Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:01:42 UTC No. 16006607

>>16006604
Are all three rockets operational?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:02:42 UTC No. 16006611

>>16006607
No, the middle one does not exist

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:02:53 UTC No. 16006613

>>16006607
Only the right one.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:04:34 UTC No. 16006617

>>16006611
Muskrats in denial

1 : 0

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:04:42 UTC No. 16006618

>>16006610
What's there to negotiate.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:05:49 UTC No. 16006622

>>16006618
More value for shareholders?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:07:21 UTC No. 16006626

>>16006622
Shareholders were ripped off confirmed

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:07:28 UTC No. 16006627

>>16006611
Honestly SLS "won" in the short term

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:08:35 UTC No. 16006628

Soon...
Dreams will be chased on an actual American rocket

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:08:45 UTC No. 16006629

>>16006627
That's cool, how many flights this year

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:09:48 UTC No. 16006631

>>16006617
i dont beleive for a second nasa flew this crapsule around the moon. it looks so fake.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:09:56 UTC No. 16006632

>>16006604
>Spay Sex is owned by a political maverick who the US government is pulling the rug from out under
>Blorigin will first launch a rocket slightly better than Falcon 9 at the same time Chinese companies will first launch rockets equal to Falcon 9
>Boingboing is a raging dumpster fire that only still sells aircraft because Airbus and Comac can't ramp up production fast enough
China's aerospace industry is going to catch up to and surpass the US' before 2040, isn't it.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:13:05 UTC No. 16006637

ruling that the process was “flawed” and the price “unfair.” Chancellor Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick called the package “the largest potential compensation opportunity ever observed in public markets by multiple orders of magnitud

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:14:08 UTC No. 16006641

>>16006632
>political maverick
can you substantiate your claim

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:15:40 UTC No. 16006642

>Musk's stolen compensation package was larger than the GDPs of 120 countries

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:16:41 UTC No. 16006643

>>16006604
Falcon Heavy is not a SHLV.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:17:29 UTC No. 16006645

god damn faggots SLS when to the moon and starships didn't,
Deal with it
Elon too much of a pussy to send Falcon heavy to the moon so thats why he lost just that
Starship Is just SLS moon lander drill that in your head muskcels

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:17:34 UTC No. 16006646

>>16006641
The things he say and how he changed the management of Twitter in a way that a lot of important people aren't happy with

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:18:10 UTC No. 16006647

I wonder if he is raging about the Delaware decision, or is he more calm.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:21:45 UTC No. 16006651

>>16006637
That's an observation that can only be made in hind-sight.

At the time the compensation was being negotiated, who could have predicted that Tesla would rise by over 9000% in a couple of years?

Moreover, why the fuck does that even matter?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:24:52 UTC No. 16006656

>>16006645
SLS went to LEO, it delivered a payload that did a lap around the Moon.

On the current schedule Starship will do an uncrewed demo landing before SLS launches a second time.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:28:44 UTC No. 16006660

>>16006651
Under Nutella MSFT market cap has risen +$2500B
Pretty sure he didn't walk away with hundreds of billions. I guess he should have.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:32:13 UTC No. 16006667

>>16006660
Musk isn't just Tesla's CEO, he's also a poster figure and influencer. One can think of Musk's compensation package as Tesla's marketing budget.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:38:18 UTC No. 16006676

>>16006647
Jesus christ he looks fat as shit in this photo

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:39:04 UTC No. 16006677

>>16006660
MSFT stock price change from Feb 2014 to now was $40 to $404
TSLA stock price change from 2018 to the 2021 peak was $23 to $402

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:43:12 UTC No. 16006682

>>16006647
Too busy sucking joo cock

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:43:50 UTC No. 16006684

>download: File too large (file: 26.13 MB, max: 4 MB). [delete post] [delete all]

https://sam.gov/api/prod/opps/v3/opportunities/resources/files/9c9f98d15d6c4ad1b22b6816a9b3e0ee/download?&token=

Motherfucking 449 page Mars Mission Design Handbook JPL Rev 2023, holy shit this is a treasure trove

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:44:12 UTC No. 16006685

>>16006677
Tesla grew faster. It is now more valuable than any car company that ever was. This will finance Mars.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:44:51 UTC No. 16006686

>>16006684
For the CMPS shit btw
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/for-the-first-time-nasa-has-asked-industry-about-private-missions-to-mars/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:46:40 UTC No. 16006689

>>16006685
>This will finance Mars.
Not anymore it won't

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:47:22 UTC No. 16006690

>>16006682
why are you saying this

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:55:13 UTC No. 16006698

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivLX9o6Ayl8

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:58:03 UTC No. 16006701

uhh... guys?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:59:27 UTC No. 16006704

>>16006701
Tory is a liar, we know

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 19:59:43 UTC No. 16006705

>>16006701
You know, it's ironic: he's a champion of orbital refueling, except when other competitors use it to make their products even more flexible than ULA's.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:00:13 UTC No. 16006706

>>16006698
too soon

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:00:55 UTC No. 16006708

>>16006701
He has to pretend to be retarded especially now that Helios is coming or Vulcan is worthless except as a government second source, and even then only until New Glenn gets first stage landing down.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:01:22 UTC No. 16006710

>>16006701
Starship is for Starlink only you heard it here first

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:01:57 UTC No. 16006711

>>16006701
he's right you know

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:04:36 UTC No. 16006714

>>16006701
>guy who worked on the majority of America's missile and space systems doesn't know rocket science
muskrats in total denial kek

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:04:51 UTC No. 16006715

> Today, the Sierra Space team has arrived at a profound milestone in our amazing journey - one of audacious dreaming and tenacious doing.We are now living in the Orbital Age

https://x.com/sierraspaceco/status/1753134116852101147?s=46&t=ySaWSLoZU6lwZ7u03-FcBQ

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:06:55 UTC No. 16006717

>>16006715
only took them 15 years

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:08:38 UTC No. 16006720

>>16006715
im happy fo them. this is what happens when you have adults in the room. results get done and happen THE FIRST TIME. Go dream chaser, go sierra!

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:09:04 UTC No. 16006723

>>16006701
>extreme example of a LEO optimized rocket
BRILLIANT PEBBLES

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:09:44 UTC No. 16006726

>>16006717
>>16006715
yeah they didn't have access to soviet designs

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:10:16 UTC No. 16006727

>>16006632
China doesn't even plan to have a Starship of their own until the 2040s.
Everyone who isn't SpaceX is going to be irrelevant.
There's even an argument to be made that they already are considering that the entire rest of the world is less than 20% of the upmass to LEO. And that's just with Falcon 9. Imagine how bad it's going to get for everyone else when SpaceX has Starship. And they'll have a 20 year lead to do whatever they want.
There is no "catching up." It's a moving target. They'll be playing catchup for the rest of time.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:13:13 UTC No. 16006731

>>16006727
CASC plans change all the time, especially CZ-9 plans, and they can easily change again. The Chinese are likely skeptical of Starship because of the Shuttle experience, however if Starship proves successful they will likely accelerate plans to build their own. They can do this quickly. The YF-215 engine is the long lead item, and they're already working on it anyway, including a vacuum version.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:16:18 UTC No. 16006738

>>16006727
>they'll have a 20 year lead to do whatever they want.
Maybe you haven't followed the latest news. Musk just got $56b taken from him, and this is likely just the start of a larger campaign to take away his resources in order to destroy him as a political force.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:18:44 UTC No. 16006740

>>16006727
Arianespace is on suicide watch. They've realized they're 20 years behind even Falcon 9. Once Starship is flying it will be all over.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:20:18 UTC No. 16006742

>>16006731
That is not in line with SpaceX's own development experiences with reusable rockets. It took them two years after landing boosters just to refly them, another two years to make it repeatable, and another two years more to make it frequent.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:21:04 UTC No. 16006744

>>16006740
France won't let European independent launch capability die. Whether that is in the form of Arianespace or some other company, there will be at least one European launch company.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:22:05 UTC No. 16006748

>>16006744
but think of employee morale. the government can throw money at them but all the engineers will still be absolutely miserable.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:22:38 UTC No. 16006750

>>16006738
You have one year.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:23:12 UTC No. 16006751

>>16006750
>this time they're not going to steal the election, for some reason

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:25:22 UTC No. 16006756

>>16006714
What about knowing rocket science would stop Tory from shilling the products of the company he is the CEO of.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:25:24 UTC No. 16006757

>>16006742
>That is not in line with SpaceX's own development experiences with reusable rockets
What isn't?

Is your point that it might take 6 years to have a reusable upper stage fully operational? Then there's still plenty of time for CASC to revise plans such that they will have a reusable upper stage long before 2040.

For comparison, YF-205 is a 10-12 year lead time item.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:27:01 UTC No. 16006761

>>16006731
The original CZ-9 plan fell through when China failed to get RD-180 engines from Russia.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:27:26 UTC No. 16006762

>>16006757
My point is that it will take them at least a few years to figure out how to really make it work the way they want it to once they hit the initial "successful recovery" milestone.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:33:08 UTC No. 16006767

>>16006750
The federal judicial branch is highly insulated from the executive branch. It takes decades of consecutive White House + Senate control to pack the courts. The executive branch can of course instantly replace federal prosecutors, however that doesn't stop civil lawsuits from being launched. And Trump won't get to pick whatever judges, Attorney General or US Attorneys he wants, he needs approval from the Senate.

Besides, the $56b were taken from Musk through a state's legal system. Tesla is still incorporated in Delaware, and Musk still has a lot of important stuff stuck in California.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:34:53 UTC No. 16006771

>>16006761
Wasn't the original CZ-9 design supposed to use YF-130 (which is still being developed as a backup alternative)

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:36:55 UTC No. 16006775

>>16006750
Musk very publicly backed DeSantis lol

It could be worse though, he could have backed Haley

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:43:51 UTC No. 16006787

>>16006701
deluded Muskrat think obvious LEO rocket is the most versatile rocket ever built.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:45:30 UTC No. 16006789

>>16006771
The YF-130 is a Chinese copy of the RD-180 just as the YF-100 is a Chinese copy of the RD-120.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:49:36 UTC No. 16006795

>>16006617
That particular SLS is just wreckage on the ocean floor

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:50:22 UTC No. 16006799

>>16006727
>China doesn't even plan to have a Starship of their own until the 2040s.
That's only the Chinese government agency, which is already significantly behind Chinese companies

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:52:58 UTC No. 16006803

God, I'm bored, when's the next big launch that isn't starlink spam

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 20:56:35 UTC No. 16006811

>>16006803
IM-1 or Crew 8 2 weeks from now

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:07:10 UTC No. 16006824

>>16006811
TWO WEEKS

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:08:24 UTC No. 16006827

>>16006701
Bruno keeps pointing out a
Rocket designed and
Intended to carry
Ludicrous mass to
LEO specifically.
I have to wonder,
Are there any specific missions
Nobody else can do
That require just such capability?

