Image not available

833x1250

IMG_3759.jpg

🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General

Anonymous No. 16073259

IFT-3 Launch Day Edition

Previous - >>16070026

Image not available

2000x2778

superheavy.png

Anonymous No. 16073263

MASSIVE PAYLOADS AND HUGE THRUST

Image not available

1280x1920

IMG_5877.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073265

CANCEL MSR

Anonymous No. 16073267

its time

Anonymous No. 16073269

Phew just got back on sfg after work.
I will have the launch thread up tomorrow morning, assuming no early weather scrub. Can’t wait lads

t. Launch thread anon

Image not available

4096x2304

1709572123154522.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073270

Soon

Anonymous No. 16073272

>>16073263
you're the kind of person no cries for when they get run over for jaywalking

Anonymous No. 16073274

Space X? More like SCRUB X.

Image not available

2100x3500

109240588_p0.png

Anonymous No. 16073275

>>16073272
you're double gay

Anonymous No. 16073280

>Starship flight 3 maybe tomorrow
>maybe

What did Elong mean by this, he got his license

Anonymous No. 16073281

>>16073280
It's windy (scrub).

Image not available

1642x2489

IMG_3446.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073283

Anonymous No. 16073287

>>16073283
lrn to crop

Image not available

958x1196

rocketman.png

Anonymous No. 16073290

>>16073259
Glass the Earth, demigod war eventually

Image not available

1080x1080

65f2546f88ea3cd03....jpg

Anonymous No. 16073300

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1768094802590175323
>A very high resolution satellite image of Starship on the launch pad ahead of a possible flight in less than 10 hours. The image was captured nearly 2hrs after Ship 29 performed a spin prime test on the Monday.

https://spacefromspace.com/satellite-images/spacex-starbase-launch-site-flight-3-20240311

Image not available

1280x720

srtbse.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073320

might have been posted in the last thread but I didn't see it, new starbase flyover

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2zU6bjahl4

Image not available

600x499

Spin Polarized DT....jpg

Anonymous No. 16073324

Has there ever been an attempt to make a rocket engine like this, but instead of achieving fusion, it achieves fission? A sort of inertial confinement fission drive?

Image not available

1024x552

starfox_arwing_re....jpg

Anonymous No. 16073328

>>16073324
I want to achieve fursion with Krystal

Anonymous No. 16073332

>>16073259
Cock rocket will explode, seals will clap, screenshot it.

Anonymous No. 16073333

>>16073324
Fission doesn't need laser-inertial confinement, you just bang roggs together. I guess the closest would be a Nuclear Lightbulb / Closed Cycle Gas Core NTR where a gas core reactor is physically contained by a giant quartz crystal that transfers heat and UV+xrays to the LH2 on the outside.

Anonymous No. 16073335

>>16073332
Off by one.

Image not available

1366x768

Star Fox Arwing S....png

Anonymous No. 16073343

>>16073333
Well that's my point though, by using inertial confinement. You could get an extremely powerful gas core like fission propulsion system without requiring all of the wacky batshit crazy engineering to keep them from exploding constantly. You would remove the constraints of having to worry about the walls melting or flushing out unused uranium. And unlike fusion ICF, you don't need massive fuck off lasers to do the near impossible (nuclear fusion), you can probably really easily achieve nuclear fission with some basic lasers and a basic setup fuel pellet.

So now you get an ICF fission reactor that can achieve ISP's in the 10,000's of seconds and thrust levels in the 1,000,000's of newtons all without worrying about the reactor itself exploding because there is no reactor. Just a pretty capable torch drive based on basic bitch fission.

>>16073328
Yes

Anonymous No. 16073351

>>16073343
Anon, laser confinement IS wacky crazy engineering. Nobody EVER does it when they can use solid walls.

Anonymous No. 16073360

I'm advertising /sfg/ on the /pol/ threads about this starship launch.

Anonymous No. 16073361

>>16073360
TYSM!

Image not available

540x405

1682912684299562.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073364

>wake up an hour and a half early for a launch that will be scrubbed
>sleep in and miss something cool and historic
The time I set my alarm for determines tomorrow morning's launch events, I am as God.

Anonymous No. 16073365

>>16073360
You do this every time do you really need to tell us? Its like clockwork

Anonymous No. 16073368

>>16073364
I have already determined the outcome (scrub) because I am not sleeping tonight and will be wrecking my sleep schedule

Anonymous No. 16073369

>>16073351
they do when the solid walls melt.

Image not available

1920x1084

Furry Krystal Spa....jpg

Anonymous No. 16073371

what time is the launch?

Anonymous No. 16073372

Is there a confirmed time yet for launch?

Anonymous No. 16073374

>>16073371
Friday

Anonymous No. 16073375

>>16073372
T-336 hours

Anonymous No. 16073376

>>16073371
>>16073372
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/7363

Anonymous No. 16073377

>>16073360
bitch why

Image not available

1179x1267

IMG_0964.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073383

>>16073259
Here from /pol/. Let’s go!

Anonymous No. 16073385

>>16073320
where is the flame trench supposed to be? or are those pieces for some sort of diverter to go under the OLM?

Anonymous No. 16073386

>>16073385
its burried for now

Anonymous No. 16073395

KABOOM

Anonymous No. 16073398

>>16073386
For the new launch mount or excavating under the first one?

Anonymous No. 16073400

>>16073398
at Masseys for ship SF

Image not available

2048x2007

IMG_0171.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073404

>>16073377
I’m from /pol/ and I love SpaceX and space. Even if it’s fake

Image not available

1648x1200

00000000000008795....png

Anonymous No. 16073414

Imagine what can be done when we can just drop 50 tons on mars without having to pack every possible instrument into 1 ton

Image not available

1631x2224

1680135501414071.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073417

STARSHIP IFT-3 WILL SUCSEED! ENDING NUMBERS MATCH AND PROVE IT!

Anonymous No. 16073418

>>16073371
Kys noa

Anonymous No. 16073419

>>16073417
It will fail and all the spacex shills will claim it's a success like always

Anonymous No. 16073421

>>16073417
Fail, fuck you for ruining launch.

Anonymous No. 16073422

>>16073417
pippers

Image not available

570x102

file.png

Anonymous No. 16073425

>>16073287
okay, but it's going to take some practice

Image not available

1484x676

inertial confinem....png

Anonymous No. 16073427

>>16073324
>>16073343
Here liek dis:

Anonymous No. 16073431

>>16073324
That's basically Zubrin's Nuclear Salt Water Rocket

Anonymous No. 16073435

>>16073427
To add, you can even induce a sheared flow to the propellant so that the pellet stays in the center as it heads towards the point of criticality.

Anonymous No. 16073442

please don't explode too early, it's getting boring

Image not available

951x1450

GImZC5IWwAAVVPr.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073443

kino, too bad its gonna scrub tomorrow

Image not available

1080x399

Screenshot_202403....png

Anonymous No. 16073444

>>16073417
Holy shit you saved SpaceX
>ends in 17
>Posted 17 minutes ago

Anonymous No. 16073446

The everyday astronaut is live now

Anonymous No. 16073448

>>16073446
i was hoping he was dead

Image not available

1354x701

Clipboard04.png

Anonymous No. 16073449

g'night /sfg/
see you all early tomorrow

Anonymous No. 16073455

>boss just called and told me to come in 2 hours early/will miss the launch due to a last minute meeting
lol

Image not available

1044x810

Screenshot 2024-0....png

Anonymous No. 16073456

attached my phone to my telescope with a 3d printed mount and pointed it at the ISS just to see what would look like. I thought these were lens flares on a white dot but I think I'm looking at a basic outline of the ISS

Anonymous No. 16073457

>>16073456
bro, space is fake.

Image not available

1044x810

Screenshot 2024-0....png

Anonymous No. 16073459

>>16073456

Anonymous No. 16073461

>>16073444
Wasted trips kys

Anonymous No. 16073463

>>16073461
>>16073444
samefag

Image not available

1179x374

IMG_3761.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073464

>>16073463
Fail

Image not available

1080x356

Screenshot_202403....png

Anonymous No. 16073482

>>16073463

Image not available

400x400

ALL SYSTEMS FULL ....png

Anonymous No. 16073487

kerosene + hydrogen peroxide>liquid methane/liquid hydrogen + liquid oxygen

fite me

Anonymous No. 16073490

>>16073417
kys pipnig

Anonymous No. 16073512

>>16073417
Cute girl

Image not available

603x602

apu poopoo.gif

Anonymous No. 16073527

if repeating digits, starship will explode.

Image not available

2732x4096

1700437826440626.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073535

>>16073527
>not one repeating digit

Image not available

1024x1000

apu horrors scared.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073540

>>16073535
if repeating digits, starship explodes and kills people as a result

Anonymous No. 16073546

>>16073540
thank you for blessing the launch

Anonymous No. 16073549

Really looking forward to things tomorrow lads :)

Anonymous No. 16073551

>>16073263
I want her to beat and rape me half to death.

Anonymous No. 16073559

>>16073455
Lmao imagine being this much of a cuck

Anonymous No. 16073569

what's the launch time exactly? trying to do gay timezone conversions from ausfailia

Anonymous No. 16073570

>>16073527
>>16073540
stupid frogposter

Anonymous No. 16073573

>>16073569
Window opens at 12:00PM UTC

Anonymous No. 16073576

>>16073569
It's in 6 hours

Anonymous No. 16073577

>>16073283
I know starship has nearly double the thrust at liftoff but something about those big dirty F1s with the big orange kerosene flames created a spectacle.

Image not available

1024x962

Sad Apu.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073579

>>16073570

Anonymous No. 16073587

>>16073576
based ill stay up then.

im in the hospital right now because I can't breathe properly so I hope I don't die before the first successful starship launch

if I do die, kill all martians, birds, beetles, ocelots, FAAfags, boingsisters, bloriginers, 5s, ESGs, earthers and nuclearfags for me bros

Anonymous No. 16073596

>>16073569
I know it'll be 10.30pm here in Adelaide, which is 11pm if you're a filthy east coaster. Or 10pm in Queensland, even though Brisbane is 1400km further east than Adelaide because daylight savings says fuck you and your logic for 6 months out of the year.

Anonymous No. 16073602

>>16073596
>Queenslanders have a stupid timezone
>SA has the stupidest timezone on earth (muh half hour)
no wonder the crown shipped you off

Anonymous No. 16073603

>>16073602
Learn to read, I wasn't criticizing the croc shaggers for their timezone, I was criticizing daylight savings (which SA has and QLD doesn't) for being retarded.

>shipped you off
SA wasn't founded as a penal colony and never took in any convicts, unlike all the others. We're the only free state.

Anonymous No. 16073608

>>16073603
you're the worst of all of us, you're basically all seventh sons of seventh sons, the flotsam of the sewage run off of the called aristocracy of Britain. Victoria should have annexed you.

Anonymous No. 16073613

what's plan b

Anonymous No. 16073616

>>16073613
fireworks

Image not available

1114x855

cloud.png

Anonymous No. 16073620

>Mostly cloudy, with a high near 78. Breezy, with a south southeast wind 14 to 18 mph, with gusts as high as 26 mph.
If they launch the likelihood of good ground tracking footage is pretty low.

Image not available

486x324

20240313_235538.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073623

if only you knew how bad things really are

Anonymous No. 16073625

>>16073620
Is the WB-57 scheduled?

Image not available

3840x2547

Transporter 10.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073626

i need more rideshare porn

Anonymous No. 16073627

Singles and the launch time will be delayed until tomorrow

Anonymous No. 16073629

Does anyone have the X stream link? It was posted few days ago here with the Starship date being the 14th.

Image not available

527x341

5hrs.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073631

~5 hrs from now

Anonymous No. 16073633

>>16073629
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBnOvzvOxN

Anonymous No. 16073637

Pad clear

Anonymous No. 16073638

>>16073633
Nice, roughly going live in ~4 hours. Someone should make a thread when that happens.

Anonymous No. 16073641

>>16073638
I will. I've been making the spacex launch threads for like 7 years now

Anonymous No. 16073649

>>16073620
if only they had on board cameras...

Anonymous No. 16073651

Invest in cloud removing technology

Anonymous No. 16073652

>People trying for digits in a 2 posts per minute board and failing
Get the fuck off my /sci/ and /sfg/, tourists. I blame boardfag.

Anonymous No. 16073659

ok anons
I'm going to stay up
what should I do in the meantime

Anonymous No. 16073661

>>16073633
>doesn't work without account
fuck you elon bitch bastard lasagna

Anonymous No. 16073664

>>16073659
You should be edging for the launch

Anonymous No. 16073665

>>16073659
go clean your room you filthy animal

Anonymous No. 16073666

>>16073360
stop you fuck

Anonymous No. 16073668

>>16073659
then clean your kitchen

Anonymous No. 16073669

>>16073659
listen to irish folk music

Anonymous No. 16073670

>>16073360
Thank you for taking the torch from me :)

Anonymous No. 16073671

>>16073661
Not working right now, but i've watched some Starlink launches on "X" not logged in.
I think it only works once the stream has started.

Anonymous No. 16073674

>>16073668
yeah alright mom

Image not available

546x82

can't wait.png

Anonymous No. 16073679

I.... am ready.
I've been here since the very beginning. San Pedro, hopper, all that. It's been a journey, /sfg/. I wonder how many of you have also been hanging around sci rocket threads since ~2017?

Anonymous No. 16073681

>>16073659
ejaculate at least twice so that you achieve a high level of post nut clarity before the launch, allowing you to truly appreciate it

Anonymous No. 16073682

>>16073360
Great, a bunch of underage subhuman tourists

Anonymous No. 16073684

>>16073633
>>16073661
>>16073671
Yeah, it worked for flight 2 like that, but I think the link that worked then was a link to a post, rather than the /i/broadcasts/ garbage.

