00:38:06 UTC No. 16003845
Is it “sleazy” to be a place considered a tax haven?
i.e. would it be GREASY if your little Moon or Mars colony wanted to bring in extra revenue, so it offered incentives for people to incorporate their businesses there?