Probably not; only an
Extreme conspiracy theorist would
Believe in some kind of space-
Based shield that would
Liberate humanity from all threat of
Eastern nuclear terrorism.
Starlink is definitely the only reason.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:12:02 UTC No. 16006838

>>16006827
I'M GONNA SAY IT
DEPOTS

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:12:49 UTC No. 16006839

Not a pound for space-to-ground

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:13:35 UTC No. 16006843

>>16006827
genius gravel

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:20:37 UTC No. 16006859

>already february
>Still no IFT-3 news

Spx bros.. whats taking so long...

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:21:51 UTC No. 16006861

>>16006715
if I squint, it looks like holy Mary mother of God

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:22:22 UTC No. 16006862

FICUNTIONGING LIFE SUPPORT

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:23:20 UTC No. 16006866

>>16006757
*YF-215

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:24:12 UTC No. 16006870

>>16006862
posting on linkedin should be punishable by death

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:25:27 UTC No. 16006872

Do you boys think the moon landing was fake?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:26:05 UTC No. 16006874

>>16006762
True. However, I think they can and will easily achieve it long before 2040 if they see that Starship seems to be working.

If Musk gets the rug pulled out from under him, then SpaceX won't create any radically superior successor to Starship. He is pretty much synonymous with the company, both from a legal and practical standpoint.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:27:06 UTC No. 16006877

>>16006874
>then SpaceX won't create any radically superior successor to Starship
They don't need to- diminishing returns

12m Starship fags crying but its true

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:27:50 UTC No. 16006879

>>16006789
It might be a conceptual clone of RD-180, however it doesn't depend on the Russians delivering RD-180 to China, as evidenced by how it continues development.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:29:13 UTC No. 16006880

>>16006701
kek classic

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:30:01 UTC No. 16006882

>>16006877
If the technology level is equal, then the race just becomes a question of the scale of deployment of the technology, which is something the Chinese are pretty good at

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:31:10 UTC No. 16006884

>>16006757
*YF-215

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:33:43 UTC No. 16006892

>>16006799
CASC (technically a state-owned company, not an agency) is the furthest ahead in China in developing a Raptor clone
https://spacenews.com/china-makes-progress-on-raptor-like-engines-for-super-heavy-rocket/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:34:53 UTC No. 16006894

I wonder how much they can improve starship before pad starts disintegrating again.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:36:26 UTC No. 16006898

>>16006894
Fully reusable pads are next on SpaceX's agenda

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:39:55 UTC No. 16006907

>>16006827
I think the problem with this plan is that if the Russians or Chinese discover that the US is launching clever cobbles, then it will cause an international diplomatic crisis that will force the US to immediately cease all orbital launches or Starbase gets nuked the next day

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:41:24 UTC No. 16006910

>>16006839
We will make our own ground

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:42:12 UTC No. 16006911

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw4gzd38ERA
> Path to Launch, Starbase Flyover Update #29

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:44:46 UTC No. 16006914

check out this thread
>>16006900

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:46:29 UTC No. 16006915

>>16006914
yes, Musk has himself said he thinks its likely there will be a crewed landing in 8 years

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:46:30 UTC No. 16006916

>>16006914
Musk always overpromises and underdelivers, however he still delivers a lot, so people forgive him for it

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:50:47 UTC No. 16006923

>>16006915
he said there would be Starship landings on Mars in 2020, not sure about crew

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 21:54:15 UTC No. 16006924

>>16006916
>SpaceX delivers the impossible late therefore Elon is a liar

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:01:35 UTC No. 16006936

>>16006923
no he talked about that like a month or something ago when asked by someone

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:10:26 UTC No. 16006953

>>16006936
what do you mean no? He denied it?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:16:01 UTC No. 16006965

>>16006715
cool if starliner ever gets going then the US is going to have a lot of these capsules

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:17:36 UTC No. 16006968

>>16006727
its easier to copy than to trailblaze and at some point chemical rocket tech might start hitting diminishing returns
at that point other players will start to catch up

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:22:48 UTC No. 16006973

>>16006767
They are moving Tesla out of Delaware
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1753125611042705702

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:22:49 UTC No. 16006974

Why do they care only about Musk's false timelines? NASA has been lying for decades.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:25:33 UTC No. 16006982

>>16006973
It will require shareholder approval, no?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:26:26 UTC No. 16006983

>>16006974
Musk's are more frivolous. NASA you know how it goes just good old gobernment

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:28:29 UTC No. 16006987

Reminder that I predicted Tesla would move HQ to Texas. This was after a CA judge forced them to pay millions to someone that was bullied in Tesla

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:29:05 UTC No. 16006988

>>16006775
no he didn't you retard
DeSantis was one of many he had spaces with, others include at least Robert F Kennedy Jr and Dean Phillips

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:30:01 UTC No. 16006990

>>16006974
They don't even know NASA has timelines

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:30:12 UTC No. 16006991

>>16006859
Davenport said they expect to get a license in about two weeks

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:31:30 UTC No. 16006992

>>16006953
you mean in the 2020s?
2020 was 4 years ago

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:32:33 UTC No. 16006994

>>16006982
yes but I don't think that will be impossible to get
a lot of shareholders feel insulted by this decision
a supermajority voted for the compensation package

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:34:02 UTC No. 16006997

>>16006968
And what will SpaceX be doing by then?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:35:01 UTC No. 16007001

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:35:18 UTC No. 16007003

>>16006988
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/musk-says-he-will-support-desantis-2024-if-florida-governor-runs-president-2022-11-26/

Musk also said that Trump was "too old" and should "sail into the sunset"
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/its-time-trump-sail-into-sunset-says-musk-2022-07-12/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:36:45 UTC No. 16007006

>>16006994
That was in 2018. A lot of shareholders are probably quite happy to have had Musk work for them for free.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:36:48 UTC No. 16007008

Is Musk a modern day Crassus?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:37:19 UTC No. 16007010

>>16006983
lol no they aren't, Musks timelines are more accurate even with the delays

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:37:34 UTC No. 16007011

>>16007008
Yes, Parthian campaign soon

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:39:07 UTC No. 16007013

>>16006987
that move was more about arbitrary covid restrictions
some local bureucrat was out of control
after that the situation has cooled down a bit
Tesla created an "engineering HQ" in california and the Cali governor Newsom was there to smile and so on, but I guess it could get inflamed again

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:40:05 UTC No. 16007015

>>16007011
Finita est...

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:40:12 UTC No. 16007016

>>16007006
but is he going to stay at tesla if this gets rescinded? that is the risk
no new package with 10x the company either
you get some run of the mill bean counter and Tesla truly becomes just a car company

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:41:11 UTC No. 16007018

Mars mafia is being dismantled

https://spacenews.com/congressional-letter-asks-white-house-to-reverse-msr-spending-cuts/

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:42:32 UTC No. 16007021

>>16007001
Frieren going to space...

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:42:55 UTC No. 16007022

>>16007018
yea we saw
>>16006686
>>16006684

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:43:10 UTC No. 16007023

>>16007003
Both candidate are very old, Biden was already going senile in 2020 but democrats circled their wagons on it after the primary.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:43:32 UTC No. 16007024

>>16007022
>we
ok, schizo

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:44:09 UTC No. 16007029

>>16007024
Did you just assume my pronouns

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:45:09 UTC No. 16007031

>>16006997
with some completely new paradigm I don't think its a given that spacex will be the only player
especially if musk is doing something else like focusing on building the mars colony and ignores rocket tech at that point because its good enough, i.e. the more critical limiting factors will be something else
like space mining ISRU or something

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:54:29 UTC No. 16007041

>>16007016
Musk might indeed threaten to quit if shareholders don't approve a reincorporation in Texas, since he likely doesn't want to work for free, and I do think shareholders will approve it. However, it is not a given. They might think his threats to quit are just a bluff, and his 13% shares in Tesla are a deterrent for him to quit. Institutional investors and passive investors might vote to block a reincorporation on the basis of guidance from proxy advisory institutions such as ISS.

As for compensation packages; Tesla shareholders might offer Musk a fresh compensation package that is sized based on the value they think he will provide Tesla from this point on if he stays on. However, there is no way for Musk to force shareholders to also retroactively pay him for services already rendered. Those years are gone, and Musk can't take back his services already rendered.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 22:57:23 UTC No. 16007045

>>16007008
Yes, including the downfall and violent end

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:04:36 UTC No. 16007048

>>16007041
of course there won't but Musk does not need Tesla
he could leave, let Tesla flounder and wait for institutionals and so on to sell, then come back
or just start using more time in his other 5 companies
at this point the value of SpaceX (42%) he holds is about equivalent to the 13% of Tesla
and if Musk needed a lot of capital quickly, they could IPO starlink for probably couple hundred billion
that is an instant 70 bil or whatever more
then you have neuralink that just started human testing, who knows what that is going to be
X has the potential to become a trillion dollar company according to musk, xAI with AI who knows
the boring company will probably stay at some low tens billions, but all in all
Musk doesn't need Tesla

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:12:52 UTC No. 16007052

>>16006859
if you paid attention to starbase you would know exactly whats up, neither do I that deeply but yeah

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:15:51 UTC No. 16007056

>>16007048
to add to this, as musk has said before, he can't be threatened with money
how do people not understand this after Musk bought twitter?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:20:56 UTC No. 16007061

>>16007056
>>16007048
>>16007041
like lets say, the old package is not reapproved but a new one is
musk could still say fuck you and go
good luck finding someone else

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:22:02 UTC No. 16007063

>>16007048
>Musk doesn't need Tesla
If Musk quits Tesla, the stock will tank, including the 13% he owns. It is not so easy for him to simply quit.

>they could IPO starlink
>X
>xAI
>Neuralink
Musk does indeed have numerous other ventures and opportunities to raise money, but those are opportunities he had already. No matter what, this ruling means he will be $56B poorer than he otherwise would have been. Also, I think Musk is extremely reticent about relinquishing more controls to investors or getting more involved in public companies, even more so after this ruling.

Consider also that Democrats will likely continue to try to sabotage his business empire and strip him of more assets. For example, his latest statements and actions on Tesla reincorporation seem rife with Delaware lawsuit opportunities. His California facilities aren't going anywhere anytime soon. He is quite dependent on federal contracts, leased federal facilities and federal regulations.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:26:04 UTC No. 16007069

>>16007056
>he can't be threatened with money
That's likely because he thought he had more than enough money under his control already. As it turns out, he was wrong about that money being under his control.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:29:57 UTC No. 16007074

Is Artemis 3 actually going to happen? Will human beings set foot on the moon by 2027? What are the odds that it will be delayed, and by how many years? What are the odds it will be canceled outright?