Anonymous No. 16073685

>>16073684
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1765037578343121372

Anonymous No. 16073686

ok people, let's see what this tin can can do

Anonymous No. 16073688

snacks: ready
launch thread: ready to post
sfg: fullscreen

Anonymous No. 16073691

does anybody have the launch stream link still?

Anonymous No. 16073692

>>16073691
posted it here >>16073685
orrr you watch it here :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62LcUyKITjA

I will have the usual other livestreams in the launch thread of course

Image not available

359x337

83e9bf7a036002d90....png

Anonymous No. 16073696

>>16073368
I accidentally slept from 2pm to 8 pm so now I'm just in hell
>>16073579
stupid frogposter
>>16073679
yeah

Image not available

481x547

mars.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073709

Anonymous No. 16073710

>>16073709
Why not both?

Image not available

1500x679

SpaceX Starship T....png

Anonymous No. 16073711

Guys, I just got a sneak peak at the SpaceX launch of the Starship, it's not looking good.

Anonymous No. 16073713

>>16073710
BILLIONS FOR MARS
TRILLIONS FOR THE EARTH

WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF EARTH

Anonymous No. 16073714

>>16073711
the sun doesn't have sunglasses? really?

Anonymous No. 16073715

>>16073713
Stop the Artemis program, we need to protect the Earth instead of doing a moon landing

Anonymous No. 16073717

>>16073715
protect it from what? ourselves? seems to be a reasonable solution to just move ourselves to mars then. no more people around to be fucking up the earth.

Anonymous No. 16073718

>>16073713
>>16073709
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9qWYUH5x3k
MARS FOR THE RICH

Anonymous No. 16073720

I like smoke and lightning

Image not available

1280x720

maxresdefault[1].jpg

Anonymous No. 16073727

does starship have any reaction wheels? how will they turn it in space?

Anonymous No. 16073732

Tomorrow the weather is much more positive

Anonymous No. 16073733

>>16073727
no
RCS
how? RCS controllers in real life are much smarter than the RCS controllers in KSP

Anonymous No. 16073734

>>16073727
starlink sats have reaction wheels. so they have experience with them.

Anonymous No. 16073737

Are we go for launch ?

Anonymous No. 16073740

>>16073737
we are not confirmed as not go

Anonymous No. 16073741

>>16073737
The launch is in 3 hours anon

Anonymous No. 16073742

>>16073737
biggest hurdle is weather now, isn't it? somebody pull up the aviation weather forecasts

Anonymous No. 16073745

>>16073709
good to know he's still repeating 105iq takes he picked up from the new york times editorial page like they're his original nougats of wisdom dispensed upon the yearning masses

Image not available

640x477

scottish podracing.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073746

>>16073737
Kilt 4 standing by.

Anonymous No. 16073747

>>16073733
reaction wheels are also far more limited in real life

Anonymous No. 16073748

>>16073742
can we remove weather?

Anonymous No. 16073749

Isla Blanca Park parking has already a 100m waiting line

Anonymous No. 16073750

>>16073746
quit shitposting and get me the aviation weather forecast for boca chica, scott

Image not available

2048x1153

GInmk-dXEAEYaJU.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073752

>>16073749

Anonymous No. 16073754

>>16073749
just sneak in, can't be that hard to disguise yourself as a beetle

Anonymous No. 16073756

>>16073733
RCS controllers in ksp can be pretty smart if you mess around with the attitude adjustment settings in mechjeb and don't have retarded placement

Anonymous No. 16073757

SCRUBBBBBBBBBB
https://twitter.com/Robbies315/status/1768179262668845112
according to literally who

Anonymous No. 16073760

I've got 5 bucks riding on this piece of shit making orbit. Don't fail me again Elon.

Anonymous No. 16073761

>>16073757
lying about the event being cancelled is the oldest trick in crowd control

Anonymous No. 16073764

>>16073760
it's not going to make orbit tho. Not even the periapsis is above the ground.

Anonymous No. 16073765

>>16073752
I wanna be a part of it bros. I feel left out :(

Anonymous No. 16073766

>>16073761
this

Image not available

1536x2048

GImCiPUWYAALW_4.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073768

>>16073765
I'm waiting for first tower catch to go watch in person

Anonymous No. 16073770

>>16073764
including the deorbit burn is enough dv to put it in orbit

Anonymous No. 16073773

>>16073760
It's a suborbital flight so you're destitute either way

Anonymous No. 16073774

>>16073757
space is cancelled
everyone back to work

Anonymous No. 16073775

>>16073765
you are part of the sfg party fren

Anonymous No. 16073776

>>16073770
hmm, true.

Anonymous No. 16073780

>>16073776
giving a shit is stupid, arbitrary and pedantic so you should not give a shit

Anonymous No. 16073783

>>16073760
don't worry anon. i still haven't paid out on my bet that new shepard would make it to orbit.

Anonymous No. 16073784

>>16073760
based retard

Anonymous No. 16073788

>>16073750
He is too busy being on the NSF stream. I hope they at least pay him.

Anonymous No. 16073792

>>16073764
>>16073773
>>16073784
I know niggers but you fucking know what I mean.

Image not available

3410x1917

H4Cf4WhkLg5moYmHw....jpg

Anonymous No. 16073793

WE ARE GOING

Anonymous No. 16073794

it's a superorbital flight

Anonymous No. 16073797

it's a hop

Anonymous No. 16073798

20 knot ground speed forecast. Not great, not terrible. High/low patterns look good. Altitude winds should be good.

Image not available

960x720

GInvkVfW8AA-JJV.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073801

From Mexico

Anonymous No. 16073803

>>16073801
I'm glad Mexicans are interested in cool rockets

Image not available

320x180

2u6sll.gif

Anonymous No. 16073804

>>16073798
So what about windshear.

Anonymous No. 16073805

> it’s a bit windy so we need to scrub episode

Image not available

523x523

1629080236275.png

Anonymous No. 16073808

>>16073775
Thanks fren
We will witness history

Image not available

36x251

ws.png

Anonymous No. 16073810

wind shear is not that bad

Anonymous No. 16073812

What's your bets for this time
>another separation failure
>suborbital but SS doesn't make it down
>both stages reach the water

Anonymous No. 16073814

>>16073812
Sep successful, booster soft landing ok, ship makes targets but fails entry

Anonymous No. 16073815

>>16073812
Slightly further along than last time before RUD.

Anonymous No. 16073816

dedicated launch thread when?

Anonymous No. 16073817

>>16073812
complete success. remember ift2 would have worked, they just made an oopsie with their method for accounting for not having a payload.
this stack has 1000s of changes. why wouldnt it work?

Anonymous No. 16073819

>>16073812
Both stages reach the water. Unfortunately for SN28, it's the shit infested waters.

Anonymous No. 16073820

>>16073812
I'm feeling optimistic, I'm saying SS reaches the water but explodes on impact

Anonymous No. 16073821

>>16073816
I want to wait maybe one more bong before posting the launch thread, you never know about these last minute scrubs. But chances look good.

Anonymous No. 16073822

SS will not make it back, too many tiles will fall off. Integration monkeys are still fucking useless at tile attachment.

t. knower

Anonymous No. 16073823

>>16073816
There is no launch until Insprucker chimes in.

Image not available

231x250

1710005069084906.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073824

>>16073812
I vote for RUD during reentry

Anonymous No. 16073826

>>16073812
raptors fail to light for the deorbit burn on SS and the landing burn on SH

Anonymous No. 16073829

IFT3 needs to work this time , like it should not trigger an anomaly in FAA's eyes. SpaceX cant afford to waste another 3-4 months for another launch

Anonymous No. 16073831

>>16073829
FAA said that if it fails to safely splash down, they'll count it as an anomly.

Anonymous No. 16073832

>>16073829
does FAA stop caring at a certain point in flight? would a re entry anomaly trigger another FAA license process boondoggle?

Image not available

699x551

aa.png

Anonymous No. 16073835

Anonymous No. 16073836

>>16073812
Blows up at hot staging because they got lucky last time and there's as yet unpredicted physics involved, fire in Ship engine bay knocks out avionics and as a result altitude undershoots before AFTS fires.

Anonymous No. 16073838

>>16073816
>>16073821
at least wait until the official stream starts

Image not available

600x450

D30_41_459_0004_600.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073839

vibes

Anonymous No. 16073841

>>16073812
I believe in a full success

Image not available

360x360

1693160666787.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073843

>>16073263
why didn't you guys tell me you were hiding tomboy muscle waifus in these threads

Image not available

1886x1102

1614056113226.png

Anonymous No. 16073847

>>16073843
yeah

Anonymous No. 16073848

>>16073843
Rocket waifus are a point of contention in these threads

Anonymous No. 16073849

ULA sniper is in position. Time for Tory to destroy Elon once and for all

Anonymous No. 16073850

>>16073848
>point of contention
We have a couple of tourists who can't stop REEE'ing, sure.

Image not available

2160x2880

1703335270379219.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073852

>>16073843
Nobody was hiding them

Anonymous No. 16073853

>>16073848
Only by seething furry pedos

Anonymous No. 16073855

>>16073849
>inb4 Houthi rocket takes out starship

Anonymous No. 16073856

>>16073848
kek is the schizo still around? I haven't been here lately

Anonymous No. 16073861

>>16073812
It will fly outside its flight path and explode through the FTS

Image not available

1198x1062

x.png

Anonymous No. 16073866

bong govt advertising the launch, cool

Anonymous No. 16073869

>>16073866
>UK space agency
oxymoronic
cool logo tho

Image not available

375x498

1656784273701.gif

Anonymous No. 16073870

I can't lie lads, I got a BAAAAD feeling about this flight

Anonymous No. 16073872

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

Anonymous No. 16073875

>>16073870
sn8 good
sn9 bad
sn10 good
sn11 bad
sn15 good
ift1 bad
ift2 good
ift3 ....

mmmmmmh

Anonymous No. 16073876

>>16073870
If explodes on the launchpad it’s over

Anonymous No. 16073877

>>16073870
Pretty sheepish thing to say

Anonymous No. 16073879

>>16073875
ift1 was pretty good tho

Anonymous No. 16073880

RADAR HAS DETECTED AN OCELOT IN THE RESTRICTED ZONE

Anonymous No. 16073881

THE HAND OF GOD

Anonymous No. 16073882

>>16073848
Pinup decals = heterosexual
Anthropomorphized machines = homosexual
That's all there is to it.

Anonymous No. 16073883

ok I did the dishes

Anonymous No. 16073884

THERE IS A BEETLE 150FT AWAY FROM THE PAD . SHUT SPACEX DOWN NOW !!!

Image not available

960x540

1555193812551.webm

Anonymous No. 16073887

SpaceX's Starship test 3 aims to push the boundaries of the super heavy launch vehicle in several ways. Here are the key objectives:

Successful burns of both stages: This is a core goal, ensuring both the Super Heavy booster and Starship upper stage fire their engines effectively during ascent.
Testing Starship's functionalities: This includes opening and closing the payload door, a critical function for future cargo and crew missions.
In-space propellant transfer: Demonstrating the ability to transfer fuel between tanks while in space is crucial for Starship's reusability and missions requiring long durations in orbit.
First ever Raptor engine relight in space: Relighting engines in space allows for maneuvers and course corrections, a vital capability for future missions.
Controlled reentry and splashdown: Starship needs to safely reenter the atmosphere and achieve a controlled ocean landing.
This test flight also features a new trajectory with a splashdown target in the Indian Ocean. This path allows SpaceX to attempt new maneuvers like in-space engine burns while maintaining public safety.

Overall, this mission is a significant step in developing Starship's capabilities for future space exploration, including NASA's Artemis missions.

Anonymous No. 16073888

thanks claude

Anonymous No. 16073890

i'm glad nsf has all these ecelebs ready to step in and explain basic facts to me

Anonymous No. 16073892

>NSF livestream is so soi that the estronaut is actually better
wild

Anonymous No. 16073893

>>16073890
>>16073892
>not watching everyday astronaut

Anonymous No. 16073894

What is the comfiest stream ? Labpadre?

Image not available

1872x879

GIn3BJuW0AA687W.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073896

>Starbase range security boat Defender I is outbound from Port Isabel

Anonymous No. 16073897

>>16073892
Of all the spacex fanboy channels estronaut has always been the best and I don't understand why everyone dislikes him. I wouldn't even play NSF's streams to guantanamo prisoners, that would be too inhumane

Anonymous No. 16073898

>>16073894
Virtual YouTube Clear Usui, she is my wife so be nice to her

Anonymous No. 16073900

>>16073897
because of the pickle incident, anon.

Anonymous No. 16073902

>>16073896
>armed with dual 50.cals

Elon takes his security seriously

Anonymous No. 16073904

Chopsticks look to be open.

Anonymous No. 16073905

>>16073897
Since he started streaming with that woman his streams have been unwatchable. When he streams alone is fine

Anonymous No. 16073906

Does it have cameras on it? So we can see the reentry?

Anonymous No. 16073907

>>16073896
OK BOOMERS FISHING TIME IS OVER, GET THE

FUCK

OUT OF THE WATER

Anonymous No. 16073908

>>16073897
Yeah I don't see anything offensive about him, besides the different colored eyes. Almost as bad as being left-handed

Image not available

967x1450

GImCmbcWgAEQrse.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073909

Anonymous No. 16073910

>>16073892
Estronaut isn't in it just for the cash, he really enjoys sharing spaceflight with people. When your community is based on milking the cattle, you will have a community of cattle(redditors)
>>16073896
Boomer boat seeking torpedos installed
>>16073905
Is it his GF? I don't get why she has to be a host

Anonymous No. 16073911

>>16073897
the estronaut epithet almost singlehandedly killed his reputation on here. it's too perfect and too funny, even though he isn't any more onions than the nsf crowd.

Anonymous No. 16073913

>>16073906
>plasma blackout exists
No views on reentry.

Anonymous No. 16073914

>>16073897
He used to be ok apart from the immense soi energy but the random hag he streams with now is insufferable.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073915

>>16073897
His launch live streams became so shit when that woman became his co-host.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073916

>>16073910
It's his friend's wife.

Anonymous No. 16073917

Village evacuated
https://twitter.com/bocachicagal/status/1768219939129671689

Anonymous No. 16073918

>>16073910
>Is it his GF? I don't get why she has to be a host
No , she is the wife from someone from NSF. She just started hanging out in Tim's streams from wharever reason

Anonymous No. 16073919

>>16073913
>plasma blackout in 2019+5
This is a meme. The shuttle had connectivity all the way down. And now with Starlink it's almost certain

Anonymous No. 16073920

>>16073905
>>16073914
Is she supposed to be the clueless foil? At least she doesn't have to act.

Anonymous No. 16073921

>>16073919
>UHF comm check

Anonymous No. 16073923

>>16073921
was about to post this

Anonymous No. 16073924

>>16073916
>>16073918
I pray she won't be there today

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073927

>>16073916
>>16073918
What a cuck

Anonymous No. 16073928

>>16073909
It's so hard to tell just how big it is from images like that

Anonymous No. 16073929

>>16073919
Dragon doesn't have any connection through reentry.
Or does the size of starship help?

Anonymous No. 16073930

For me it’s Marcus houses rundown on Saturdays

Image not available

2400x2400

burrito.jpg

Anonymous No. 16073931

I'm making a burrito. need to stay awake. and I have work today too

Anonymous No. 16073932

>>16073920
If he wanted a clueless foil he should have hired one of those barely clothed mega booba bimbos from tik tok, at least it would be some eye candy

Anonymous No. 16073933

BRB
gotta wash my car

Anonymous No. 16073934

>>16073919
shuttle's gentle reentry profile meant it had less plasma interference than starship's going to have around 60km altitude

Image not available

865x367

columbia breakup.png

Anonymous No. 16073935

>>16073921
>plasma blackout

Anonymous No. 16073936

launch thread in 30 bings

Anonymous No. 16073937

astronaut just said they have starlink and camera capability

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073938

For me, it's Scott Manley posting passive aggressive political statements on twitter.

Anonymous No. 16073941

Wayward boat bros are you ready to fuck shit up?

Anonymous No. 16073943

>>16073941
ULA trawler captain, standing by

Anonymous No. 16073944

Lunch time!!

Anonymous No. 16073945

>>16073941
Boomer sama the machine gun boat is out there now it's not worth it bro put the fishing rod away bro

Anonymous No. 16073946

>>16073930
Oh yea easily the best.

I like Germans too so What About It and Marcus House are the only two I toss a Dollar in the dirt to on the monthly.

Anonymous No. 16073947

"i just can't see a need for an orion drive" - estronaut

Image not available

288x464

1708275736647.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073948

It's over

Anonymous No. 16073951

>>16073931
>putting wood in a burrito

Is this an american thing? Is it like sawdust or what?

Anonymous No. 16073952

>>16073951
cellulose is good for you, europoor

Anonymous No. 16073953

>>16072814
They're getting a taste of their own medicine.

Anonymous No. 16073954

>>16073948
why he do it tho

Anonymous No. 16073956

6AM perfect time for FISHIN.
***gulp** ***gulp** ***gulp**
This white Monster taste fantastic
***BRRRAAAAAPAPAPAPAPAP*
American V8 baby , South padre beach lets go

Image not available

368x640

1707295752394057.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073957

Anonymous No. 16073958

>>16073948
Parachutes are arcane magic that only half a dozen boomers on the planet know how to pack. This is the real reason why retrorepulsive landing is being developed.

Image not available

300x240

1665061426879958.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073959

Anonymous No. 16073960

the methalox pollution's so bad you can't even see the sun. unbelievable the EPA allowed this.

Anonymous No. 16073961

please no more rekt video ... please

Image not available

388x368

1659956741930287.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073963

Me taking remote control of Starship crashing it into SF

Anonymous No. 16073964

any non-cringe stream?
the moment I opened NSF, they're masturbating themselves again

Anonymous No. 16073966

>>16073964
any non-cringe thread? I guess this one's just goreposting now

Image not available

640x368

1662829114960143.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073967

Anonymous No. 16073968

>>16073964
The best you'll get is estronaut.

Anonymous No. 16073969

>>16073966
The Jannies are around. Report and ignore.

Image not available

240x282

1707959844746293.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073970

>>16073966
This musk worshipping thread was always cringe

Anonymous No. 16073971

At least post something new, this is shit I've already seen.

Image not available

382x488

1707296533861329.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073972

Anonymous No. 16073974

Clean it up, jannies.

Anonymous No. 16073975

>>16073970
Are you really posting gore because you let musk live in your head rent free?

Image not available

448x340

1676516999232554.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073976

Anonymous No. 16073978

>>16073975
the npc wojack “stream rocket launch to brain” flerf spammer linked this thread /pol/. I assume this is a result of that.

Anonymous No. 16073979

>>16073971
This, tbqh. Post chinese villagers being fucked up by hydrazine or smth on topic if you're going to gorepost.

Anonymous No. 16073980

>musk enrages me
>i'm too impotent and feeble to do anything about it
>so i have to rage at my class peers so they know how much i'm suffering (victimhood is a moral virtue right)

Anonymous No. 16073981

>>16073930
marcus is a moron
>>16073946
what about it is okay.

Anonymous No. 16073982

>>16073929
it's more that being able to glue starlink dishes to the side helps, plus being able to use frequencies that aren't entirely blocked by plasma

Anonymous No. 16073983

I’m stuck in work whats happening?
Is it looking for launch on time?

Streams have ruined these threads as an info stream

Anonymous No. 16073984

>>16073980
kek

Image not available

480x576

1709281138869597.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073985

Average sfg kike musk worshipper

Anonymous No. 16073986

>>16073982
Why even care about a minute of no comms? I don’t think it makes a difference

Anonymous No. 16073987

Damn I didn't know Musk was so powerful that he could melt people's brains

Anonymous No. 16073989

>>16073982
Well I guess we'll hopefully see if we do get any shots. It would be sick.

Anonymous No. 16073991

>>16073975
100% a twitter tranny

Anonymous No. 16073992

>>16073983
SpaceX hasn't said a peep. Everything looks go for launch otherwise. Evacuations. Aircraft activity. Downrange policing. etc

Anonymous No. 16073993

>>16073986
because I want uninterrupted live views all the way down
also if your shit breaks up during blackout, you have no idea why

Anonymous No. 16073994

>>16073983
Looks that way!
Launch thread will be up in a bit

Image not available

176x144

Spacex Crew Drago....webm

Anonymous No. 16073995

At least post spaceflight faggot

Image not available

640x352

1663248361362.webm

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16073996

Anonymous No. 16073998

>>16073959
actual Darwin award. why on earth did he do that?

Anonymous No. 16074000

>>16073995
bro I had this thread open at work and now I’m fired, thanks a lot

Anonymous No. 16074001

>>16073978
yep

Anonymous No. 16074002

hullo says they're behind schedule for a 7 AM launch with the GSE

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16074004

>>16073996
Nerve gas?

Anonymous No. 16074005

I hate gore so much ... some people from here are so sick , take a walk, take a breath of fresh air , touch grass

Image not available

950x713

ir.png

Anonymous No. 16074007

Coool , IR cam with spots for the coldest and hottest point

Anonymous No. 16074008

>>16073978
you can tell its from /pol/ because its the same videos always spammed there
someone should have hired the ULA sniper to kill the boardfag years ago

Anonymous No. 16074009

>>16073930
ye he's the only one that doesn't make me feel dread listening to

Anonymous No. 16074010

Great thread

Anonymous No. 16074013

Man I wish I had some ciders for this launch. Instead I'll be stuck drinking trashy basic whiskey.
>>16073577
>those big dirty F1s
This sounds unnecessarily sexual.

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16074014

>>16074011
>>16074011
>>16074011
Bump limit, new thread!

Anonymous No. 16074015

OLM Vent and Tower Vent.

Polling to prop load is coming up next.

Anonymous No. 16074016

>>16074014
Go fuck yourself, tourist.

Anonymous No. 16074020

>>16073964
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxI5ip72XVc

Image not available

1920x1080

live.png

Anonymous No. 16074022

T-1h:05min

Anonymous No. 16074023

reminder: if this mission doesn't go PERFECTLY then starship will have more failures in 3 launches than shuttle had in 135

Anonymous No. 16074025

>>16074023
Starship is not in operational mode right now. Test failures doesnt count

Image not available

1440x738

ACA61C13-1520-4D2....jpg

Anonymous No. 16074026

Lets Gooo

Anonymous No. 16074027

>>16074023
And zero astronauts killed

Anonymous No. 16074028

>>16074023
Starship failures don't lose lives and put the project on hold for years so no.

Anonymous No. 16074030

>>16074025
Cope

Image not available

1277x1280

word-image-546.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074031

>>16074025
shuttle had 4 launches before it was operational. it went 4/4.
>>16074027
>>16074028
hey, nobody ever said you could achieve greatness without taking a few risks.

Anonymous No. 16074034

launch thread: >>16074033
less than 30 minutes to stream start.

Anonymous No. 16074039

>>16074031
>"The orbiter is not an operational vehicle and they need to stop treating it like one," [Former astronaut John Young] said during a visit to Georgia Tech, where he graduated in aerospace engineering in 1952. "This is still an experimental vehicle. STS-107 [Columbia's final flight] proved that pretty well."

Anonymous No. 16074040

>>16074007
Remote temperature measurement of reflective metal surfaces is generally not a good idea.

Anonymous No. 16074042

>shittle
>greatness
Lmao.

Anonymous No. 16074043

>>16074031
Counterargument : Shuttle didnt use iterative design for its test process. Nasa style involved having a "perfect" vehicle ready from day 1.

Anonymous No. 16074045

T-1h

ITS GABBENING

Anonymous No. 16074047

Fucking hell, Marcus House really let himself go. I miss when he used to make KSP tutorials

Anonymous No. 16074053

>>16074047
>Marcus House
He "indeed" has an extremely punchable face

Anonymous No. 16074055

>Weather is 70% favorable
its ogre

Anonymous No. 16074056

>>16074055
70% is an F in my book. but F stands for Favorable...

Anonymous No. 16074057

>>16074055
better than i expected

Anonymous No. 16074071

Starship full stack orbital launch starts in 10 minutes, yet /sfg/ is dead.

Anonymous No. 16074072

>>16074071
Pushed back 30 minutes, oort cloud poster.

Anonymous No. 16074073

>>16073996
what gas causes this? ether?

Anonymous No. 16074074

>>16074073
Nerve gas.

Anonymous No. 16074077

>>16073996
Spaceflight?

Anonymous No. 16074079

>>16073964
Labpadre
Official spacex
Clear

Image not available

1200x1200

1696492640144984.png

Anonymous No. 16074082

>rekt spamming
>new thread at bumplimit
>anthro fags still at it
it's shizo time

Anonymous No. 16074083

>>16074023
Unless Elon takes a dozen astronauts out behind the tower and shoots them in the head, SpaceX wins on the failure metric so far.

Image not available

931x923

marinetraffic.png

Anonymous No. 16074084

sniff sniff

Anonymous No. 16074085

>>16074002
hullo probably isn't up to date on the pad upgrades that have shortened prep

Anonymous No. 16074092

>>16074084
What's the Indian Ocean looking like?

Anonymous No. 16074100

>>16074082
Israel will grow larger

Anonymous No. 16074106

embarassing thread

Anonymous No. 16074108

we need more space stuff in the Brownsville area, SpaceX isn't enough

Anonymous No. 16074111

Launch thread is stickied!

Anonymous No. 16074112

>>16074084
>boats fail to get out the exclusion zone
>spacex forced to postpone launch
>repeat with another chinese boat for each launch attempt
>starship permanently grounded
why aren't the ccp doing this, it'd be so easy

Anonymous No. 16074114

I woke up early for this, so it'll be scrubbed.

Image not available

563x386

io.png

Anonymous No. 16074115

>>16074092
Dunno. Maritetraffic is free only for ships that reach land based receivers.

Anonymous No. 16074118

>>16074112
Because they like having access to ports for their cheap shit.

Anonymous No. 16074121

There's no way the glowies are gonna send it on first go
They need to build the anticipation first

Anonymous No. 16074130

>Stream pushed back another 30 minutes
Not looking good.

Anonymous No. 16074142

doesn't look that windy based on the clouds of vented gas

Anonymous No. 16074143

>>16074118
>no i no understan, i am simpre chinese fisherman lookin for tasty feesh i go rost, wha u meen cee cee pee?
no way to prove otherwise

Anonymous No. 16074151

what's a good stream without people grifting and reading out paypiggy messages?

Anonymous No. 16074154

>>16074151
SpaceX on X

Anonymous No. 16074155

>>16074151
Unironically Clear

Anonymous No. 16074157

>>16074151
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBnOvzvOxN

Wait for the official one.

Anonymous No. 16074165

>>16074033
>>16074033
>>16074033
>>16074033
>>16074033

Flight 3 Launch thread btw.

Anonymous No. 16074171

>>16074165
We know how to find a sticky, tourist. Now fuck off.

Image not available

1080x622

IMG_20240314_085342.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074175

>>16074157
Fucking Xitter

Anonymous No. 16074180

>>16074175
not live yet

Anonymous No. 16074181

FUCKING BOATS

Anonymous No. 16074186

>>16074155
clear?

Anonymous No. 16074194

>>16074171
It’s actually the other way around lol. Used to be there was no sfg, just launch threads

Image not available

800x439

file.png

Anonymous No. 16074202

>>16074092
There are two Xiang Yang Hong-class "survey" vessels operating off of India right now, one of which was monitoring an Indian missile test a few days ago. All of the Yuan Wang rocket trackers seem to be in port or in Chinese waters

Anonymous No. 16074214

>>16073623
heh, I recognize this: it's the KAIROS payload that was successfully deployed! (explosively)
y'know, launch failures tend to come in clusters of three....