I just find it all too good to be true.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:31:49 UTC No. 16007077

>>16007063
>this ruling means he will be $56B poorer than he otherwise would have been.
What exactly did the ruling do?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:37:07 UTC No. 16007085

>>16007077
Ordered Elon to give up all the stock he was awarded as compensation from Tesla.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:38:38 UTC No. 16007087

>>16007074
Im sure they gonna cancel in the next 2 or 3 years, even with the shitty SLS and orion going, artemis seemed to go ahead, but when they chose starship as a lunar lander they fucked up so hard, literally makes no sense landing a fucking building on the moon, that needs at least 15 launches, so yeah, or they cancel it, or artemis III is goint to be no earlier than 2030, im sure the chinese gonna reach the moon before this century

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:41:09 UTC No. 16007092

>>16007085
He's getting it back and after that he's getting the cunt judge's head on a pike

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:43:25 UTC No. 16007096

>>16007087
Thanks anon. As someone whose not particularly read on the subject, the whole program seems to be a big hustle for NASA to get more tens of billions in funding, without actually accomplishing anything of significance to show for it. Personally, I'd be surprised if a human being sets foot on the moon before 2050, if that, and they'd need pretty hefty political justification to do so.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:43:30 UTC No. 16007097

>>16007048
Wouldn't money raised from a Starlink IPO have to be used to fund Starlink, except to the extent Musk sells his own share, and wouldn't it mean giving up on future Starlink profits

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:52:20 UTC No. 16007107

>>16007048
actually scratch that, Musk has said he think the boring company has the potential to becom a trillion dollar company by 2030 as well

https://www.thestreet.com/investing/elon-musk-boring-company-market-cap

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:54:58 UTC No. 16007111

>>16007063
yeah it tanks from 46% of his net worth to something like 20%?
big fucking deal
it is in fact very easy for him to quit if he actually doesn't care about the money, and in some sense if he thinks it is easier to 10-100x the market cap of his other currently small companies then it would even make financial sense to use the time somewhere else
its not like Tesla would stop existing with some other CEO, the growth might stall and the company stagnate but that 13% would still be worth something

>>16007085
wrong, it rescinded already vested options which have yet to be excercised
no stocks or money are exchanging hands

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:56:27 UTC No. 16007114

>>16007069
but he has plenty of money under his control and this whole thing is unprecedented anyway
something truly unprecedented would have to happen for the government to start taking away his ownership directly, like already existing shares

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Feb 2024 23:59:17 UTC No. 16007121

>>16007111
to make this net worth point more clearly

>Tesla market cap is 591 bil, Musk has 12.95% so 76.5 bil
>SpaceX market cap is 175 bil, 42% ownership so 73.5 bil
>Boring Company is 5.6 bil, when it was founded musk had 90% but obviously that has been diluted somewhat after funding rounds. Musk has said the boring company has the possibility of reaching 1 Trillion in market cap https://www.thestreet.com/investing/elon-musk-boring-company-market-cap. Lets say his share is 3 bil to keep it easy.
>X market cap is perhaps something like 12-13 billion now if we take use Fidelitys current estimate, (down about 70% from the initial 44bil), Musk owns about 74%, so around 9 billion. Musk has also expressed the belief he can grow X to become a trillion dollar company https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2023/08/23/elon-musk-thinks-x-could-become-a-trillion-dollar-company-here-are-the-challenges-facing-the-platform-since-he-took-over/?sh=5f84c6a9bfbd
>xAI, difficult to say, there have been reports of funding rounds but Musk has denied these, numbers like 6 bil and 20 bil valuation have been thrown around. Lets say its too early to tell, but if xAI becomes a real competitor to OpenAI and creates AGI or something then this could easily eclipse everything else so much all the rest are meaningless
>Neuralink was valued something like 5 billion last year, but that was before the first successful human implantation of a neuralink which happened a few days ago. If its something like 50% again then that is a couple billion more.

All in all, in total you have around 165 billion, Tesla is about 46% of this.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:00:29 UTC No. 16007122

>>16007121
Oh yes, forgot about the possible IPO of Starlink which is under SpaceX right now. I wouldn't be surprised if that is 100-200 bil out of the gate. Musk could walk, have plenty of capital and things to do even if his current 13% disappeared (which of course would not happen, some other CEO would run Tesla and maybe they had a chance to keep the current valuation and get some kind of growth, who knows).

The 46% share of Tesla from his total net worth might decrease if Tesla gets halved again or worse after Musk walks, but even that wouldn't really be the end of the world for him.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:02:00 UTC No. 16007127

>>16007097
yes of course, but this is about his net worth
Starlink as a public company would be worth a lot

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:03:08 UTC No. 16007128

>>16007107
>boring company
>trillion dollar company
>by 2030
This I'm calling hard bullshit on. No way Boring Company has the potential to be that sort of disruptive company.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:07:07 UTC No. 16007135

>>16007048
Seems hard to IPO Starlink on its own when its long term competitive advantage is highly dependent on Starship

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:07:56 UTC No. 16007137

>>16007128
Yep on first glance it seems kind of far fetched, but I haven't really thought about it
if digging tunnels after cities becomes a massive business and they are the only company positioned to start offering those services (because they created it with disruptively quick and cheap tunnel boring tech), then a large valuation might be possible
right now tunnel boring is extremely slow and expensive, if you made it cheap and fast you could expand the market massively
a bit like launching will be expanded massively with Starship cheap mass to orbit, or the satellite internet market being expanded with cheap and fast internet (previously very slow and expensive with GEO satellites)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:09:19 UTC No. 16007140

>>16007135
why would it be? are you saying spacex starts fleecing starlink before some other heavy lifter comes along and this blocks starlink from being competitive?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:14:12 UTC No. 16007147

>>16007122
IPO never
Musk doesn't want to risk dealing with activist shareholders again, he even admitted that Tesla IPO was a mistake.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:20:16 UTC No. 16007155

>>16007135
Starlink is gorillions of dollars in profit without starship. Internal F9 launch costs are already a huge edge.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:25:32 UTC No. 16007162

>>16007137
my understanding of Boring company is that it's not like it's digging tunnels faster, but they're digging tunnels exclusively for electric vehicles so that they don't need expensive airflow systems like other tunnels need. That's why the vegas tunnel is all teslas.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:31:46 UTC No. 16007166

>>16007155
Would F9 be included in the IPO'd part?
What will F9s advantage be over Kuiper with New Glenn or Chinese competitors launched with F9 clones?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:33:33 UTC No. 16007168

>>16007147
only if he wants to keep running Starlink
if he thought he needed a lot of capital quickly for the mars colony for instance then I don't think its impossible
Its probably unlikely yes (due to public company fuckery + the cashflows from Starlink being probably sufficient for the Mars colony) but he does not have to be keep running Starlink after the IPO

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:33:39 UTC No. 16007169

>>16007140
Investors would see the risk. Why would SpaceX offer preferential below-market launch prices to Starlink when Starlink is no longer part of SpaceX?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:35:58 UTC No. 16007171

>>16007169
Especially if Musk sells his entire Starlink stake during the IPO

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:36:50 UTC No. 16007172

>>16007162
the point is to dig them faster too and do the whole project from start to finish faster with other stuff like porpoising (starting tunneling from the ground instead of digging a whole first and assembling the boring machine there, then doing that again at the other end)
other than car tunnels, you have maintenance tunnels, metro tunnels, high speed train tunnels between cities (a big problem here is right of way and the need to build bridges and/or tunnels so the track is straigth, perhaps even developing something like hyperloop (requires even longer stretches of straight track than high speed train)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:37:55 UTC No. 16007174

>>16007169
musk has 79% voting control
maybe there was less interest from the public in the offering and they get a lower price due to the risk you talked about

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:42:18 UTC No. 16007182

>>16006643
THIS

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:45:28 UTC No. 16007184

>>16007048
Tesla is important if he actually wants to send significant mars infrastructure on his ships without waiting 25 years for nasa to drag its feet. Tesla can build androids and electric vehicles, and has a lot of manufacturing power which would be needed to send a bunch of privately funded equipment over.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:47:30 UTC No. 16007185

>>16006643
>>16007182
Neither is SLS.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:49:57 UTC No. 16007188

>>16007185
THIS

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:55:14 UTC No. 16007194

>>16007184
Tesla can build manufacturing power if it comes down to it, the androids are not a thing yet

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:55:15 UTC No. 16007195

SOON

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 00:57:13 UTC No. 16007200

>>16007194
They got some prototypes. Really their main utility doesn't need to be autonomous activity, they just need something they can sit inside a habitation pod and remotely command and control to do necessary tasks out in the martian wilderness.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:01:46 UTC No. 16007209

when is dreamchaser launching

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:02:20 UTC No. 16007210

>>16007200
I misspoke, I mean SpaceX can build manufacturing (they already are)
sure losing the control of EV manufacturing is perhaps a problem, but by the time the mars colony starts getting built, EVs are going to be a commodity
the investment thesis in Tesla right now is not the EVs so much (even though there is a case there, its just relatively small compared to other investment opportunities)
its the self driving, optimus and perhaps the energy side which might become as big as the EV side and is not really given any value by the market at this point
if tesla didnt have FSD, energy or the possibility of Optimus, there are better opportunities to put your money in out there

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:08:38 UTC No. 16007216

>>16007210
EV's being a commodity isn't the important part. They need evs that have sealed compartments, life support, and airlocks. Tesla could make stuff like that in mass without spending an arm and a leg and wasting decades to develop them.
They also need to send energy infrastructure, such as batteries and solar systems. Tesla is already in that business. Tesla is worth more than the money Elon could get from selling out his part due to its capability and the time it would save him establishing a functional Mars base.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:14:39 UTC No. 16007225

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbQ-wHT0fTc
It's time.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:17:43 UTC No. 16007231

>>16006872
kys

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:30:21 UTC No. 16007246

177 pins,

And 177 shims.

The pins and the shims are in.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 01:45:00 UTC No. 16007257

>>16007216
Not necessarily, he would have to deal with shareholders crying about the diverted funds with no profit in sight. That's a huge pain in the ass. It would be much easier to dump the stocks or loan against them and start a fresh company.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:13:26 UTC No. 16007298

>>16006911
starbase, texas has also been incorporated as an town officially pending federal approval
not really sure what the implications of this would be for starbase or spacex
perhaps they could do some of the paperwork themselves that need to be done through brownsville or something?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:14:35 UTC No. 16007299

>>16007298
last flyover vs this flyover (next pic)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:15:38 UTC No. 16007301

>>16007299
wrong order lol

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:20:49 UTC No. 16007307

>>16006607
Do high altitude explosions count as "operational"?

>>16006631
IT DON' LOOK LIKE MUH MARVEL MOOVEES

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:22:12 UTC No. 16007308

https://twitter.com/blueorigin/status/1753238508519444763

BE-4 hotfire test vid

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:28:38 UTC No. 16007314

>>16007308
doesnt spacex do 100 of these per day?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:32:59 UTC No. 16007320

>>16007314
I don't know about 100, but yes a lot of testing is done in McGregor
a vid from one year ago where SpaceX blew a raptor up and returned to testing 69 h later
most days have at least 3 raptor tests, the record was 8 from the first vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wfc-WYifpIk

2 horizontal test stands, 3 vertical
the tripod has gimbaling ability and is the one NSF has a live camera feed pointed at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlrYG5oFW_o

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:33:45 UTC No. 16007321

>>16006626
Fat five is honestly a top 10 rockets of all time as of 2024

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:35:40 UTC No. 16007323

>>16007301

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:36:48 UTC No. 16007324

>>16007323
13th

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:37:51 UTC No. 16007325

>>16007324
28th

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 02:42:32 UTC No. 16007335

>>16007321
I just wish it would launch more often

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:24:31 UTC No. 16007372

>>16007216
Don't forget Tesla motors and batteries actuate Starship flaps.