Anonymous No. 16074218

>>16074143
sink them with 20mm armor piercing fired at 6000 rpm from M61 Vulcans, no more chink.

Anonymous No. 16074220

>>16074175
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3

Anonymous No. 16074230

>>16074186
I guess he's refering to the turbocringe "space" vtuber that mentally ill trannies ususally spam here

Anonymous No. 16074231

How come Florida rarely has the boat issue?

Anonymous No. 16074240

>>16074231
They have been doing launches for some time.

Anonymous No. 16074245

>>16074240
Couldn't they just send a Coast Guard vessel to keep boats out?

Anonymous No. 16074250

>>16074245
It's a big sea.

Anonymous No. 16074257

>>16074250
For you

Anonymous No. 16074260

>>16074231
Florida is enforced by military. Even so, during Crew Demo splashdown, there were plenty of boats roaming nearby

Anonymous No. 16074296

>>16073847
god that fucking leg literally gets me hard every time, what's wrong with me

Anonymous No. 16074307

>>16074031
Yeah, all crewed and built with an all up kind of testing philosophy inherited from Apollo you fucking midwit, of course they could not afford them to fail.

Anonymous No. 16074330

>>16074023
Operational shuttle missions lost: 2
Operational Starship missions lost: 0

Anonymous No. 16074338

I can't stand the voice of the NSF guys, they either sound like 9 year old children or gay men.

Anonymous No. 16074354

>>16074338
They got that soi cadence, Estro at least sounds like a normal human despite the moniker

Anonymous No. 16074371

One more hour

trust the plan, White Man.

Anonymous No. 16074372

What happened to NSF? Like 15 years ago they were highly respected boomer space autists, now they all have effeminate voices.

Anonymous No. 16074392

>>16074372
s o y overdose

Image not available

719x535

1689078554162061.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074398

FUELING

Anonymous No. 16074405

>>16074372
Boomers retired/died
Autists found a job

So you're left only with the soience faggots. Apart from Daz, who seems like the only normal person there.

Anonymous No. 16074407

>7:59
>8:29
>8:37
>8:52
AHHHHH JUST START THE STREAM

Anonymous No. 16074416

I'm watching LabPadre, he seems normal and hasn't promoted any hat or tshirt yet.

Anonymous No. 16074420

just woke up. what i miss?

Anonymous No. 16074425

>>16074416
lab padre for commentary, estronaut for good cameras

Anonymous No. 16074463

>>16074425
is there even a point of nsf anymore? they're annoying and also have bad cameras, worst of both worlds

Anonymous No. 16074490

>>16074463
You can get a shout out for the low low price of a red superchat (paid in ARS)

Anonymous No. 16074495

>>16074463
You can pay them money to say your name on the internet

Anonymous No. 16074506

>>16074463
rover 1 is the only cam labPadre has that's an interesting angle NSF doesn't have. for the most part for everyday tankwatching NSF has better angles

Anonymous No. 16074507

Starship Gazer is streaming SpaceX Starship Launch Flight 3 Starbase Texas 4 MILES AWAY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnXSTqMP0ZE
lot of wind noise, no talking.

Anonymous No. 16074513

>>16074507
Those clouds are moving fast...

Image not available

498x498

peepo-rocket-3440....gif

Anonymous No. 16074544

which live stream are you watching?

Anonymous No. 16074550

>>16074544
The crypto scam one

Image not available

1200x764

1644973022918.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074555

>that femoid presenter is not on estronaut's stream today
Thank fuck

Anonymous No. 16074556

SCRUBBED
C
R
U
B
B
E
D

Anonymous No. 16074564

>>16074420
another delay

Anonymous No. 16074565

>>16074556
Glad you took your decennial shower, sweaty.

Image not available

613x364

file.png

Anonymous No. 16074566

official stream UP

Anonymous No. 16074568

SpaceX stream starting

Anonymous No. 16074573

LIVE
>https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBnOvzvOxN

Anonymous No. 16074578

>>16074573
pretty fox girl

Image not available

595x333

file.png

Anonymous No. 16074580

LFG

Image not available

937x936

1681672200088974.png

Anonymous No. 16074587

It's time

Image not available

1920x1080

1710420844399181.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074594

Oh no you guys, it's on fire...

Anonymous No. 16074596

>it doesn't work logged out
Fuck Xitter. The only reason I don't want it to go bankrupt and fold is that it'd cost Elon money that could go into SpaceX instead.

Anonymous No. 16074597

Love me Kate
Simple as

Anonymous No. 16074602

>>16074573
does twitter not have a big screen mode that is not fullscreen

Anonymous No. 16074607

>>16074602
PiP mode is the best twix can do for now.

Image not available

149x159

1710420876110866.png

Anonymous No. 16074609

>>16074597
I have a boyfriend.

Anonymous No. 16074613

>>16074602
You can pop out the video.

Anonymous No. 16074615

Also 4 streams in one: https://multistream.co/p/0sFRvbcF7j-/SpaceX_IFT-3
>>16074544
above
but I can't find the N927NA WB57

Anonymous No. 16074620

>>16074602
Install windowed floating youtube/every website extension
Might have to hit fullscreen a few times on twitter before you get the prompt to do windowed fullscreen on twitter

Anonymous No. 16074670

I can't change X stream quality on my phone

Anonymous No. 16074700

WHERE'S JOHN INSPRUCKER?

Anonymous No. 16074704

>>16074670
have a direct link
https://prod-ec-us-west-2.video.pscp.tv/Transcoding/v1/hls/gBsfBOvU8UeoyLWWRQ5LJLWU4mw5670V1iMlhQAd0Z1rxjEygWsrVEzkhce3HlPa_E9bydVTZ05_nlB72qGyPg/non_transcode/us-west-2/periscope-replay-direct-prod-us-west-2-public/master_dynamic_highlatency.m3u8?type=live

Anonymous No. 16074722

>>16074700
Who do you think is dealing with the ULA snipers?

Anonymous No. 16074726

>wind is picking up
>delays are because of boatfags

Anonymous No. 16074727

>>16074609
damn, more like kate ice

Anonymous No. 16074741

it's over

Anonymous No. 16074742

>>16074700
He doesn't wake up for scrubs.

Image not available

596x674

1710380423926850.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074745

>>16073259
There's a hidden Starfox logo in the top right of the OP image if you turn the brightness way up

Anonymous No. 16074747

SEVENTEEN MINUTES
>>16073897
everyday estronaut is alright but he's kinda retarded and kinda soi

Image not available

599x335

file.png

Anonymous No. 16074763

Uhhh ITAR-bros?

Anonymous No. 16074770

>>16074763
Don't worry. Plumbing is covered up.

Anonymous No. 16074774

>>16074763
LEWD

Anonymous No. 16074782

>>16073951
it's smoked bacon that's been smoked specifically with smoke from apple wood

Image not available

1280x624

Z0pp8wqnfczk8e8g.webm

Anonymous No. 16074800

Anonymous No. 16074836

What's your serious opinion about the chopsticks? I think it's just too absurd

Image not available

651x682

2024-03-14 14_17_....png

Anonymous No. 16074839

Kino

Anonymous No. 16074843

>>16074836
If it is stupid but it works it isn't stupid.

Anonymous No. 16074851

>>16074836
Seems ridiculous but I guess the flip maneuver was ridiculous too

Anonymous No. 16074853

>>16074836
If they can harden the tower for when they blow up on a botched landing, maybe they'll be ok. If one failure sets them back 8 months each time, they should have went with legs

Anonymous No. 16074857

>>16074843
the amount of precision they need not to snap the sticks or fuck up the hull

Anonymous No. 16074860

>>16074836
Landing a booster was too absurd a decade ago, so I don't question spacex now

Anonymous No. 16074880

>>16074836
It seems absurd at a glance but I think it's actually not as crazy as it sounds. They can do precise landings already with Falcon, and that's with needing to do hoverslams. Superheavy and Starship can hover and have finer control over their thrust.

Anonymous No. 16074881

>winds

Anonymous No. 16074909

2 minutes

Anonymous No. 16074920

>Clear: You don't have to follow Elon Musk on X but you should follow the SpaceX account
kek

Anonymous No. 16074925

>good chance we blow

Anonymous No. 16074930

1 minute

Anonymous No. 16074932

>>16074920
good advice

Image not available

245x300

fd53b461f65734cd8....jpg

Anonymous No. 16074952

Image not available

546x557

2024-03-14 14_25_....png

Anonymous No. 16074955

WE ARE GOING

Anonymous No. 16074963

Chunks of concrete flying off..

Image not available

1920x1080

1710422732400890.jpg

Anonymous No. 16074964

woosh

Anonymous No. 16074972

WE ARE SO GAAAN

Anonymous No. 16074973

>>16074963
SHUT THE FUCK UP

Anonymous No. 16074981

>>16074963
Good, the more those spics get blasted with debris the better.

Anonymous No. 16075002

Stage separation is a success!!

Image not available

1259x625

1710422914365664.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075012

buh bye

Anonymous No. 16075013

POGGIES

Image not available

2048x1336

LETS_GO.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075049

LETS
FUCING
GO

Anonymous No. 16075073

I fucking kneel Twitterman.

Anonymous No. 16075084

THE ENGINES DIDNT LIGHT

Anonymous No. 16075088

NO RELIGHT

Anonymous No. 16075093

Engine relight problems again

Anonymous No. 16075098

that's supposed to land on chopsticks???? looks like it lost fucking control

only 2 engines relit

Anonymous No. 16075108

looks like they were losing control of the vehicle during transsonic

Anonymous No. 16075127

>>16075108
Expect redesign of the gridfins.

Image not available

1920x1080

1710423278226757.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075138

Nominal orbital insertion baby

Anonymous No. 16075141

>>16075127
Wasn't the fins. The engines didn't light

Anonymous No. 16075144

i only saw 2 engines relit on the booster

Anonymous No. 16075147

Raptordoomers were right...

De-orbit burn not looking good...

Anonymous No. 16075157

>>16075141
It started wobbling like a motherfucker prior to engine relight. The current setup does not work as intended.

Anonymous No. 16075159

>>16075138
look at all those tiles. shuttle survived fewer

Anonymous No. 16075161

>>16075108
Was it transonic? Wasn't the velocity higher?

Anonymous No. 16075166

>expendable starship now operational
DOOOOD
SPACE MEGA TELESCOPES ARE GOING

Image not available

297x212

1368043966123.gif

Anonymous No. 16075167

This things is suppose to land by being grabbed by two giant chopsticks???? Musk is retarded.

Anonymous No. 16075170

>>16075108
Yeah I assume the gimballing engines were supposed to help maintaining position. the gridfins alone seem to end up overcompensating

Anonymous No. 16075174

So what's breaking on Starship right now?

Anonymous No. 16075190

>>16075161
~1200km/h, so subsonic.

Anonymous No. 16075192

>>16075157
Maybe it was the high winds

Anonymous No. 16075205

PEZ door!

Anonymous No. 16075225

good music choice
waiting warmly

Anonymous No. 16075232

>two chopsticks btw hehe

Anonymous No. 16075238

>Elevator muzac
SOVL

Anonymous No. 16075254

>>16075232
>>16075167
Jeff pls

Anonymous No. 16075259

I have a feeling it's issues with the fuel intake again. The fuel being sloshed around and pushed up when the booster is falling is causing the engines to not relight. Maybe an issue that they couldn't fix on this booster because it was already assembled

Anonymous No. 16075264

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1768269068635865402

HULLO GOT A VIDEO

Anonymous No. 16075268

>>16075174
my boner
>>16075225
very tropical
on the beach on the Rio Grande, sipping a cocktail, waiting for my baby to come back (video from the ship)

Anonymous No. 16075277

Garbage fucking music

Anonymous No. 16075292

went out of control because the engines did not relit thus it was faster than usual

Anonymous No. 16075293

>>16075259
yeah they delayed the fuel slosh from boostback to landing burn, I think they need better control of their attitude once they get subsonic

Image not available

1916x1080

Bethesda interiors.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075301

Anonymous No. 16075302

>>16075264
If this was a software issue then lol.

Anonymous No. 16075318

FOD floating around in the fucking payload bay are you kidding me

Image not available

2553x1407

inside starship.png

Anonymous No. 16075323

Anonymous No. 16075324

>>16075190
I checked back--it started losing control at around 1500 km/h
Mach 1.21, so yeah, right at the start of transonic regime

Anonymous No. 16075326

>FOD floating around inside the ship
uh, aviation safety bros???

Anonymous No. 16075327

kino shot

Anonymous No. 16075331

lmao, faggots are whining about the music

Anonymous No. 16075334

>>16075301
Future's looking bright.

Anonymous No. 16075336

>>16075318
hey there's that screwdriver

Anonymous No. 16075340

>>16075264
thanks for this, they started to get wobbly around Mach 2 and blew up in the transsonic regime during engine relight

Image not available

2560x1440

1709969969993875.png

Anonymous No. 16075343

Only 3 engines lit max then 2 shut down
slammed the ocean at 1111km/hr <1km left

Anonymous No. 16075347

>>16075326
they're injecting micro plastics into the atmosphere

Anonymous No. 16075352

OH MY GOD TANK INTERIOR WHAT THE FUCCKKKKKK WAAAWAWAAAAA UFUCAJAKK

ACTUAL HISTORICAL KINO

Anonymous No. 16075355

im so fucking pissed i was waiting for the lunch and was afraid i wouldnt get home by the time it launches, checked that one spacex yuotube stream every once in a while only to find out that it had already launched..... but im happy its done

Anonymous No. 16075360

the fuck is this elevator music

Anonymous No. 16075370

>>16075336
Not a boing rocket.

>>16075343
No shit all engines didn't start, it was oscillating like a motherfucker most likely due to the off-axis gridfins not working as intended.