>>16007257
That's part of why he's refusing to bring any of his other meme ideas under the Tesla umbrella without minimum 25% control of the company. They can either give him sufficient control to build Mars or they can kill the golden goose.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:24:57 UTC No. 16007374

>>16006701
>Ukrainian flag
That is so 2022.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:42:59 UTC No. 16007381

>>16007374
you still see them occasionally

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:44:34 UTC No. 16007386

what's with the glownigger astoturfing in this thread lol

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:46:06 UTC No. 16007388

Nah, ukraine is still blowing shit up. Like this was last night. Craziest shit from the war so far IMO.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 03:47:08 UTC No. 16007390

>>16007388
This is only possible because of starlink BTW.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:03:55 UTC No. 16007398

>>16007388
They also finally got their first shipment of GLSDBs which stretches the effective range of HIMARS by like 50%.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:06:58 UTC No. 16007402

>>16007388
damn that end lmao

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:13:49 UTC No. 16007407

Fuck off back to k/pol/uhg/chug

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:32:10 UTC No. 16007427

>>16007407
Low latency remote control of surface vehicles via Starlink is a tech demo for Mars.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:34:35 UTC No. 16007428

>>16007427
/vt/umours also have to go back

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:38:13 UTC No. 16007430

>>16007428
AI voice assistance is also relevant for Mars since it means fewer buttons to push while wearing EVA suits.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:45:04 UTC No. 16007433

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1753151972503629865

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 04:45:16 UTC No. 16007434

>>16007323
Can't wait for all vertical tanks to be removed so that all NSF cars parked by the launch site for their cameras get obliterated with nothing to shield them.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:09:10 UTC No. 16007455

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5IxOBcNrFw
> What Does SpaceX Have Planned For Starship 26?? - Starbase Gallery [Jan 24th - 30th, 2024]

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:16:48 UTC No. 16007461

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/for-the-first-time-nasa-has-asked-industry-about-private-missions-to-mars/

🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:18:24 UTC No. 16007463

>>16007461
>

However, it is clear in this solicitation that NASA is seeking a broad array of potential contributors. Sizing the payloads as small as 20 kg opens the door to a large number of providers, and the imaging services might be attractive to companies already doing this in low-Earth orbit, such as Planet.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:19:54 UTC No. 16007466

>>16007461
> However, it is clear in this solicitation that NASA is seeking a broad array of potential contributors. Sizing the payloads as small as 20 kg opens the door to a large number of providers, and the imaging services might be attractive to companies already doing this in low-Earth orbit, such as Planet.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:21:32 UTC No. 16007467

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/02/by-launching-on-starship-the-starlab-station-can-get-to-orbit-in-one-piece/
> "We looked at multiple launches to get Starlab into orbit, and eventually gravitated toward single launch options," he said. "It saves a lot of the cost of development. It saves a lot of the cost of integration. We can get it all built and checked out on the ground, and tested and launch it with payloads and other systems. One of the many lessons we learned from the International Space Station is that building and integrating in space is very expensive."
> With a single launch on a Starship, the Starlab module should be ready for human habitation almost immediately, Smith said.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:23:44 UTC No. 16007468

>>16007018

>>16007022
I think that is different, missed it too

>>16006684
article about this by berger >>16007461

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:27:03 UTC No. 16007471

https://spacenews.com/air-force-rocket-cargo-initiative-marches-forward-despite-questions-about-feasibility/
> ORLANDO, Fla. — The U.S. Air Force is pressing forward with plans to demonstrate point-to-point rocket travel perhaps in a few years.
> Speaking on a panel Jan. 30 at the Space Mobility Conference, Spanjers said AFRL and SpaceX have been “digging through different scenarios” for the use of the company’s giant rocket Starship for rapid, global cargo transportation.
>“We’ve looked at this for seven years, and it never makes any sense,” said Spanjers. “Now we’re finding that, indeed, it’s looking a lot more attractive than it has in the past.”


This is about the cargo delivery point-to-point study or whatever that was requested like last year, not the recent thing about taking over starships for singular missions (doing whatever they want, I guess it could include cargo missions point-to-point as well)

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:29:12 UTC No. 16007474

>>16007471
> Having a global infrastructure to launch Starships or other cargo rockets also remains a big unknown. “Both as a company but also as a nation, to fully leverage Starship, we’re going to need a proliferation of launch sites” both in the United States and overseas, Henry said.
>Cargo potentially could be delivered from a rocket to the ground using special reentry capsules such as those developed by Inversion Space, the company’s co-founder and CEO Justin Fiaschetti, said at the conference.

references this article (pic related), its from November 2021
https://spacenews.com/startup-raises-10-million-to-develop-return-vehicle-for-space-cargo/

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 05:56:41 UTC No. 16007492

If someone was being an annoying dick and taking up the tiny gym just to sit around and do nothing en route to Mars WWYD? No insane shit like throw them out of the airlock because then youre gonna decompress the entire cabin.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:00:46 UTC No. 16007498

>>16007492
Establish a schedule for use of the shared space, like a sane person.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:12:17 UTC No. 16007504

>>16007498
yeah, sleep in shifts for example so people have some personal space but can socialize half of their waking time as well

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:46:06 UTC No. 16007534

>>16007492
Make sure he isn't personal friends with Elon

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 06:48:00 UTC No. 16007535

Musk owes me 358k in lost valuation die to his retarded Twitter shit.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:08:30 UTC No. 16007550

>>16007535
good, fuck you

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:11:15 UTC No. 16007553

>>16007535
Nobody cares. This is spaceflight general shut the fuck up

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:25:45 UTC No. 16007566

>>16007553
meanwhile 90 percent of the posts here are about elon musk, no way that spacex is a vanity project though, it's the future of mankind

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:29:26 UTC No. 16007568

behead those who insult musk

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:29:33 UTC No. 16007569

>>16007492
Fart in his EVA suit

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:29:38 UTC No. 16007570

>>16007566
Do you think I endorse those either? I must be the one that bitches the most about staying on topic here for fuck sake

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:30:44 UTC No. 16007573

https://spacenews.com/final-preparations-underway-for-launch-of-first-intuitive-machines-lunar-lander/
> Trent Martin, vice president of space systems at Intuitive Machines, said the lunar lander, called Odysseus by the company, has been encapsulated within the payload fairing for its Falcon 9 rocket. However, he declined to give a specific date for the launch, saying only that there was a three-day launch period for the mission in mid-February.
> “We work directly with SpaceX before we announce the exact launch date and time, so that will be announced here in the coming days,” he said. Any launch in that three-day period, he added, would set up a landing attempt on the moon Feb. 22. The company previously said IM-1 would take about a week to go from launch to a landing on the moon.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:30:55 UTC No. 16007574

>>16007566
If there was anything else in the soace industry worth talking about we would talk about it as you would know if you weren't a newfag now fuck off.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:31:59 UTC No. 16007576

>>16007574
We could talk about Plasma Magnet

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:32:54 UTC No. 16007577

>>16007576
There's been recent studies of the solar wind that show it may drop off faster than the plasma magnet was expecting. The QI memesat is our only hope.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:36:04 UTC No. 16007578

https://spacenews.com/startups-call-for-streamlined-us-regulations-for-emerging-space-capabilities/
> The Federal Communications Commission released a draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) Jan. 25 to set up a licensing framework for in-space servicing, assembly, and manufacturing activities
kind of funny that in space manufacturing would fall under FCCs jurisdiction
the laws regarding space are a clusterfuck

https://www.fcc.gov/document/facilitating-space-servicing-assembly-manufacturing-capabilities

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:37:19 UTC No. 16007580

>>16007576
There's nothing to talk about until it gets funding and it seems like that's just not going to happen.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:38:02 UTC No. 16007581

https://europeanspaceflight.com/polaris-spaceplanes-conduct-first-rocket-powered-roll-test/
> Earlier today, POLARIS announced that it had completed the first MIRA roll test powered by the aerospike engine. The test was conducted at Lemwerder Airfield near Bremen in Germany. During the roll test, the aerospike engine was fired for just three seconds at 60% thrust. The vehicle’s safety system then automatically vented the remaining oxygen enabling ground crews to safely approach it following the conclusion of the test.
> MIRA is the fifth vehicle that POLARIS has built and tested. The lessons learned from these prototypes will be used in the development of the company’s multipurpose spaceplane and hypersonic transport system, AURORA. Once operational, AURORA will be capable of delivering up to 1,000 kilograms into low Earth orbit with the aid of an expendable upper stage.
aerospike space plane meme machine development is progressing

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 07:53:08 UTC No. 16007587

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RiT0B1C7ow0
> Kimbal Musk on SpaceX: Shocked when U.S. government forced $1B budget

this guy had a 1h 40min long interview with Kimbal Musk supposedly, but its cut up into different sized segments
this one was the only one that seemed to mention SpaceX directly, otherwise its talking about Tesla, or risk-taking or fighting with musk (physically)
apparently he risked personal bankruptcy so he could invest more money into Tesla, lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raiZk000Xxk

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:02:22 UTC No. 16007596

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:11:01 UTC No. 16007601

>>16007587
the exceprt about SpaceX is actually about cost+ and US military contracting

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 08:15:36 UTC No. 16007603

>>16007573
Bets on how this one fails?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 09:52:40 UTC No. 16007680

>>16007603
30%

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:29:29 UTC No. 16007709

>>16007603
Is this the 3rd one?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:42:29 UTC No. 16007719

>>16007467
It can fit in a starship, but how is it getting out? I doubt it can fit through that mail slot they've shown off for starlink launches.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:55:12 UTC No. 16007721

>>16007719
I see no reason why it would not be technically viable to have hinged doors like Shuttle.
I'd think It would mean more rigid structural reinforcement and lower payload capacity, which is why they went with the coin slot dispenser.
Worst case, Superheavy could be launched in Falcon 9 mode and just throw away a simplified upper stage. It would be suboptimal, but it could be done just fine.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 10:59:06 UTC No. 16007723

>>16007709
second CLPS mission, there has been I think two japanese moon lander attempts in the recent past, an indian mission and a russian mission

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:02:05 UTC No. 16007725

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1753372594315706699

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:13:58 UTC No. 16007732

>>16007721
just spam those stringers, that would probably work

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:16:14 UTC No. 16007733

>>16007721
You can't really design or build anything until spacex actually decides how starship is gonna launch large payloads though right?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:34:01 UTC No. 16007746

Starship life support mockup leaked

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:34:50 UTC No. 16007748

lmao

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:41:43 UTC No. 16007755

>>16007746
something is missing there

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:43:53 UTC No. 16007760

>>16007725
nigga’s so broke he can’t even afford an interplanetary spaceship

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 11:56:22 UTC No. 16007772

>>16007374
I believe in TZD still
>>16007427
very true
>>16007402
it's such a good video

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:00:29 UTC No. 16007773

>>16007746
the girl in the wheelchair waiting for the couple to finish having sex in the handicap accessible restroom goes hard

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:46:18 UTC No. 16007792

>>16007733
see <-
>inb4 2020 revision
the design intention is obvious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 12:56:29 UTC No. 16007802

>>16007772
More like THD.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:12:32 UTC No. 16007814

Guys can our silicon friend live here?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:14:45 UTC No. 16007817

>>16007814
no

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:16:23 UTC No. 16007818

>>16007814
Silicon life needs hotter worlds, not colder. They can have Venus.

Barkon at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:23:20 UTC No. 16007824

Stop making this gey space thread. Space travel is pointless. You don't even take off with rockets, they're weapons. Talk about brute forcing you're way on to sci. No-one cares about this thread.

IGNORE THIS THREAD.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:37:56 UTC No. 16007840

>>16007824
haha
seethe

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:48:23 UTC No. 16007845

NKRTJ

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:49:58 UTC No. 16007847

>>16007845
it's not a tripfag just a namefag

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:56:30 UTC No. 16007855

hey /sci/ i make perpetual motion machine :D

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:58:15 UTC No. 16007857

https://spacenews.com/shanghai-firm-behind-g60-megaconstellation-raises-943-million/

Another day
YET another Chinese megaconstellation raises 1 billion usd in funding.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 13:59:53 UTC No. 16007859

>>16007857
paper megaconstellation

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:00:39 UTC No. 16007860

>>16007847
And? It's just as cancerous.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:02:09 UTC No. 16007861

How does Helios compare to Star 48 and Fregat?
Some numbers for reference
>Fregat + New Horizons: total mass 7013kg, delta-v 4.7km/s
>Star48 + New Horizons: total mass 2592kg, delta-v 4.1km/s

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:11:28 UTC No. 16007871

>>16007855
that's not perpetual motion that's a solar panel

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:19:11 UTC No. 16007876

>>16007855

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:31:33 UTC No. 16007885

>>16007861
Helios is higher thrust and can do multiple burns unlike Star48.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:34:13 UTC No. 16007890

>>16007388
So? It's an old 500t displacement FAC, which have been pretty much obsolete for decades. Russia could lise 10 and it wouldn't move the needle on anything. You could just as well show us a compilation clip of another 10 T-72s getting wrecked.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:35:26 UTC No. 16007893

>>16007427
Starlink is used to control artillery all the time in Ukraine. Doesn't mean it's an excuse to turn sfg into uhg

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:38:13 UTC No. 16007896

>>16007885
im so fking erect

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:39:42 UTC No. 16007898

>>16006824
two weeks bros we're living good now

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:41:17 UTC No. 16007899

>>16007885
Wouldn't this make whatever Tory boasting about irrelevant?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:43:57 UTC No. 16007904

>>16007899
yes lol

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:52:36 UTC No. 16007909

>>16007899
Long term, yes
but in the near term he's safe because the nro and ula have a very good relationship

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:53:20 UTC No. 16007910

>>16007876
I'd imagine that maintenance costs of these are quite high, and the energy output of the sun is lessened by the atmos. Solar panels degrade in space too. Make my satellite simple and robust enough and it will work practically forever.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:56:21 UTC No. 16007915

>>16007890
if Russia didn't need them, why do they keep them around?

Barkon at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:58:50 UTC No. 16007916

>>16007915
They are like bullets, they go. They send you to do stuff unless you set them in a certain way betraying their nature. They are wise but it's risky if not managed or you are against someone wiser. You could end up making a great sacrifice for over 50 years of inconsise dreams in addition to hell if you use these wrongly.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 14:59:07 UTC No. 16007917

>>16007909
NRO = Negro Retards Office

>>16007915
They're not meant for peer combat, they're meant to bully civilian shipping. Ukraine's goal is to wipe out the Black Sea Fleet so they can start normal import/export traffic from Odessa again.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:01:25 UTC No. 16007919

WHAT KIND OF STAGED COMBUSTION HAVE YOU DESIGNED, MUELLER
TELL ME

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:04:14 UTC No. 16007921

>>16007919
probably orsc since the LOX tank is bigger anyway (CH4 + 2O2 => CO2 + 2H2O) and higher molar mass spins turbines easier

Barkon at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:04:55 UTC No. 16007922

>>16007919
There are 4 or 5 things that protect deeper things than sleep, passivity

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:05:33 UTC No. 16007923

>>16007919
FULL FLOW STAGED COMBUSTION

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:06:41 UTC No. 16007924

>>16007923
FFSC would have two powerheads.

Barkon at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:07:54 UTC No. 16007925

>>16007924
When you are distracted. I think.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:08:00 UTC No. 16007926

>>16007921
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING
>>16007922
QUIT RESPONDING TO ME YOU WEIRDO BOT
>>16007923
LIAR

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:08:18 UTC No. 16007927

>>16007923
Wasn't Mueller against taking any credit for Raptor development?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:09:09 UTC No. 16007928

>>16007927
Yes, he wasn't part of the team working on it.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:30 UTC No. 16007931

>>16007923
>proof AI is shit

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:11:57 UTC No. 16007934

>>16007927
>>16007928
Musk purposely separated the F9 and Starship/Raptor teams because unlike the latter, the former was not permitted to constantly fail
I don't doubt he contributed a little to Raptor but that wasn't his job

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:33:35 UTC No. 16007958

whats up with all these trannies trying to take away glory from mueller?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:37:53 UTC No. 16007964

>>16007958
>All these trannies
The only person trying to take away glory from Mueller is Mueller.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:43:54 UTC No. 16007975

>>16007958
He left when he realized Musk wouldn't give him more equity.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:44:08 UTC No. 16007976

>>16007964
mueller is under pressure from the trannie-congressional jewish industrial complex

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:46:31 UTC No. 16007982

>>16007976
Mueller went on the record to say he wasn't involved with Raptor's development several years ago. Biden was not a factor at the time.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:52:03 UTC No. 16007991

>>16007915
Because the procurement cost has already been paid for, and they still have some more years of life in them. They're useful as patrol boats with some reserve wartime functionality.

Besides, why do you ask why Russia hasn't thrown away a 1977 design 1987 modification FAC when they are a country that still keep barely upgraded T-72Bs in active service. They don't like throwing stuff away. If they take a weapon out of service, they then usually put in reserve storage or export it rather than to scrap it.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:54:03 UTC No. 16007995

>>16007991
I was going to suggest that the manpower and money used to maintain it could be better spent elsewhere, then I remembered that the Russian's don't do proper maintenance and the money is getting stolen, so it all makes sense now
they should be thanking Ukraine for disposing of the rot present in their military

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:00:45 UTC No. 16008000

Test of 1:1 CZ-8 model at the new dedicated CZ-8 launch pad at Hainan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOtPF_9BZm4

First launch is in June. 3 launches are planned in 2024. Target cadence is 16/year, with potential to be increased further.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:01:20 UTC No. 16008002

https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-touts-capabilities-of-blue-ring-transfer-vehicle/
Meanwhile at BO
Jeff fears Tom
>Blue Ring, he said, has 12 docking ports, each able to accommodate payloads weighing up to 500 kilograms. A top deck on the spacecraft can carry payloads weighing up to two and a half tons. The spacecraft offers 3,000 meters per second of delta V, or change in velocity, to maneuver to different orbits.
>He added that Blue Ring is both refuelable and able to refuel other spacecraft, although he did not disclose the propellants the vehicle uses.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:05:50 UTC No. 16008003

Chomper is NOT happening
Big Windows is NOT happening

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:06:51 UTC No. 16008005

>>16008000
Thank you Great China

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:08:30 UTC No. 16008007

>>16008002
>throws and engine and solar panels on spacex transporter adapter
seems dubious

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:23:18 UTC No. 16008029

>>16007995
Whether it is worthwhile to keep them depends on what your personnel costs are, and in which state of readiness you keep the ships. They have a crew of 50 each. Russia only keeps 20 Tarantul (now 19) in service today, which seems like a reasonable amount for what is essentially a fast patrol boat that has some reserve wartime capability. Historically, the USSR used to have several hundred FACs in service.

I believe another reason Russia keep old ships is that they have been bottlenecked in warship and patrol ship production, because much of the USSR's large shipyards and maritime propulsion industry was in Ukraine. I think this has mostly been solved now, and Russia now has a ton of Steregushchiy, Gremyashchiy, and Karakurts under construction or fitting out (which vastly improve air self-defense and organic aviation, the main weakness of FACs) as well as larger warships and 22160 patrol boats

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:31:13 UTC No. 16008037

>>16007855
If Rube Goldberg designed a solar panel

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:31:52 UTC No. 16008041

>>16007855
you are a bit late
Herman Potocnik came up with this literally a century ago
the satelite dish looking thing is parabolic mirror for boiling water

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:38:21 UTC No. 16008046

>>16007982
>trannie-congressional jewish industrial complex didnt exist before biden
grow up.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:44:33 UTC No. 16008052

>>16006643
Factually correct.
>>16006645
FH does not have the capability to send Orion to TLI.
>>16006656
SLS actually puts Orion to an inclined elliptical orbit ~40x162km such that
(1) the ICPS with only 1 RL10 can send it to TLI
(2) allows for an easy splashdown of the core stage over the Pacific Ocean

Goddamn i hate it when ppl don't know the facts

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:54:32 UTC No. 16008065

>>16008046
Blaming your internal timeline's wrongness on a Jewish Industrial Complex just makes you look like a dumbass. Or a glowie. Fuckin' Glowie.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 16:59:09 UTC No. 16008067

>>16008065
I'm more of a schlowie than a glowie

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:00:17 UTC No. 16008071

>>16007890
I think we can both agree Zero blown up ships is better then One blown up ship.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:01:01 UTC No. 16008072

Space-Circling did a full test firing of their Qiaolong-1 engine, which, as I understand it, uses a closed tap-off cycle
https://www.weibo.com/5658451754/NEoWjELk0

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:10:25 UTC No. 16008077

Underground warehouses are the future I know it

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:12:05 UTC No. 16008081

>>16008071
Sure, just like 0 wrecked T-72s is better than 10. However, certain people tend to present such battlefield losses as if they each are somehow worthy of note, even a major blow to Russia (or Ukraine), and somehow significant in comparison to the full costs that Russia, Ukraine and Ukraine's backers are paying for the shooting war and the economic war

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:12:15 UTC No. 16008082

>>16008077
not as long as buying an open plot of land and building a warehouse on it is cheaper than digging out said plot and building a warehouse under it
even on mars, it's easier to just build a structure above ground and burry it under soil

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:15:02 UTC No. 16008087

The first YF-85 engine rolled off Orienspace's production line. The factory's target production rate is 300 engines per year.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:15:54 UTC No. 16008089