Anonymous No. 16075371

>fucking juarrez dropped a wrench inside the cargo bay again

Anonymous No. 16075375

Engines definitely failed to relight, but I'm sure there was a problem with the attitude control before then. They definitely want more margin than they had there between the relight and the thing starting to fully tumble.

Anonymous No. 16075385

>>16075293
Could be guidance software. The first F9 landing attempts come to mind. Maybe they need bigger fins, or the winds might have been bad out in the gulf

Anonymous No. 16075397

its so beatiful....

Anonymous No. 16075402

>>16075343
Could be worse. It didn't disintegrate. It was mostly pointing the right way.

Anonymous No. 16075403

I'm fucking blind can someone circle the wrench for me?

Anonymous No. 16075407

>>16075264
I yeah looks like they started to lose control at around 2000km/h 5 km up a few seconds before engines start to relight

Anonymous No. 16075409

>>16075343
o7
You did your best, center engine

Anonymous No. 16075410

why is the ship SPEENing?

Anonymous No. 16075412

>>16075318
Just like in the LEM

Anonymous No. 16075416

>>16075352
That's the payload bay interior right?

Anonymous No. 16075420

wait what did they fucking lose control?

Anonymous No. 16075421

HOLY SHIT WHY IS IT SPINNING AAAAIIIEEEEEEEE

Image not available

539x529

1695378364896273.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075422

We're all going to make it

Anonymous No. 16075430

did the door not open? I didn't hear any mention of payload being deployed (and would have expected they showed it)

Anonymous No. 16075433

>>16075352
is that tank interior? looked like the payload bay
good shit

Image not available

1920x1080

1710423986115261.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075436

Makes me want to press L for Lobby.

Anonymous No. 16075440

>>16075421
Prop transfer simulation tests.

Image not available

365x200

CRS-16-spin.gif

Anonymous No. 16075441

This is a known issue. SpaceX pls fix

Anonymous No. 16075447

Someone's playing with the controls

>>16075430
no payload, they just opened it for demo

Anonymous No. 16075448

>>16075403
people are memeing about wrench/screwdiriver, we just saw some unidentifiable thing float by in one of the interior shots

Anonymous No. 16075463

>>16075375
you can watch it start to oscillate around mach 2 (2000 km/h) and completely lose it once they start to get to the grid fin critical speed (like 1400 km/h)
skipping reentry burns really changes the forces on the system huh

Anonymous No. 16075469

>>16075447
I thought they said they had a some non-critical nasa sat to launch?

Anonymous No. 16075491

>>16075410
why wouldn't you speeeeen

Anonymous No. 16075494

PROPELLANT TRANSFER DEMO

Anonymous No. 16075498

>>16075421
artificial gravity demo

Anonymous No. 16075500

PROP TRANSFER DEMO

Anonymous No. 16075504

>>16075469
Nobody said that, it just has a propellant transfer demo

Anonymous No. 16075513

Man I woke up late and need to get coffee, reentry wen

Anonymous No. 16075514

Did anyone on the ground get a video of the booster landing burn?

Anonymous No. 16075515

is it viable to start the relight earlier at 6km or so for more control?

Anonymous No. 16075517

HEY THUNDERTRANNYF00T ARE YOU WATCHING OR DID YOU KILL YOURSELF ALREADY?

Anonymous No. 16075522

PROP TRANSFER COMPLETE KEK

Anonymous No. 16075529

>>16075469
bro they aren't even going to orbit this time, they're intentionally going to 250x50km orbit (which is suborbital) and then doing a boostback to 250x-100km or so, which is enough juice to end up in orbit if they did it in the other direction but won't leave them up there as a hazard if it doesn't work

Anonymous No. 16075541

>>16075514
landing was miles out in the exclusion zone so probably not

Image not available

1179x1364

405739051_1788666....jpg

Anonymous No. 16075547

>>16075522
It's that easy in rocketry.

Anonymous No. 16075562

Is SpaceX giving estro et al some slack? Why wouldn't the commentators explain what is happening. We only get some faint mission control loop mixed with elevator music.

Anonymous No. 16075597

>>16075562
this kinda stream is the best kind of stream, it tells you everything you need to know if you're not a flaming retard and nothing more

Anonymous No. 16075598

>>16075562
this is a kino experience that can only be made better with more reliable video from the bay.

Anonymous No. 16075608

>>16075562
>We only get some faint mission control loop mixed with elevator music.
way more kino than soi commentators talking about godzilla or whatever

Anonymous No. 16075611

ENGINE CHILL STARTED

THEY'ER GONNA DO IT

Image not available

4096x2732

1685695728316705.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075616

I propose a new division in the history of human kind, we are now in the year 0 A.S.S.
(After Star Ship)

Anonymous No. 16075620

>>16075522
wtf how did they test this? what were they transfering prop to?

Anonymous No. 16075627

look at it speen
wtf is that clear in the bay?!

Anonymous No. 16075639

>>16075620
just the header tank

Anonymous No. 16075650

stop fucking spinning it's making me nervous especially with the elevator music

Image not available

1920x1080

1710424598761368.png

Anonymous No. 16075652

Anonymous No. 16075654

spaceX just got payed 50 million dollars for pushing some fuel around inside their rocket

Anonymous No. 16075656

>>16075639
>we moved the propellant around the ship
>this proves depots work... just because it does okay!!!

Anonymous No. 16075657

>>16075608
They could at least tell the plebs what is happening and why and what the next thing is.

Anonymous No. 16075664

SPEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEEEEEEeeeeeeeeeeEEEEEEEEN

Anonymous No. 16075669

>>16075360
I'm jammin

Anonymous No. 16075670

uhhhh

did they actually manage to close the door? looks like there's a problem

Anonymous No. 16075673

>>16075654
Yes because it's a simulation for fuel transfer, something it's going to need to pull off to get it to the Moon.

Anonymous No. 16075674

>>16075654
just pull yourself up by your bootstraps and you too can be a gas station attendant in LEO

Anonymous No. 16075679

STOP SPINNING, RETARD

Anonymous No. 16075683

>>16075670
the door isn't structurally important

Anonymous No. 16075689

https://twitter.com/DJSnM/status/1768275015802478995

DOOR STUCK DOOR STUCK DOOR STUCK

Anonymous No. 16075693

It's funny to watch milestones switch from impossible to trivial the second SpaceX passes them. The next astronauts to walk on the moon WILL land on HLS and I am going to laugh at all of you when it happens.

Anonymous No. 16075706

>>16075670
DOOR STUCK! DOOR STUCK! PLEASE! I BEG YOU!

Anonymous No. 16075710

>>16075683
best part is no part

Anonymous No. 16075712

Door come on please close

Anonymous No. 16075728

inb4 successful re-entry with open door

Anonymous No. 16075733

>>16075689
I fucking love that all the audio from this part of the flight will have elevator music on top of it.
I assume the culprit is ice?

Image not available

895x978

file.png

Anonymous No. 16075740

r-redeemed?!?!?!

Anonymous No. 16075742

Why even open and close the door? Why not just have a hole?
>Uh buh buh muh wind
Ever driven a convertible?

Anonymous No. 16075744

>>16075733
ice from what?
there is no water in space

Anonymous No. 16075745

is it rolling to keep the temps even?

Anonymous No. 16075747

>starship raptor performance flawless
>control surfaces nominal
>door actuation failure

Anonymous No. 16075753

LAND HO!

Anonymous No. 16075754

>>16075745
it's just rolling for fun

Anonymous No. 16075756

>>16075410
if it's planned, probably some sort of BBQ roll to balance the thermals between the heatshielded side and the stainless steel side?

Anonymous No. 16075764

>>16075742
>space
>wind

Anonymous No. 16075765

>>16075744
from when it was all frosty on the ground, retard

Anonymous No. 16075778

>>16075765
the door isnt where the chilly propellant is retard

Anonymous No. 16075782

>door issues
wtf boingbrothers.... that's our schtick...

Anonymous No. 16075783

>>16075747
>10% of tiles missing

Anonymous No. 16075784

MOMMY IS BACK

Anonymous No. 16075790

>>16075778
i thought they meant the ice flying off everywhere

Anonymous No. 16075794

Any Replay?

Anonymous No. 16075803

>>16075790
that happened AT launch

Anonymous No. 16075813

>>16075783
I only saw like 3

Anonymous No. 16075817

bets on the tiles

Image not available

1280x720

door stuck.webm

Anonymous No. 16075819

>>16075794

Anonymous No. 16075832

oh they will relight first hmmm

i bet they will fail this

Anonymous No. 16075833

Haha, door actually closed
fuck skeptics

Image not available

640x360

1701949116059058.gif

Anonymous No. 16075836

>>16075819
I've seen this episode before

Anonymous No. 16075841

>>16075836
This isn't your mom's astra dildo.

Anonymous No. 16075845

NO RELIGHT PART TWO

Anonymous No. 16075847

they did not relight

Anonymous No. 16075878

meme tiles
it's our fucking turn

Anonymous No. 16075879

Wasn't that burn to prevent burning up?

Anonymous No. 16075898

Attitude control broke?

Anonymous No. 16075902

leaves?

Anonymous No. 16075905

the flapsssssssssssssssss

Anonymous No. 16075908

It's over

Anonymous No. 16075913

>>16075879
Nah the ship was lost either way it was just to see if they could. Seems to still have relight issues.

Anonymous No. 16075914

>>16075902
Ice flakes.

Image not available

470x272

starship.gif

Anonymous No. 16075929

she's waving

Anonymous No. 16075931

OH SHIT OH FUCKK

Anonymous No. 16075934

>>16075902
black ice

Anonymous No. 16075937

guys I think it might be speening

Anonymous No. 16075938

cam on flaps, at least let us test the heat tiles

Image not available

1920x1080

1710425470319949.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075943

Sure is tumbly.

Anonymous No. 16075952

>>16075929
wave back
WE GOT PLASMA

Anonymous No. 16075963

holy shitting christ on a chopstick

Anonymous No. 16075970

HOLY FUCK
PLASMA BTFO

Anonymous No. 16075972

ITS HEATING UP HOLY FUCK

fucking beautiful

Anonymous No. 16075975

KINOKINOKINOABSOLUTEKINO

Image not available

1022x1038

1710425513078469.jpg

Anonymous No. 16075976

Anonymous No. 16075987

Holy shit

Anonymous No. 16075991

THERE SHE GAANS

Anonymous No. 16075998

Jesus Christ, how powerful is Starlink

Anonymous No. 16076002

Oh shit, it's heading straight to the white house!

Anonymous No. 16076004

holy fuck the kino!

Anonymous No. 16076005

communication blackout? couldn't be me

Image not available

1920x1080

1710425579036739.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076009

Did you guys see this shit?

Anonymous No. 16076014

>>16075998
you jinxed it cunt

Anonymous No. 16076019

god I hate these faggot presenters
someone link a stream that isn't by nasa spaceflight

Anonymous No. 16076021

>they moved the cameras
lmaoooooooo stop doing that shit man

Anonymous No. 16076027

Way further into the reentry than I expected. Impressive

Anonymous No. 16076031

still got telemetry, ships still trucking

Anonymous No. 16076036

LOSS OF TELEMETRY

Anonymous No. 16076039

>>16076019
where the FUCK was Innsprucker?

Anonymous No. 16076040

>>16076019
https://youtu.be/62LcUyKITjA

Image not available

2560x1440

Screenshot 2024.png

Anonymous No. 16076045

>>16076009
our screenshots are off by 1kmh

Anonymous No. 16076052

TELEMETRY STOPPED

Anonymous No. 16076056

I've never seen reentry from within before, that's incredible.

Anonymous No. 16076059

looks like its over

Image not available

600x900

OWARI_DA.gif

Anonymous No. 16076065

Telemetry stops and the presenters launch into a canned speech.

It's over.

Anonymous No. 16076071

I am truly shocked it got that far with tiles missing

Anonymous No. 16076076

>>16076059
Blackout was to be expected. It's not necessarily over.

Anonymous No. 16076081

blackout period?

Anonymous No. 16076088

>>16076056
Listen to the Columbia tapes for added immersion.

Anonymous No. 16076091

plasma blackout

Anonymous No. 16076098

>>16076021
the camera is mounted in the lee of one of the flaps

Image not available

474x280

OIP.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076100

Come on you bitch

Anonymous No. 16076102

it survived. you dont need tiles

Anonymous No. 16076109

>>16076065
It's the reentry blackout, no data can get in or out.
Though it could have been destroyed, it's just going way too fucking fast for that height.

Anonymous No. 16076119

>>16076056
here you go
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88DzZcsubs&t=388s

Anonymous No. 16076122

>>16076109
itll be pretty incredible if the feed comes back on. Good show regardless though

Anonymous No. 16076125

its too aerodynamic the atmosphere's friction did not slow it down as expected

Anonymous No. 16076133

>>16076056
Space shuttle crews took some views

Anonymous No. 16076134

The aliens stole the rogget.
We're not seeing it ever again until we launch the attack on Cydonia

Image not available

1973x1945

1650313795125.png

Anonymous No. 16076151

S28, Starbase, comm check

Anonymous No. 16076159

shit shit shit I just woke up

Anonymous No. 16076165

>>16076151
starbase to stupid frogposter

Anonymous No. 16076168

>>16076133
>>16076119
A video after the fact is neat, but I meant live reentry footage, as it is happening. How the fuck didn't blackout stop us from seeing that?

Anonymous No. 16076169

it's out of blackout territory

it lost control and exploded probably

Anonymous No. 16076177

Surprised that heating started at like 100 km altitude. I would have thought it would be lower.

Anonymous No. 16076180

>>16076169
blackout territory last until like 1:01:00

Anonymous No. 16076181

>>16076159
I woke up about half an hour ago and missed launch, showed up during propellent transfer test. Once this is over I'm going back to watch the whole thing.

Anonymous No. 16076182

>>16076159
Sorry bro, but it annihilated the launch pad. Brownsville is gone.

Anonymous No. 16076194

>>16076182
boca chica was wiped off the map

Image not available

529x244

file.png

Anonymous No. 16076198

>Positive media coverage
bros.... is it time?