>>16007847
same difference

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:16:00 UTC No. 16008090

>>16008082
Except that there is a huge advantage to having the warehouse in the city center. Not some place outside the city. Just have a big diameter TBM dig out 10 kilometers across the city and then rent it out. There would also be no need for insulation. There is a lot of place for tunnels. People could just walk outside their apartment, enter a lift which takes them down to their office, warehouse which is inside the tunnel.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:16:25 UTC No. 16008091

>>16008087
that looks a lot like raptor
if they can mass manufacture a raptor imitation cost effectively they might be able to catch up to SpaceX

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:17:22 UTC No. 16008093

>>16008052
you sound like a fag

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:17:40 UTC No. 16008094

>>16008081
No said that. I just said they are still blowing tings up.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:18:33 UTC No. 16008095

>>16007855
that's just a rankine cycle. How would you use mirrors and centrifugal force to move the water around though?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:18:39 UTC No. 16008096

Why does the stats page list Barry-1 apogee at 525km when I just saw it reach 530km (and dropping now) I guess its within a margin of error or something like that, I would assume the two would be linked though in real time so its weird.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:18:44 UTC No. 16008097

>>16008090
i dont think thats cheaper than knocking down some building and building your warehouse there chief

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:20:04 UTC No. 16008100

>>16007910
There are a few plants that are running actually. The upside is that they generate more energy per unit are occupied, since mirrors will reflect basically 90% of the light into the tower.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:21:12 UTC No. 16008102

>>16008097
Even if you knock down existing building inside the city center the plot of land is going to cost a lot. Just think about the volume current metro systems occupy.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:21:34 UTC No. 16008104

>>16008096
Also whats up with this Arg of Perigee on celestrak?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:23:07 UTC No. 16008107

>>16008091
It is a 70kN thrust/ 279s Isp at sea level, lox/kerosene open cycle engine. You can see the turbopump exhaust in front. It is roughly equivalent to Merlin, although slightly less powerful than Merlin 1D and with a worse thrust-to-weight ratio.
https://www.orienspace.com/oriEngine

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:24:44 UTC No. 16008109

>>16008041
Figures.

>>16008095
If the flow doesnt happen by itself, I figure centrifugal force could force the water to the desired direction in a tank. Say, the steam enters in the middle of a cylinder that spins, and the condensing water thus should flow to the edges, from which it should flow back to the boiler. Suppose the heat from mirrors could also be used to raise the temperature in some place of the cycle to evaporate the water and force it to move, if the flow was somehow stuck. I've seen some stirling engines get stuck like that, needing a nudge. But I guess it could be done mechanically too.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:26:31 UTC No. 16008114

Potočnik je naš čovjek

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:26:46 UTC No. 16008115

>>16008093
you are a fag

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:37:31 UTC No. 16008130

>>16008094
>I just said they are still blowing tings up
We all know that things are still being blown up. Things have been getting blown up continuously for two years now. Yet you posting this comment and clip in the context of someone saying Ukraine flags on Twitter are such a 2022 phenomenon suggests you think this is a significant event worth highlighting, one that means anything, as if there's anything "fresh" about it that makes Ukraine cool and Current Thing (TM) again

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:43:54 UTC No. 16008132

>>16008130
blowing up ships is pretty novel desu, especially against a country without a Navy
these boat's sole purpose is to destroy civilian shipping (and Russia hasn't been willing to push their luck on that front) so it's both completely irrelevant and utterly embarrassing

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 17:47:17 UTC No. 16008136

>>16007388
Is that a missile or some sort of floating drone?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:05:07 UTC No. 16008152

>>16008130
>Cool video of things blowing up gets twitter people hyped
>twitter people hyped = flags on twitter
Not rocket science.

>as if there's anything "fresh" about it that makes Ukraine cool and Current Thing (TM) again
It's probably the best footage of a military boat listing and going bow up since.... ever. How is that not fresh?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:05:10 UTC No. 16008153

>>16008132
>blowing up ships is pretty novel desu
Russia has lost several RORO ships, patrol boats, utility boats, etc, and a cruiser already. Several of them to USVs

>especially against a country without a Navy
It was a novel thing in WW2. Sinking ships with weapons other than ships isn't novel anymore. Indeed, today aircraft and missiles are the weapon of choice for use against surface ships.

>these boat's sole purpose is to destroy civilian shipping
Russia doesn't need ships to attack civilian shipping, because, again, it's not pre-WW2. The Russians have aircraft and missiles.
According to Ukraine, the ship was on patrol in lake Donuzlav, patrolling the waters around the nearby airfield and naval base. Which makes sense, because today FACs have little value as FACs, and are mostly just good as patrol boats.

>and utterly embarrassing
Why? The Russians can't prevent the Ukrainians from finding and targeting the ship, because the ship is found and tracked by American RQ-4B or other NATO equivalent aircraft that the Russians aren't allowed to shoot at. They can't target the factories that makes USV components, because they are outside Ukraine and the USVs get delivered as knock-down kits that the Ukrainians assemble in some random shed or bunker. The Russians can't target the datalink, because it uses Starlink as a relay, and the Russians aren't allowed to target Starlink. If the Ukrainians keep launching USVs, it's a statistical certainty that some will get through unless they Russians have a 100% interception rate, which they can't reasonably achieve.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:06:22 UTC No. 16008155

>>16008136
drone boats packed with explosive. Notice the receiver.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:07:35 UTC No. 16008158

>>16008155
Musk is a now officially a warlord

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:08:39 UTC No. 16008159

>>16008153
how come Houthis have now sunk a US carrier though? Anyway intelligence and satellite imagery supplied by US to Ukraine must be making a big difference too. Problem is Ukraine still isn't winning

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:10:35 UTC No. 16008163

>ITT

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:10:36 UTC No. 16008164

>>16008104
Is this something or nothing?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:13:40 UTC No. 16008165

>>16008096
glowniggers dont want people to know how sucessful the experiement went.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:14:55 UTC No. 16008166

>>16008165
I dont think they care, only DARPA might have slight interest

I just wanna know whats responsible for these two odd things
>>16008096
>>16008104

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:16:13 UTC No. 16008167

>>16008166
At any rate I guess I'll check out if the live perigee is also different for the stated perigee too for now >>16008096

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:21:44 UTC No. 16008171

>>16008167
Ok yeah it is, so just the stats are out of alignment I guess

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:24:57 UTC No. 16008174

>>16008159
>Anyway intelligence and satellite imagery supplied by US to Ukraine must be making a big difference too
Absolutely. Massive difference. It means the Russians can never achieve surprise, and Ukraine can disposition its forces at the right place, at the right time. It allows Ukraine to shoot at targets deep behind the front line.

American space-based ELINT on Russian radar emissions is likely what allows Ukraine to plan missile strikes that exploit Russian radar coverage gaps whenever such gaps appear, meaning Ukrainian missile strikes have a far higher chance to penetrate than they otherwise would have, and they don't waste missiles on strikes that have a low chance of penetration.

Good intelligence is a huge force multiplier, and, essentially, Ukraine has intelligence superiority over Russia. Russia only has 11 active Earth imaging satellites. NATO has about 270 civilian and military reconnaissance satellites, I think Sergei Shoigu said. Then there is how Russia is not allowed to target NATO ISTAR aircraft that work for Ukraine, while Ukraine is allowed to target Russian ISTAR aircraft

Source for 11 number
>compared to just 11 for Russia.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/12/a-top-secret-chinese-spy-satellite-just-launched-on-a-super-sized-rocket/2/

Intelligence superiority was a major contributing factor to the success of the Gulf War, as explained by General Schwarzkopf himself
https://youtu.be/wKi3NwLFkX4?feature=shared&t=258

I think Starlink also makes a big difference, not just for USVs. It is great for unassailable quality communications between units and with commanders

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:27:09 UTC No. 16008176

>>16008171
>>16008096
So most up to date stat is
>apogee 530km
>perigee 509km

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:29:03 UTC No. 16008180

>>16008136
it combines the worst qualities of a torpedo, a PT boat, and a drone
>>16008152
I hope we someday get such spectacular views of military spaceships breaking up in lunar orbit or during atmospheric entry
>>16008153
>Russia has lost several RORO ships, patrol boats, utility boats, etc, and a cruiser already. Several of them to USVs
yeah that's cool, god bless the Ukies
>>16008104
>>16008164
it's nothing, Arg of Perigee changes over time due to the earth not being spherical (it's kinda squashed) and when it hits the bottom it wraps around to the top
the phenomenon is called "precession"
>>16008174
I love American space based ELINT capabilities
the ORION GEOSat is such a cool thing, whose idea was it to put a football sized umbrella in geostationary orbit, gonna give him a high five

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:30:08 UTC No. 16008183

>>16008180
>it's nothing
I figured

On the other hand I think I finally understand precession better holy shit

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:30:27 UTC No. 16008185

Queqiao-2 has arrived at Wenchang
https://twitter.com/CNSpaceflight/status/1753394025917456451

Queqiao-2 is scheduled for March
Chang'e-6 is scheduled for May

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:31:49 UTC No. 16008187

>>16008183
that's good because I wrote that explanation and I still don't know why it works or what it's even doing, just that orbits get bent around

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:32:22 UTC No. 16008188

>>16008185
USA is scheduled for mockery

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:32:47 UTC No. 16008189

>>16008187
>just that orbits get bent around
Good enough for me, precession is one of the hardest things for me to grasp in orbital dynamics

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:33:28 UTC No. 16008191

>>16007792
Oh interesting, I didn't know they'd revealed this much about how payloads will work with Starship. I wonder if it's changed much with all the stuff they've done to Super Heavy and Starship since 2020 though.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:33:50 UTC No. 16008192

>>16008189
I don't even understand how it gets bent around, just that it does
I guess I need to look at more graphs of orbital arguments over time

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:34:09 UTC No. 16008193

>>16007388
spaceflight?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:34:59 UTC No. 16008195

>>16008193
Russia is a spacefaring nation
Ukraine is currently at war with Russia
Ukraine uses drones with satellite receivers to direct their war drones
Yes. This is spaceflight.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:36:01 UTC No. 16008198

>>16008195
I'm joking btw, get this fucking /k/-/pol/ shit out of /sfg/

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:41:49 UTC No. 16008204

>>16008180
>the ORION GEOSat
reminder that we have good proof this exists

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:42:28 UTC No. 16008205

>>16008204
no shit it exists, you can whip out a telescope and look at it

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:44:00 UTC No. 16008206

>>16008205
any picture available?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:44:55 UTC No. 16008207

>>16008188
Well, the US might look a bit silly if Nova-C fails

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:45:05 UTC No. 16008208

>>16008206
[spoiler]CLASSIFIED[/spoiler]

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:47:28 UTC No. 16008210

>>16008206
I think this is about as good as we'll get

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:50:21 UTC No. 16008211

>>16008210
reminder that it was likely oldspace giant NG that designed the unfolding mechanism and charged the US government billions for it