Anonymous No. 16076202

>>16076182
Turns out the reason Musk bought Twitter was to show gore as bits of humans were blown everywhere.

Anonymous No. 16076207

>>16076159
>>16076181
happened to me too. woke up just before reentry

Anonymous No. 16076211

>>16076180
why is it so long? dragon's blackout is much much less

Anonymous No. 16076224

>>16076182
Elon musk has been arrested and executed for treason

Anonymous No. 16076228

>>16076211
shallower angle I guess. or maybe we're stupid and wrong.

Anonymous No. 16076234

it didn't survive reentry did it

Anonymous No. 16076240

WHERE IS THE PLASMA WEBM BROS???

Image not available

300x161

1520134417644.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076245

>>16076198
They took notice that it keeps improving with each flight.

Image not available

340x354

1710425785484165.png

Anonymous No. 16076249

>>16076234
No! But look at my pretty face!

Anonymous No. 16076253

>>16076234
Imo no fucking way it takes 10 mins...

Anonymous No. 16076255

Could anybody below have filmed the reentry? There must have been some poo fishermen out there looking upwards.

Anonymous No. 16076275

Good launch guys, see you for the next one

Image not available

1694x878

1710361461726397.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076276

>>16076255

Anonymous No. 16076290

See you in 2 weeks for IFT-4

Anonymous No. 16076291

>flubbed the monty python quote

Anonymous No. 16076302

>>16076198
It seems like the media's criteria for success/failure is whether the booster explodes on camera or not.

Anonymous No. 16076305

>>16076290
I really do wonder just how long it'll take.

Image not available

400x457

1660657724439932.webm

Anonymous No. 16076306

>booster failed to land
>starship broke up during reentry
embarrassing.

Anonymous No. 16076307

it's dead
good shit, I thought it was weird how much they were rolling

Anonymous No. 16076308

So when is OFT-4?

Anonymous No. 16076315

>There's a type of plasma blackout where the free electrons in the plasma block radio waves.
I think starship is experiencing the second type of plasma blackout where bits of its antennae became plasma.


hullo is coping

Anonymous No. 16076318

>>16076308
two weeks

Anonymous No. 16076324

>>16076308
FAA will cockblock them until 2027

Anonymous No. 16076329

>>16076290
Now they gotta fix the tiles

Anonymous No. 16076333

>>16076255
Very unlikely. It's in a very remote area of the Indian ocean.

Anonymous No. 16076338

Don't cry clear...

Anonymous No. 16076340

>>16076318
The FAA would never

Anonymous No. 16076354

>>16076315
I think you don't get it.

Image not available

512x512

1689989651900736.png

Anonymous No. 16076355

>super heavy lost control @ transsonic
Raptors still aren't reliable. Possibly unfixable issue.
>starship disintegrated @ mach 20 / 65km
Starship's planned reentry profile doesn't work even from easy suborbital reentry. This ship is supposed to return from the moon. They need to redesign the entire vehicle to increase its drag through upper atmosphere. This is very serious.

Anonymous No. 16076356

FAA is gonna consider booster explosion an anomaly aren't they, and then delay IFT-4 for 1 month more

Anonymous No. 16076364

you guys think they're gonna stick starlinks in it next time? it got far enough it would have deployed them successfully

Anonymous No. 16076365

>>16076324
>>16076340
Just ignore them. What are they gonna do, fine you? Ignore the fines too lmao.
>reeee you can't launch! you owe us a gorillion dollars now!
>'lol no I don't'

Anonymous No. 16076371

>>16076356
Anything that doesn't go perfectly to the slight plan makes it an anomaly

Anonymous No. 16076382

>>16076364
>it got far enough
Didn't go high enough to eject jack shit.

Anonymous No. 16076386

>>16076364
it's essentially an expendable rocket now lmaooooooooooo

Anonymous No. 16076390

>>16076371
greaaat

Anonymous No. 16076395

was this the first ever live onboard video during re-entry?

Anonymous No. 16076398

>>16076364
It would make more sense to make a mass simulator in shape of Starlink V2 to test the dispenser mechanism

Anonymous No. 16076410

>>16076355
I remember reading the same about "unfixable issues" after the other two tests.

Image not available

453x569

1710426805513574.png

Anonymous No. 16076415

Anonymous No. 16076418

>>16076395
that one probe last month

Anonymous No. 16076420

>hurr durr pi day
what a bunch of clowns

Anonymous No. 16076434

>>16076415
Cutie (Tice) Pie.

Image not available

512x288

soyuz 512_288_med.webm

Anonymous No. 16076439

>>16076395
Live? yea

Anonymous No. 16076443

>>16076415
yeah I'm glad I already ended the stream

Anonymous No. 16076444

>>16076386
>lmaooooooooooo
If there's something I hate about these launches is how obvious it is the threads get filled with third worlders.

Image not available

723x757

1661269422708833.jpg

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16076457

>>16076415

Anonymous No. 16076463

RATE THE LAUNCH

Anonymous No. 16076467

>>16076364
I think they're going to want to do an engine relight in space before actually entering orbit just to prove that they can do a controlled deorbit, and that precludes Starlinks until then.

Anonymous No. 16076469

>>16076463
9/10.

Anonymous No. 16076471

>>16076444
I keep forgetting that the launch thread brings in tourists, so I have to keep my power level down and stop throwing around in-jokes

Anonymous No. 16076477

>>16076463
4/10

Anonymous No. 16076480

>>16076463
11/10
good feels

Anonymous No. 16076484

>>16076463
Excitement was guaranteed and I was thoroughly entertained. 8/10

Anonymous No. 16076485

>>16076463
10/10 just for the plasma
HOLY FUCK THAT WAS AMAZING

Anonymous No. 16076489

>>16076463
10/10 for presentation. 7/10 for objectives.

Anonymous No. 16076491

>>16076463
9.5/10 for kino 6/10 for milestones

Anonymous No. 16076497

>>16076463
EXCITEMENT WAS GUARANTEED
AND I WAS EXCITED
NO FAA MISHAP INVESTIGATION
WE GAAAN NEXT MONTH

Anonymous No. 16076499

it was the altitude control, not the heatshield right?

Anonymous No. 16076504

>>16076463
6/10
Back to work.

Anonymous No. 16076505

>>16076463
Made me unironically söyjack at my screen so… pretty good

Anonymous No. 16076509

>>16076463
8/10

Anonymous No. 16076512

>>16076463
10/10
I'm giggling like a fucking retard.
That plasma was a genuinely kino cinematic moment that'll be remembered forever.

Anonymous No. 16076513

>>16076499
Yup, heatshield won't help if you're reentering sideways.

Anonymous No. 16076526

>>16076356
they didn't delay Falcon 9 for landing failures

Image not available

849x849

6bb7194237ac96bca....png

Anonymous No. 16076539

>>16076457
stupid frogposter

Anonymous No. 16076542

>>16076499
it kept spinning for a while while still reentering, then it looked more stable but I assume that wasn't good enough

Anonymous No. 16076544

Flight controls chads... what happened?

Anonymous No. 16076546

Is it possible for them to launch a payload next time and release it?

Anonymous No. 16076549

>>16076410
You mean, like, raptor reliability? Yeah I'm glad they fixed that one :D

retard

Image not available

1920x1080

1710143112730752.png

Anonymous No. 16076550

launchpadbros...

Anonymous No. 16076556

Time for a beer. If I was still smoking, I'd have a cig too at this point.

Anonymous No. 16076558

I'm gonna call it, ice buildup caused RCS to fail and it tumbled into the atmosphere due to uncontrolled roll on the horizontal axis

Anonymous No. 16076559

>>16076463
12/10 that reentry was incredible
>>16076499
yeah I'm not sure if that roll was commanded or not, there sure was a lot of back and forth and extreme inputs commanded on those flaps

Anonymous No. 16076564

>>16076546
berger says starlinks for next flight and I trust him

Anonymous No. 16076567

How can they even obtain the flight data if it didn't survive the blackout?

That's my biggest question right now

Image not available

3464x3464

1710426303939466.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076573

>>16076550
it's over...

Anonymous No. 16076574

>>16076558
>no part is best part
build some fucking heaters you have the mass godamn spacex

Anonymous No. 16076580

>>16076463
9/10
probably best day of this half of the year... until the next launch since nothing went catastrophically wrong meaning more launches imminent.

Anonymous No. 16076583

>>16076549
>first launch
>like half the engines fail
>second launch
>couple engines fail
>third launch
>no fails
All the problems were with reignition, something that had yet to be tested.

Anonymous No. 16076587

>>16076580
FAA will still say its an anomaly and demand a 2 month investigation

Anonymous No. 16076591

>>16076583
>first launch
>like half the engines fail
Six failed.

Anonymous No. 16076596

>>16076583
Booster oscillating like a motherfucker while the off-axis gridfins were trying to compensate wildly didn't help prop slosh.

Anonymous No. 16076599

>>16076567
Blackbox

Anonymous No. 16076601

>>16076583
Booster Engines failed to reignite but it's probably not the engine's fault, it was the sharp movements caused by the grid fins.

Anonymous No. 16076604

>>16076596
That happened because the engines didn't ignite in time.

Anonymous No. 16076611

IFT-1 -> 7 months -> IFT-2 -> 4 months > IFT-3

IFT-4 in 2-3 months?

Anonymous No. 16076614

>>16076599
the chinks got it

Anonymous No. 16076615

>>16076567
Couldn't they put in some black box that could take all this shit. They certainly had the mass margins.

Anonymous No. 16076621

>>16076604
Entering chicken and egg territory here. I believe a gridfin redesign is coming up. We'll see.

Anonymous No. 16076622

>>16076611
It could genuinely be much faster, they've built the hardware already. I could see a launch in April or early May.

Anonymous No. 16076624

>>16076611
I'd say august

Anonymous No. 16076628

>>16076614
It's over...

Anonymous No. 16076630

>>16076567
Just fix the attitude control in space. Don't do a 1080 with the unethical experimental while reentering the atmosphere.

Anonymous No. 16076631

>>16076604
The control oscillation begun a few seconds before planned relight.

Anonymous No. 16076637

>>16076463
11/10 those shitty tiles fucking worked
we will live to see space colonies

Anonymous No. 16076640

>>16076596
Yeah, looked like the control loop needs some tuning

Image not available

220x275

NASA_Administrato....jpg

Anonymous No. 16076641

Are we gonna hear a "well done you made it harder this time" speech again.

Anonymous No. 16076646

>>16076641
Why would Skeletor even chip in? No NASA payload was involved.

Anonymous No. 16076649

So both S29 and B11 have yet to perform a static fire. The former has done cryo and spin prime while the latter only cryo.
NET June sounds realistic

Anonymous No. 16076650

would you put your payload in the next flight?

Anonymous No. 16076651

>>16076646
Because they completed a NASA milestone?

Anonymous No. 16076653

Most advanced anti-whale weapon ever devised by man
They fucking frag grenaded the booster with the FTS just above the surface for maximum cetacean death

Anonymous No. 16076655

>>16076567
There should be significant flight data transmitted even after the video cut out because it's much lower bandwidth

Anonymous No. 16076661

>>16076655
you meant the telemetry? it stopped updating at 65km

Anonymous No. 16076663

>>16076651
Did the prop transfer even work? They said they completed the door thing but it was clearly stuck open.

Anonymous No. 16076664

>>16076653
We can throw it at chink trawlers

Anonymous No. 16076666

>>16076650
Yeah, its functional as a disposable launch system

Anonymous No. 16076670

>>16076655
They said both starlink and back up comms died at the exact same time

Image not available

379x228

1679694642626660.png

Anonymous No. 16076672

Anonymous No. 16076674

>>16076646
NASA’s involved intimately, payload or not.

Image not available

584x476

1679571919909240.png

Anonymous No. 16076677

And there it is!

Anonymous No. 16076678

>>16076599
Real easy to find one of those in the Indian ocean I heard.

Anonymous No. 16076679

>>16076663
If the door hadn't shut down it would have blown up the moment reentry started.

>>16076666
>if I say it 20 more times it'll be true
Just admit you don't know about rocketry.

Anonymous No. 16076681

>>16076674
Sure, but Skeletor only chips in when it's something NASA broadcasts to the masses.

Image not available

586x137

1685825478155991.png

Anonymous No. 16076684

alright this is quite funny

Anonymous No. 16076687

Does SpaceX have any full assembled (or close to it) ships and boosters at the moment? I'm curious how quickly they could launch again, barring the legal stuff, of course.

Anonymous No. 16076691

>>16076596
Why are they off-axis anyway? Why reinvent the wheel?

Anonymous No. 16076692

>>16076679
Why are you so angry?

Anonymous No. 16076693

>>16076646
debunked >>16076677

Anonymous No. 16076695

Since they already have the next few ships built, how much improvement can they realistically make? they can make programming changes from the data, but hardware wise they're kind of stuck for the next few launches right?

Anonymous No. 16076697

How large is the payload door? there's no clam-shell like door, just a slit?

Anonymous No. 16076698

>>16076687
several I believe. They haven't stopped making new ones.

Image not available

77x39

runes.png

Anonymous No. 16076701

>>16076684

Anonymous No. 16076707

>>16076677
thank you professor administrator doctor senator skellington
very cool

Anonymous No. 16076708

>>16076677
Thank you skeltor's twitter intern

Anonymous No. 16076710

>>16076695
They put in baffles in the current booster from lessons learned during IFT2. It's steel, man. It's not made of unobtainium that can't be changed once assembled.

Anonymous No. 16076713

>>16076684
I suspect they didn't do the relight because the door jammed
They opted to at least see how the tiles would do in the early stages of reentry instead of fucking the ship with the door from a relight

Anonymous No. 16076719

>>16076305
the next stack is literally just waiting in line; second stage is sitting on suborbital next to OLM

Anonymous No. 16076723

>>16076684
Not sure if quality bait or genuine mental retardation.