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:54:22 UTC No. 16008214

How do i talk my girlfriend into fucking a BSC (big silicon cock) whole i watch jerkin my little carbon dick?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:55:45 UTC No. 16008216

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1753492142201475570

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:55:54 UTC No. 16008217

would wanna sniff her sock

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:56:15 UTC No. 16008218

>>16008216
Fucking kino

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 18:59:19 UTC No. 16008219

>>16008214
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n7eNFj_9Vk

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:00:51 UTC No. 16008222

>>16008216
>pathetic

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:01:14 UTC No. 16008223

>>16008216
someone will make that meme out of this

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:01:55 UTC No. 16008225

>>16008216
big benis

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:02:20 UTC No. 16008227

>>16008216
>>16008223
>apu-on-ground.jpg

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:04:47 UTC No. 16008234

>Super Heavy boosters for the next three flights, with a fourth ready to stack, in the Starbase Megabay
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1753492142201475570?s=20

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:06:02 UTC No. 16008237

>>16008234
With a bit of luck these flights will be orbital

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:24:01 UTC No. 16008256

>>16008237
they need a miracle

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:34:06 UTC No. 16008264

>>16008256
more than a miracle, a fucking warp in the space time continuum. that fucking shit can aint making it to orbit and let alone making it to the surface of the moon softly.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:35:34 UTC No. 16008266

>>16008234
what's your guy's cope when IFT-3 fails?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:36:10 UTC No. 16008269

>>16008237
>a bit of luck
>>16008256
>A miracle
IFT2 didn't make it to orbit only because they vented S25 too quickly, short of some mechanical failure (like a bunch of booster raptors failing like IFT1), IFT3 should absolutely make it to "orbit".

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:36:35 UTC No. 16008270

>>16008266
I don't have one planned, either it works or I kill myself

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:37:07 UTC No. 16008271

>>16008266
I hope it fails in a spectacular way so I can get more footage of exploding rockets
looking forward to IFT-4!!!

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:39:46 UTC No. 16008275

>pathetic

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:40:05 UTC No. 16008277

>>16008266
This is why we test

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:40:55 UTC No. 16008278

>>16008266
It would be quite worrying

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:44:01 UTC No. 16008282

Glory to SpaceX
to Mars!

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:48:10 UTC No. 16008288

>>16008275
>"...And tell your FAA to never delay us for this long again"
>"it will be done, oh great ones"
>"That is all, leave us"
>"As you wish"
>humans depart
>Mega bay doors close

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:51:42 UTC No. 16008294

>>16008275
Are those NASA boomers in the picture?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:52:28 UTC No. 16008295

>>16008294
what tipped you off?
-X

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:53:16 UTC No. 16008296

>>16008295
old people and women in white hardhats

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 19:53:57 UTC No. 16008297

>>16008294
Probably from that recent NASA visit that the HLS woman mentioned

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:02:48 UTC No. 16008302

>>16008003
Something like Starlab pretty much requires fairings.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:09:15 UTC No. 16008310

>>16008237
If flight 3 successfully demonstrates engine relight that clears every flight afterwards to be orbital.

Until that happens Starship will continue doing these not quite orbital flights, the last thing SpaceX wants is a giant CZ-5C that is designed to survive reentry.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:26:51 UTC No. 16008328

>>16008003
>>16008302
conceptartbros...

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:29:29 UTC No. 16008335

Why is a fairing needed at all?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:33:45 UTC No. 16008341

>>16008335
because sats are neither aerodynamic or handle supersonic winds well

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:41:01 UTC No. 16008346

>>16008192
I remember it clicking after playing around with my hands and the vector cross product of the current speed and acceleration due to gravity, though I have forgotten the exacts now
Like just start imagining how the satellite moves in 3d space

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:44:30 UTC No. 16008348

>>16008216
MOGGED

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 20:46:42 UTC No. 16008350

>>16008266
I would not worry at all, the programme is already so far along it would have to be some freak accident or something, which would of course get fixed for IFT-4

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:04:52 UTC No. 16008368

>>16008216
>>16008227
Somebody make a Bezos edit of this.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:38:01 UTC No. 16008406

>>16008216
holy fuck

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:56:00 UTC No. 16008421

>>16008368
You arent funny at all by the way

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 21:58:25 UTC No. 16008426

>>16008216
SUPERB

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:03:10 UTC No. 16008434

>You arent funny at all by the way

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:03:36 UTC No. 16008436

>>16008216
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DV1fUwKMdAI

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:03:49 UTC No. 16008437

Let the seething begin xD

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:13:41 UTC No. 16008448

>>16008275
>>16008234
>>16008216

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:16:25 UTC No. 16008449

>>16008448
Gonna watch that vid again

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:27:53 UTC No. 16008454

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aWBDAfMtQRM
> Europe Plans To Launch Million Mile Long Space Laser Antenna - Deep Space Updates - January 31st

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:38:59 UTC No. 16008460

a lot of vaporware being announced this week, globally

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:41:02 UTC No. 16008462

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:41:49 UTC No. 16008464

>>16008462
These and recent pewdiepie video made me want to learn how to draw

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:44:12 UTC No. 16008470

>>16008266
mass production

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:44:18 UTC No. 16008472

>>16008464
then you can post cute rocket oc

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:45:01 UTC No. 16008474

>>16008462
electron is cute! CUTE!

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:46:50 UTC No. 16008480

>Rvac was removed from Ship 28

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:49:46 UTC No. 16008483

>>16008462
>>16008474
She is too modest. Want to see more skin

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:56:04 UTC No. 16008493

https://twitter.com/nerdplysgames/status/1753210561989349859

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 22:57:06 UTC No. 16008495

https://twitter.com/AdamCuker/status/1753531050171548065

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:31:36 UTC No. 16008550

>>16008493
>>16008495
The immediate sugarcoating is pretty funny. Of course these are tests so some explosions are to be expected, but it still reads like they're coping hard

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:33:16 UTC No. 16008551

>>16008495
>>16008493
this is really fucking bad. DEI at spacex?

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:39:12 UTC No. 16008557

>>16006701
This is still one of the funniest things I've ever seen.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Feb 2024 23:52:53 UTC No. 16008573

>>16008557
no it's really not

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:04:42 UTC No. 16008585

>>16008557
/sfg/ is too hard on tory. I think at the end of the day he knows that "high energy" is a cope. but it's the only thing that constitutes a niche for his rocket and he can't just come out and say that his company exists because the US needs redundant launch providers.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:06:53 UTC No. 16008587

>>16008493
>Merlin stand
>>16008495
>Raptors
get your story straight chud

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:07:45 UTC No. 16008591

>>16008585
>too hard
>>16007748
He's not just a lying snake but also a coward.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:09:10 UTC No. 16008593

>>16008591
He's handsome as fuck tho
>>16008585
I'm swooning

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:10:11 UTC No. 16008594

>>16008593
You're a tranny, cuck
therefore dilate

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:11:31 UTC No. 16008597

>>16008591
see? just like this. he needs to be a "coward" because we can't have *both* competent US rocket companies be headed by a controversial maverick. he needs to "lie" to say something other than "vulcan exists in case something goes wrong with falcon"

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:12:38 UTC No. 16008600

Why are they still dicking around LC-39A?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:13:32 UTC No. 16008601

>>16008585
he is a fucking liar

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:13:53 UTC No. 16008602

>>16008594
>immediately cant help himself from his brain thinking about girls with big cocks and cuckoldry
i know what kind of porn you watch ;)

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:15:18 UTC No. 16008603

>>16008601
yeah. lies like
>vulcan is better at putting payloads into high orbits and direct transfers than its current competitors
oh wait that's true, it's just not a very compelling use case

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:16:27 UTC No. 16008606

>>16008603
holy shit, spacex stans absolutely btfo

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:24:59 UTC No. 16008614

>>16008603
its not true

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:31:13 UTC No. 16008620

>>16008603
So basically /sfg/ has been lying the whole time?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:37:00 UTC No. 16008626

>>16008620
nope
Falcon Heavy can do anything Vulcan can I'm pretty sure and probably cheaper
the NSSL contracts are not really indicative of the true cost and price you would have in the actual open market

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:39:57 UTC No. 16008633

>>16008626
Falcon heavy cannot do what vulcan does. vulcan fairing is bigger and higher energy. falcon must be reused so much less capable
NSSL proves vulcan is more useful to DOD than flacom heavy

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:44:29 UTC No. 16008638

>>16008603
Falcon 9 can lift 5.5 tons to GTO vs Vulcan VC2's 8.4 tons, but Falcon only costs $67M versus Vulcan's $92M. $92M isn't that far away from Falcon Heavy's $95M sticker price, but it can lift about 15 tons to GTO. The Vulcan VC6 can lift about 14 tons/GTO but it costs around $120M. Vulcan's a more efficient rocket, but it's not a more economical one.

That efficiency shows itself off more and more for higher energy trajectories, but those missions also require a rocket to have a lot of raw propellant to be used, efficiently or otherwise. Vulcan tried but it just couldn't stretch itself enough to compete for Europa Clipper. There's probably a sweet spot somewhere around C3=8 where Vulcan can shine launching NASA payloads to Mars, but that's not a lot to build a business on.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:56:20 UTC No. 16008655

>>16008633
i call it flameout heavy because thats basically what it is. catastrophic misuse of DOD money.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:57:40 UTC No. 16008658

>>16008655
fart heavy

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 00:59:47 UTC No. 16008662

>>16008633
must? no it doesn't
NSSL proves nothing, there is not back and forth bidding or price discovery

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:01:30 UTC No. 16008665

>>16008638
by shine you have to assume they could compete on price, which is all that matters
talking about high energy is a scam, misleading and a lie
why the fuck should a customer care about the specific rocket architecture as long as they get their payload where it needs to be for the lowest price? its that simple

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:03:52 UTC No. 16008669

>>16008662
Ok. 38 kuiper launches.
You dumb fuck retard

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:07:09 UTC No. 16008673

>>16008669
lmao there was no competition for that either, Amazon used pretty much everyone else except SpaceX because they didn't want to give money to a competitor
they even got sued over it

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:08:23 UTC No. 16008676

>>16008673
It's called a free market fucker, get used to it

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:11:44 UTC No. 16008681

>>16008673
This is going to happen more and more until there are no payloads left for spacex to launch. When elon dies even starlink will launch exclusively on vulcan and new gleen

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:11:55 UTC No. 16008682

https://www.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/static/saa/domestic/39221_SAA8-2033020.5_(39221)_Relativity_Space_Annex_5_Final_Signed.pdf
Terran R hot staging

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:12:25 UTC No. 16008683

>>16008638
Meanwhile Helios on a Falcon Heavy Expendable could send Europa Clipper on a direct ascent if it's ready in time for the launch window.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:18:27 UTC No. 16008691

>>16008682
I wonder if they were thinking about doing this before Starship demonstrated it, or if they are copying Starship
probably a good idea anyway, nothing wrong with copying to get some MVP out and then start iterating and finding perhaps a better solution

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:20:49 UTC No. 16008696

>>16008682
copying spacex is all anyone has left. not a single original idea

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:24:28 UTC No. 16008704

>>16008691
Date on the bottom is December 12, less than a month after Starship did it. Relativity probably thought of it before then, but perhaps after Starship hot staging was announced.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:30:47 UTC No. 16008714

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:37:32 UTC No. 16008721

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:37:35 UTC No. 16008722

less than 2 weeks

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:38:40 UTC No. 16008723

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:42:45 UTC No. 16008730

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 01:45:47 UTC No. 16008733

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:01:20 UTC No. 16008757

and to think starship is tiny compared to future spaceships...