Anonymous No. 16076725

>>16076713
The way they were talking was engine relight completely handled onboard based on parameters?

Anonymous No. 16076727

>>16076684
mean while the fuel gauges:
[#_______________________________]
[#_______________________________]

Anonymous No. 16076734

fucking hilarious how bad that was honestly. the way it waas flipping was fucked up. How you do you guys not notice this shit?

Anonymous No. 16076735

>>16076719
Well yeah, but that's never been the issue. It's always been getting through the paperwork.

Anonymous No. 16076736

>>16076701
jew knee phoon

Anonymous No. 16076737

>>16076725
Yup, my guess is the uncontrolled spin, computer didn't think it was stable enough to light

Anonymous No. 16076738

>>16076713
i think it was because they didn't have attitude control, so a relight risked pushing the trajectory out of the flight path

Anonymous No. 16076743

>>16076719
they said that last time fucking idiot. sentiment was that it wold launch on christmas. why do you not learn?

Anonymous No. 16076748

>>16076743
but today is christmas anon

Image not available

2560x1440

1683584129511990.png

Anonymous No. 16076749

is it supposed to burn its butt on reentry

Anonymous No. 16076751

>>16076687
Ship 29 is on a test stand and had three cryo tests before, they need to static fire it as well as a booster, then stack and wet dress rehearsal. Ship 26 had a static fire but it has no flaps or heat shield so on one knows what its for, probably not a flight article.
If they went at absolute max speed I'm guessing they could do a month, realistically I'd say 2-3. It was 4 since the last flight.

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076752

Beginning to process max-quality webms.

Anonymous No. 16076753

>>16076719
Sorry goyim but uncle Biden has to look through your FAA paperwork first

Anonymous No. 16076766

>>16076719
It's not, both S29 and B11 have to perform static fire tests.

Anonymous No. 16076769

>>16076752
the drone shot as its going through the clouds is kino

Image not available

1920x1080

1710428407526955.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076774

>>16076752
that cloud coverage is kino. looks so good during the booster reentry too

Anonymous No. 16076775

was so amazing to see hot plasma form

Image not available

585x789

1704160290441002.png

Anonymous No. 16076776

>>16073824
I won

Anonymous No. 16076781

so what caused the roll? some gas venting out of a broken line? ice blocking the RCS nozzles?

Image not available

1920x1080

ss_pl.webm

Anonymous No. 16076782

Anonymous No. 16076783

hot plasma started forming at 46min

Anonymous No. 16076784

>payload door cycling and prop transfer demo (to be confirmed!), and ship entry!
>tbc

Oh no no tipping point bros, the $50 million...

Anonymous No. 16076785

>>16076546
If they can get the door to work. From here on they are testing the really hard stuff. Payload deployment, docking and fuel transfer, and reentry will be many more test flights

Anonymous No. 16076786

Spaceguy5 has not tweeted in an hour
I repeat, Spaceguy5 has NOT tweeted

Image not available

640x476

the-nooooticer-v0....png

Anonymous No. 16076787

>>16076752
The twr looks much better

Anonymous No. 16076788

>>16076753
>>16076743
>>16076735
it'll probably get sent back anyway or replaced entirely for design tweaks based on today's flight data like the current stack went through.

Anonymous No. 16076789

What's with all the tumbling today bros?

Image not available

1579x888

1687731367112594.png

Anonymous No. 16076791

re-entry heating started way too early, it was still doing the barbeque spins when it started to glow

here you can see it's glowing sideways

Anonymous No. 16076792

>>16076677
>together we are
You didn't do anything

Anonymous No. 16076793

It's pretty funny how itterative this has been, and how they fail at the next step.

IFT 1: S1 Failure
IFT 2: S1 success, Boostback failure and S2 ascent failure
IFT 3: Ascent success, boostback success, S1 Landing burn failure, so-so coast phase and Reentry failure.

They'll really get it to work this year.

Anonymous No. 16076795

>>16076789
Control thrusters not working properly

Image not available

3423x2160

starship z.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076796

Wallpaper from SpaceX

Anonymous No. 16076798

>>16076776
There was like half a dozen people at least saying this same thing, enjoy your sloppy 6ths

Anonymous No. 16076802

>>16076791
wouldn't this quickly disintegrate any non-steel rocket?

Anonymous No. 16076803

>>16076791
yeah, the atmosphere really dropped the ball by getting so dense above 90km.

Anonymous No. 16076804

>>16076795
Insufficient attitude control authority, it seems

Anonymous No. 16076806

>>16076791
They didn't have enough control to orient it for reentry so they just let aerodynamics do the work from what i can tell

Image not available

1024x980

1710349006148179.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076807

>>16074836
landing boosters was straight sci fi a little over a decade ago. As long as the spacex crew does not get sniped with regulation or financial trouble they will make it

Anonymous No. 16076809

>>16076793
>They'll really get it to work this year
>They'll really get it to work next year

Ftfy based off historical data

Image not available

1579x888

1687702511809719.png

Anonymous No. 16076811

butt is getting grilled

no plasma forming on the top part, i don't think this orientation is nominal

Anonymous No. 16076813

>>16076752
Based. Do you have one for the payload bay door opening and venting into space?

Anonymous No. 16076814

Do we have any video of the booster coming down from a different perspective? Did FTS activate or did it pile drive itself into the water at mach 2? Seeing the latter would be fucking awesome.

Anonymous No. 16076816

>>16076814
that would require a boat and you fags hate boats

Anonymous No. 16076818

>>16076811
Surprisingly that orientation may be nominal. In simulations, the curvature of the nosecone generates lift in that direction, so it needs to turn down relative to the airstream to prevent the ship from skipping out of the atmosphere.

Anonymous No. 16076819

>>16076806
when you're above 70km control surfaces can be sufficient to maintain attitude when you're already stable, but they definitely can't arrest you out of a spin. source: many failed attempts at landing spaceplanes in RSS/RO.

Anonymous No. 16076821

Videos coming in of a whale, a shark and a group of beetles getting crushed by the booster as it impacts the ocean.. It's over

Anonymous No. 16076822

So they basically got oldspace rocket at the moment

Image not available

340x94

1706879967040519.png

Anonymous No. 16076823

>>16076818
this orientation you mean?

Anonymous No. 16076824

>>16076802
it can and has

Anonymous No. 16076825

>>16076818
Idk I'm pretty sure grilling one part of the rocket when you have a skyscraper to work with is not nominal

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076827

>>16076813
I'm just starting with rendering the splashdown, so not yet.

Anonymous No. 16076829

>>16076823
Just like that, yes. Pointing down helps keep the direction of lift towards the Earth instead of out into space.

Anonymous No. 16076831

>>16076802
no. Plasma is not necessarily scorching hot at that point.

Anonymous No. 16076832

>>16076823
still going 26.7k km/h at 82km that's so done

Anonymous No. 16076836

>>16076823
>PUT ME IN SPACE AND POINT ME AT INDIA I AM READY

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076837

Image not available

640x480

1708727649992301.gif

Anonymous No. 16076838

please tell me someone actually saw and filmed the superheavy slamming into the ocean at 1k km/h

Anonymous No. 16076839

>>16076822
The biggest old space rockets ever if you like

Image not available

342x93

1705629473354735.png

Anonymous No. 16076840

>>16076701
its trending

Anonymous No. 16076844

>>16076822
but bigger, cheaper, made by 1 (one) company, and flies 3 times per year already

Anonymous No. 16076845

>>16076823
>almost 27kph
>82km altitude

Jej was never going to make it

Anonymous No. 16076846

>>16076818
>>16076829
nose down is never going to be necessary to prevent skipping. a 90-degree roll will give you zero vertical lift force. faget's straight-wing shuttle had very similar reentry characteristics to starship and it never would have needed more than 80 degrees roll to prevent skipping.

Anonymous No. 16076847

>>16076845
does someone have space shuttle data? what's their reentry angle?

Image not available

492x283

marisa explosion.gif

Anonymous No. 16076850

>>16076782

Anonymous No. 16076851

>>16076847
check out that real engineering video on it

Anonymous No. 16076852

>>16076845
>>16076847
that's a normal speed at 82km for reentry. you get basically no deceleration above 75km.

Anonymous No. 16076853

>>16076846
It's a 3D problem, and pointing down gives negative lift.

Anonymous No. 16076862

>>16076845
Shuttle went about 28,000 km/h when it reentered. But yeah, a graph showing its velocity at different altitudes during that would be helpful.

Anonymous No. 16076863

>>16076840
whats happening on japanese twitter

Anonymous No. 16076866

>>16076782
>the camera fuckups starting at 1:03
Zoomers shat their pants and jumped out of their seats.

Image not available

3840x2160

1701850721905424.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076867

>>16076863
VRchat

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076870

>>16076752
>>16076827
>>16076837

Anonymous No. 16076873

>"Congratulations Elon" -- you managed to accomplish something that @NASA
accomplished back in 1960. Good job, ya frothing fascist right wing lying conman crook Republican white supremacist dung heap !

Tweeter is fucking hilarious right now on Congratulations Elon trend, mix of pure delight and unrelenting seething

Anonymous No. 16076875

>Crashing two rockets into the ocean in one launch
The FAA gonna tear them a new one, aren't they. I hope SS eventually launches again but this looks grim.

Anonymous No. 16076876

>>16076867

Why is japan like this?

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076877

>>16076870

Anonymous No. 16076878

>>16076873
>So, SpaceX loses a whole ass rocket (for the umpteenth time) and still the boot lickers scream "congratulations elon" if only the God-Emperor would only glance their way ...

>Y'all worship some dumb shit.

lmao, clueless

Anonymous No. 16076879

We should savor these test flights while we still can. Years from now when Starship launches become at least as boring and routine as Falcon, we'll look back at this period of its development and miss the excitement.

Anonymous No. 16076881

>>16076878
reddit spacing

Anonymous No. 16076882

>>16076853
if you want negative lift for some other reason then sure, but i'm just saying that it's not necessary to prevent skipping when you're reentering from LEO.

Anonymous No. 16076884

any new video footage?
did anyone film the starship descent with some telescope?

Anonymous No. 16076885

>>16075264
It's 2024 and a bunch of engineer still can't implement a basic control algorithm

>>16075463
what's grid fin critical speed

Anonymous No. 16076888

>>16076881
twitter spacing actually

Anonymous No. 16076890

>>16076878
They are literally bots retard

Image not available

1286x372

reuters lmao.png

Anonymous No. 16076891

>reuters livestream
>2000 views
TOP KEK

Anonymous No. 16076894

>>16076882
It may be off nominal, since the ship never really had attitude control in flight, but the ship was dumping gas and the flight controllers operate in real time to try and control their vehicles to whatever their target destination is, so it's hard to be sure one way or another.

Image not available

888x818

file.png

Anonymous No. 16076896

Bill is happy, WE GAAAN
https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1768288689694642398

Image not available

512x512

1691316145020221.png

Anonymous No. 16076899

would it be risky for them to put some starlink sats for the next launch?

looks like getting past the fucking orbit is already figured out. well it's not fully expendable yet, they need to keep fuel for testing the landings.

Anonymous No. 16076900

Is it possible FTS activated because it was reentering in wrong place?

Anonymous No. 16076903

>>16076900
No, not possible

>source: Me

Anonymous No. 16076904

>>16076900
it would have been activated well before 65km

Anonymous No. 16076906

>>16075463
>mach 2 (2000 km/h)
Retard

Anonymous No. 16076912

Why don't SpaceX streams display relevant units like m/s and mach numbers?
Annoying to mentally convert from km/h. What is this, a fucking car speedometer?

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076913

>>16076877

Anonymous No. 16076915

>>16076655
Yeah I think so. But SpaceX rarely talks about that. I'm also pretty sure they have a completely separate beacon always transmitting from Starship. That way they can know if it blows up or something.

Anonymous No. 16076917

Will we see a fast turnaround? or will we have to wait months for the FAA?

Anonymous No. 16076919

>>16076885
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_control_speeds#Minimum_control_speed_when_airborne

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16076923

>>16076913

Anonymous No. 16076924

>>16076899
Wasting Starlink on suborbital flights seem pointless and I guess that's going to be the next mission profile too, because attitude control failed and they didn't perform an in-orbit startup. Maybe they will go a bit further, to Hawaii.
I think it would be better to put a mass simulator there to test the dispenser.

Anonymous No. 16076926

>>16076621
>I believe a gridfin redesign is coming up. We'll see.
They should copy BO's grid finns.

Anonymous No. 16076927

>>16076823
>were not aiming for the truck!

Image not available

543x587

sshot-056.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076930

Whats the next goalpost for seethers?

Image not available

2048x1149

IMG_2943.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076933

>>16076894
loss on reentry seemed to be caused by the off axis flight rather than TPS issues

Anonymous No. 16076934

>>16076912
Thank you for your feedback, future streams will be displayed in feet per second as a velocity unit and altitude will be displayed in fathoms.

Anonymous No. 16076935

>>16076917
2 months

Anonymous No. 16076936

>>16076923
Just makes me wanna float in there

Anonymous No. 16076939

>>16076930
Catching booster is impossible

Anonymous No. 16076940

>>16076933
Maybe, but we don't actually know when it was lost in flight or what failed. Maybe the ship was losing altitude too fast, maybe the flaps weren't up to the job.

Anonymous No. 16076941

>>16076870
Why can't I see Starships engine plumes

Anonymous No. 16076945

>>16076923
What's the smoke

Anonymous No. 16076947

>>16076941
Stop plooming and seek God you nasty addict

Anonymous No. 16076948

>>16076941
>Plume 101km up
Hello tourist.

Anonymous No. 16076950

>>16076933
doesn't like very off axis in your picture though

Anonymous No. 16076951

>>16076945
might just be dust on the inside of the payload bay

Anonymous No. 16076953

>>16076939
It actually is impossible.