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:17:16 UTC No. 16008770

>>16008733
>>16008730
>>16008723
>>16008722
>>16008721
>>16008714
God I love JP artists

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:34:13 UTC No. 16008785

>>16008757
Unlikely. There's nothing out there so little reason to go there.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:35:21 UTC No. 16008787

"He's the greatest engineer in the world, I don't think anyone comes close, frankly"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raiZk000Xxk

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:45:40 UTC No. 16008801

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1753604377518989755

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 02:50:04 UTC No. 16008804

https://spacenews.com/firefly-to-continue-responsive-launch-operations-for-future-alpha-missions/
Some updates on Firefly's rockets
>"weeks" away from completing investigation on the last launch
>"similar procedures" to Victus Nox on all future launches
>4 Alpha launches still forecast this year
>Antares 330 "still scheduled for a first launch as soon as mid-2025"
>Northrop is building MLV's fairing

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:08:52 UTC No. 16008813

>>16008801
Vulcan costs more per launch than a fully expended Starship

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:13:23 UTC No. 16008817

>>16008813
That really gives me pause

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:49:37 UTC No. 16008846

SHLV

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 03:51:00 UTC No. 16008847

>>16008846
*SHUTTLE

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:00:21 UTC No. 16008853

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1753621539407208899
> 2 Infographics tonight!
>I often see confusion about why HLS Starship (and Blue Moon) take so many launches to get to the moon when SLS can do it in a single launch.
>This largely comes from the misunderstanding that HLS and Orion are going to the same place. They aren't.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:01:50 UTC No. 16008854

https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1753621539407208899
> 2 Infographics tonight!
>I often see confusion about why HLS Starship (and Blue Moon) take so many launches to get to the moon when SLS can do it in a single launch.
>This largely comes from the misunderstanding that HLS and Orion are going to the same place. They aren't.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:02:56 UTC No. 16008855

>>16008854
https://twitter.com/KenKirtland17/status/1753621541911142860
> So what would happen if we compared SLS Block 1a and Starship pushing the same weight, the mass of Orion ESM (27t), to the same destination, TLI?
>Below I compare a fully expended Starship Stack, Partial Reuse Starship, and Fully Reused starship.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:27:48 UTC No. 16008879

>>16008846
Shitty heavy lift vehicle

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:55:42 UTC No. 16008897

>>16006811
>Doge-1 two weeks away
watch it get delayed again lole

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 04:56:18 UTC No. 16008898

https://twitter.com/deltaIV9250/status/1753588709641912333

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:05:53 UTC No. 16008909

>>16008898
Voldemort will btfo everything else (fully reusable) Bill Gates funding

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:08:15 UTC No. 16008913

>>16008898
Where did it go so wrong for Rocket Lab?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:11:44 UTC No. 16008915

>>16008913
Pretty much the same stumbling point as Blue Origin; they designed a smaller, simpler engine that worked pretty well and then they decided that a much bigger engine with a more demanding power cycle was something they could knock out in a similar time frame, only for it to be a lot harder than they expected.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:14:45 UTC No. 16008916

>>16008913
Peter Beck never had faith of the heart.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:15:49 UTC No. 16008918

>>16008913
space is hard

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:26:27 UTC No. 16008925

>>16008913
Ricket Leb

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:28:47 UTC No. 16008927

>>16008633
>NSSL proves vulcan is more useful to DOD than flacom heavy

Vulcan won 10 launches and Falcon won 10 launches in the only bid they have faced off.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:37:49 UTC No. 16008932

>>16008913
>Where did it go so wrong for Rocket Lab?

SpaceX's Transporter missions, they sent up 351 payloads in 2023.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:44:26 UTC No. 16008937

>>16008913
They tried to make a launch company in a world where Spacex exists.
I've said for years that their only hope of survival is a hard pivot to orbital vehicles and platforms, but unfortunately "rocket" is in the fucking name of the company and I don't think they're willing to do the smart thing and give up.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:45:20 UTC No. 16008938

That little helicopter

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 05:51:30 UTC No. 16008942

>>16008603
Tory is called a lair because he has on multiple occasions presented graphics that heavily sandbagged the performance of competitors rockets.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:04:45 UTC No. 16008952

>>16008937
they would be pivoting into an industry that is possibly even more crowded and has Tom Mueller
but yeah should be way easier to have a business there (or continue their current business in that area)

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:08:36 UTC No. 16008956

>>16008915
>bigger engine with a more demanding power cycle was something they could knock out in a similar time frame
BO developed their engine faster than SpaceX developed Raptor (Raptor is still in development)

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:11:12 UTC No. 16008958

Reminder that this exists

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:12:31 UTC No. 16008959

>>16008952
Crowded, but with comparable companies. If you're a launch company and you aren't Spacex's government-mandated-and-supported competitor, then you're completely fucked.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:13:02 UTC No. 16008961

>>16008958
What's special about that one, again?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:14:55 UTC No. 16008962

>>16008956
where do you draw the line that the engine is "developed"
when a vehicle with it reaches orbit?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:16:56 UTC No. 16008965

>>16008932
Sorry, starlink doesnt count

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:19:01 UTC No. 16008967

>>16008956
BE-4 isnt developed until it lands and reflies

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:21:23 UTC No. 16008968

>>16008965
are you retarded?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:23:28 UTC No. 16008970

>>16008956
>BO developed their engine faster than SpaceX developed Raptor

Raptor has a significantly more difficult combustion cycle to develop than the BE-4, Raptors are less than half the size of a BE-4 while producing comparable thrust and Raptors launched a payload into space before the BE-4

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:24:17 UTC No. 16008972

>>16008967
I thought Blue Origin was going to try that right away with the maiden launch which is supposed to happen somewhere in the second half of this year
how long is it going to take for SpaceX to try to land with Starship or Superheavy?
I think they would try to do a bunch of water landing attempts first and maybe even build the second tower before risking landing on the chopsticks
if they are going the safe route then i think New Glenn has a pretty good chance of beating Starship on landing

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:25:30 UTC No. 16008973

https://twitter.com/roydendsouza/status/1753554008109666704

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zg_S8umaUsk

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:26:47 UTC No. 16008974

>>16008973
https://twitter.com/roydendsouza/status/1753193861365551146

this cybertruck as moon rover discussion is an excerpt from the 1h 25min video (which I haven't listened to yet)

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:30:57 UTC No. 16008978

https://techcabal.com/2024/02/02/starlink-application-botswana/
> “There were issues regarding missing requirements with the application, which were identified and pointed out,” said a source at Botswana’s Communication Authority. ”They are yet to respond to the issues.”

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:33:17 UTC No. 16008979

>>16008972
Blue does not currently have a landing platform and the delivery date of their new barge is not public.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:34:11 UTC No. 16008980

>>16008979
can't they just do return to landing site?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:35:50 UTC No. 16008981

>>16008978
>It is unclear which information Starlink did not provide in its original application.

Probably the African prince needing your bank account routine.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:35:58 UTC No. 16008982

>>16008973
>>16008974
The amount of Elon-cum gargling nonsense is reaching critical levels

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:36:28 UTC No. 16008983

>>16008981
didn't pay the required bribe

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:37:43 UTC No. 16008984

>>16008980
New Glenn cannot RTLS.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:42:07 UTC No. 16008988

>>16008978
>Botswana
What a stupendously irrelevant country

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:45:15 UTC No. 16008991

>>16008984
huh, why the hell not?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:52:18 UTC No. 16008994

>>16008991
Let me rephrase, it isn't that New Glenn could not but rather that Blue neither has the facilities to or has a desire to take the performance hit.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:52:41 UTC No. 16008995

Two more tower parts are ALREADY on the move?? Christ sake this is going pretty fast.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 06:59:03 UTC No. 16009002

>>16008961
It's of unfathomable size

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 07:02:26 UTC No. 16009006

>>16008994
pretty sure RTLS takes less facilities than barge landing desu

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 07:25:41 UTC No. 16009017

>>16009006
just land it on the parking lot
how long can it take for BO to build a parking lot?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 07:35:52 UTC No. 16009033

How can BE-4 get away with so much thrust with so little chamber pressure?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 07:37:25 UTC No. 16009037

>>16009033
It's bigger?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 08:43:51 UTC No. 16009080

>>16009037
SpaceX BTFO

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 08:49:13 UTC No. 16009085

>>16009080
bigger is not better in this case

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:37:29 UTC No. 16009107

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:38:33 UTC No. 16009109

>>16009006
Where is their landing pad anon?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:40:41 UTC No. 16009110

>>16009107
When you make your analogy so vague only you understand it.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 09:42:00 UTC No. 16009112

pretty sure pouring a concrete foundation can't be that hard

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 10:31:15 UTC No. 16009136

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1752867103206420581

two weeks

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:19:48 UTC No. 16009178

Does SpaceX plan to expand its depot in the coming years? With a node and additional docking ports, you could add a second Ship with big solar panels to power a reliquefaction plant.

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:44:11 UTC No. 16009193

>>16009002
>Unfathomable size
NGC1380 is of similar size to ours, 78k LYs across. Did you mean it's mass?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:47:06 UTC No. 16009196

>>16009178
what depot are you talking about?
they are in the process of expanding the orbital tank farm right now>>16007325
all of those horizontal tanks are new I'm pretty sure and they will start building a second tower

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:51:58 UTC No. 16009201

>>16009196
orbital depot

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:56:15 UTC No. 16009204

>>16009201
you mean a tanker/depot starship in actual orbit?
I don't remember there being any info about anything like that
a fixed large orbital depot with multiple tankers and stuff like solar panels might make sense though but at this point they don't even know how fast boil-off is going to be and whatever, that and the actual mass to LEO is why the necessary number of tankers launches is so up in the air

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:57:02 UTC No. 16009205

>>16008733

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:58:15 UTC No. 16009207

Staging

>>16009206
>>16009206
>>16009206
>>16009206
>>16009206

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 11:59:09 UTC No. 16009208

>>16009178
They already have a depot? Where is it?

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:01:12 UTC No. 16009211

>>16009193
I'm not sure if it weighs any different. But like all galaxies it's so big normies can't comprehend it

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 12:05:46 UTC No. 16009220

>>16008978
>Botswana

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Feb 2024 16:10:08 UTC No. 16009467

>>16008913
Not building reusability margins into the booster so you can propulsively land your cores and then refurbish and refly them quickly.