Anonymous No. 16076954

>>16076924
I guess they can do test deployals first

Anonymous No. 16076956

>>16076934
Yeah, I was thinking of joking about that but figured it was too lame. Thanks for taking on the burden.
I guess not measuring distances in body parts is a huge leap for an american company. They'll get to correct units one day.

Anonymous No. 16076957

>>16076940
It entered the atmosphere 90 degrees off axis and kept rotating through the plasma

Anonymous No. 16076958

>>16076948
but we could see some plumes during coast phase

Anonymous No. 16076960

>>16076930
Already being called a failure
https://www.seattlepi.com/business/article/spacex-s-mega-rocket-blasts-off-on-a-third-test-19012633.php
>SpaceX’s mega rocket blasted off on another test flight Thursday and made it farther than two previous attempts, but the spacecraft was lost as it descended back to Earth.

>The company said it lost contact with the spacecraft as it neared its goal, a splashdown in the Indian Ocean, about an hour after liftoff from the southern tip of Texas near the Mexican border.

>Two test flights last year both ended in explosions minutes after liftoff.

Image not available

900x1042

1699524809712139.png

Anonymous No. 16076962

We are never leaving this gay earth, are we?

Anonymous No. 16076963

>>16076957
Booster 7 vibes

Anonymous No. 16076964

>>16076933
>>16076940
>>16076957
Altitude control fucked up, it entered the atmosphere while it was still bbq rolling, you see plasma start to form while it was still rolling like a dumbo

Anonymous No. 16076965

>>16076962
Not with that boomer oldspace mentality, no.

Anonymous No. 16076966

>>16076964
More or less, but they never actually seemed to attain attitude control.

Anonymous No. 16076971

>>16076962
>i want to collect rocks in a muggy space suit on mars!

Why

Anonymous No. 16076972

>>16076964
>>16076966
sure seemed like something was venting the entire time it was in space from the video

Anonymous No. 16076973

>>16076972
thats just the RCS

Anonymous No. 16076977

>>16076912
just divide by 3.6, retard

Anonymous No. 16076978

someone please screenshot and post Clear in the pie.
I'm in a meeting.

Anonymous No. 16076982

The negative news media narrative is "Ship destroyed before splashdown that SpaceX hoped for"

Image not available

1088x791

1701690748901169.jpg

Anonymous No. 16076986

We wouldn't have these relight problems if SpaceX just went hypergolic

Image not available

1920x1080

1689294927318091.png

Anonymous No. 16076987

>>16076978

Anonymous No. 16076989

>>16073283
The Saturn v looks so much sexier

Anonymous No. 16076991

>>16076791
it's only like 30 degrees off right here, that should be fine if they could have gotten it back under control
>>16076814
it was at like mach 1, the speed of a pistol bullet
>>16076831
if it's glowing its very hot, but it might not be transferring much heat to the vehicle
>>16076885
grid fins work like flat plates at medium speeds and like a bunch of small wings at low speeds and very high speeds as the shockwave blocks the holes at specific speeds
I think Manley has a video on it

Anonymous No. 16076992

>>16076973
maybe, but the RCS shouldn't be firing the entire time if it's working right. either you had something venting to cause the tumble or the RCS was having serious issues from the start.

Anonymous No. 16076994

>>16076962
You aren't.

Anonymous No. 16076996

>>16076987
Max-Qute
ty

Anonymous No. 16076998

>>16076991
>grid fins work like flat plates at medium speeds and like a bunch of small wings at low speeds and very high speeds as the shockwave blocks the holes at specific speeds
>I think Manley has a video on it
So just make a normal wing then instead of grids

Anonymous No. 16076999

>>16076998
Less efficient.

Anonymous No. 16077001

>>16076934
finally some fucking sensible units

Image not available

856x597

A6.png

Anonymous No. 16077005

https://www.esa.int/Enabling_Support/Space_Transportation/Ariane/Flying_first_on_Ariane_6

ESA just posted this and no one even cares.

Anonymous No. 16077009

>>16076998
sorry, not sorry, will not implement marked closed

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077010

>>16076923

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077013

>>16077010

Image not available

877x522

file.png

Anonymous No. 16077014

>>16076998
https://www.nas.nasa.gov/assets/nas/pdf/papers/kless_j_analysis_grid_fins_2011.pdf
no

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077015

>>16077013

Anonymous No. 16077016

>>16076804
Iced up thrusters.

Anonymous No. 16077017

>>16076960
But that doesn't actually call it a failure

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077020

>>16077015

Anonymous No. 16077021

>>16077005
>Ariane 6 will launch several satellites, deployers and experiments from space agencies, companies, research institutes, universities and young professionals on its first flight.
mmm, i know it has an increased payload capacity but even so i don't think ariane 6 can put entire universities into orbit.

Image not available

1920x1080

(2) 【#Starship】新ミ....png

Anonymous No. 16077023

>>16076987

Anonymous No. 16077024

>>16077005
you're damn right we don't

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077027

>>16077020

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077028

>>16077027

Anonymous No. 16077029

OH FUCK OFF FAA

Image not available

1920x1080

2024-03-14 08-02-....webm

Anonymous No. 16077031

>>16077028

Anonymous No. 16077032

>>16077027
Doesn't this look like only front is getting buttfucked?

Anonymous No. 16077033

>>16077020
pretty obvious on rewatch that they had limited control of the vehicle in orbit

Anonymous No. 16077034

>>16077029
Mishap investigation?

Image not available

913x847

file.png

Anonymous No. 16077035

DEFUND THE FAA
https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/1768303183862927810

Anonymous No. 16077037

https://twitter.com/FAANews/status/1768303183862927810

Anonymous No. 16077038

>inb4 they figure out the chopsticks before reentry

Anonymous No. 16077040

>>16077035
Wtf, it went pretty much perfectly

Anonymous No. 16077041

>>16077027
is it supposed to look like this

Anonymous No. 16077043

>>16076782
I really hoped the flaps would have enough control authority to unfuck the ship, but I guess not at that altitude.

Anonymous No. 16077044

>>16077020
>>16077033
You can see how the roll has been nulled by ~T+47 minutes and it quickly reorients itself after that.

Image not available

1300x866

16234440-danger-o....jpg

Anonymous No. 16077045

>>16077041
no

Anonymous No. 16077047

>>16077028
>All white males except one token pajeet
racism

Anonymous No. 16077049

>>16077035
fuck these annoying imbeciles

Anonymous No. 16077051

>>16077045
Perfect.

Anonymous No. 16077052

>>16075302
Pretty much, yeah. Looks like a controls issue. Either they're not sending the right commands or there's too much lag between sensor & output.

Anonymous No. 16077057

>>16077052
Could be frost in the thruster, oxygen freezing as the pressure drops

Anonymous No. 16077058

>>16077035
spacex was going to investigate what went wrong anyway. inshallah FAA just OKs whatever spacex comes back with same day

Anonymous No. 16077060

Fun fact: SLS was heavier when going at the same speed ( shortly before core MECO)

Anonymous No. 16077061

>>16076873
>>16076878
If I wanted to read that faggotry I'd be over there instead of here, fuck off with twitter garbage

Anonymous No. 16077064

>>16077044
>roll has been nulled
Look at the plasma. The roll continued.

Image not available

915x651

1684878562222108.png

Anonymous No. 16077065

>>16077034
Yeah.
https://www.faa.gov/newsroom/statements

Anonymous No. 16077066

>>16077065
So the usual?

Anonymous No. 16077067

>>16076583
No engines failed during ascent on IFT2 either

Anonymous No. 16077072

>>16077035
This is expected for any launch that does not go perfectly.

Anonymous No. 16077073

>>16076695
Remember when they just added hot staging anon

Image not available

1300x866

drunk reentry.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077075

>>16077045
>>16077051

Anonymous No. 16077078

>>16076713
They didn't relight because the vehicle was tumbling and the RCS couldn't stop it.

Anonymous No. 16077079

Well that was insane and I’m sure >we will allude to this flight similar to how we call back to the FH demo flight

Anonymous No. 16077080

>>16077065
>SpaceX-led mishap
Nothingberger

Anonymous No. 16077082

Looks like normie news media outlets view the launch as a success

Image not available

900x720

eternal freedom.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077083

>>16076971
To be as far away from the rest of you as possible, forever.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQZzwnQ5PBk&ab_channel=SongLyricsHD

Anonymous No. 16077086

>>16077065
Abolish the FAA

Anonymous No. 16077088

>>16077082
well, it failed, so they are making up shit as usual

Anonymous No. 16077089

>>16076971
Yes, I'd like to do this. I'm going to close my eyes and imagine my rogg collectio rn.

Anonymous No. 16077091

>>16076791
They weren't doing a bbq roll, they simply didn't have control authority through the coast phase dude.

Image not available

1690x872

Proton M will not....png

Anonymous No. 16077092

>>16077035
Wow thanks guys, if it wasn't for your technical insight we might have failed to notice how the booster went into the sea at near supersonic speed because the engiens failed to relight for the landing burn and how Starship tumbled on orbit and during re-entry.

Image not available

815x747

CNN.png

Anonymous No. 16077096

>>16077088
CNN posting Ws

Anonymous No. 16077097

>>16077075
>Get in kid, we're doing re-entry!
Cheers.

Anonymous No. 16077098

>>16077075
kek

Image not available

480x360

muffled eurobeat ....jpg

Anonymous No. 16077100

>>16077041
OFT-3: Orbital Doriftu

Anonymous No. 16077105

>starship did what N1 couldn't and got something into an orbital flight successfully

Anonymous No. 16077112

did anyone manage to film the booster explosion from land?

Anonymous No. 16077130

>>16077092
The fucked up thing is that if it wasn't starship, there would be no investigation as bailing in the ocean and burning up in atmosphere is expected any other time

Anonymous No. 16077132

>>16077091
they, i meant the computer

Anonymous No. 16077133

https://www.youtube.com/live/ixZpBOxMopc?si=orEzohup4UvFMVGr&t=33763
Estronaut stream captured some real aural kino from the early part of the launch before it cut out.

Image not available

1920x1080

GIpGLaPWMAARNwL.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077135

Image not available

578x324

mars.png

Anonymous No. 16077136

does /sfg/ agree?
https://twitter.com/DrChrisCombs/status/1768292362684432840

Anonymous No. 16077138

>>16077136
Yes, Elon hypes up his own rocket too much deesu

Anonymous No. 16077139

>>16077136
Ahh yes, now show me your 120m tall, 5000 ton rocket.

Anonymous No. 16077141

>>16077136
I don't think he understands what iterative design means

Anonymous No. 16077144

>>16077105
It passed N1 on its first flight.

Anonymous No. 16077145

>>16077136
No, stop posting this retard here.

Anonymous No. 16077146

>>16077136
Do people not realize that starship doesn't even need to be fully reusable for Artemis?

Anonymous No. 16077148

What's the cope after today's failure?

Anonymous No. 16077149

>>16077146
they need reusability for orbital refueling unless you expect them to waste 8 rockets

Image not available

1170x658

retardation.png

Anonymous No. 16077150

>>16077136
>starships mission will be to put lots of stuff in leo
That's exactly what you need for a mars mission. Even if you use an oldspace architecture it'll just require 20 SLS launches (ie 20 years) instead of 20 starship launches (a few months once its operational)

Image not available

320x262

buzzpunch.gif

Anonymous No. 16077151

>>16077136
I bet I could beat this guy up irl and he wouldn't be able to stop me.

Anonymous No. 16077152

>>16077135
Is NASA gonna allow spaceX to take drone shots like this when starship launches from the cape?

Anonymous No. 16077153

If an antenna is powerful enough, can its signal go through plasma?

Anonymous No. 16077154

>>16077149
it's free test flights for them, they were taking customer payloads on falcon 9 long before they managed to get it reliably landing

Anonymous No. 16077156

>>16077136
>does /sfg/ agree?
Nope.

Anonymous No. 16077157

>>16077153
Plasma is a great conductor, so if you have a nuclear powered antenna maybe. SpaceX said they hope starship's plasma wake will be large enough to allow starlink comms during reentry. Didn't work today as S28 was a spinny boi

Anonymous No. 16077159

>>16077154
2 years to do orbital refuel?

Anonymous No. 16077161

>>16077136
this guy is such a fag lmao

Anonymous No. 16077167

>>16077157
which means... if it wasn't spinning... video throughout reentry and splashdown?

Anonymous No. 16077177

>>16077157
What about some sort of laser communication? Is plasma opaque?

Anonymous No. 16077178

>>16077177
>Is plasma opaque?
Yes >>16076933

Anonymous No. 16077180

>>16077136
>Combs

I don't take concern trolls seriously.

Anonymous No. 16077185

Thinking back, switching to hotstaging was the smartest change they made holy shit it just fucking works

Anonymous No. 16077187

>>16077159
They will need to have 8 separate ships at the ready to launch in rapid succession even if they're reusable, early on refurbishment will take way too long. If some of them don't make it back it doesn't affect the schedule.

Anonymous No. 16077188

>>16077185
I didn't expect it to be so easy.

Anonymous No. 16077191

>>16077188
it really is this easy in rocketry

Anonymous No. 16077194

>>16077185
we still don't know what kind of damage the booster suffers during hot staging. they could need to replace the interstage every flight

Anonymous No. 16077198

>>16077185
A very good example as to why the way spacex develop rockets is the way to go.

Image not available

585x817

david.png

Anonymous No. 16077199

holy crap
SLS shill coming out with a rare W today
https://twitter.com/ThePrimalDino/status/1768311107943284930

Image not available

2048x1536

GIpRj_4XsAAPCPp.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077202

Anonymous No. 16077204

https://twitter.com/joebarnard/status/1768273454531584053

Image not available

1280x886

Antenna_location_....png

Anonymous No. 16077207

What if we put a large antenna whose low frequency waves will be able to penetrate the plasma?

Anonymous No. 16077209

>>16077204
This guy looks like he could be Elon's son.

Image not available

2048x1536

GIpRkE1W8AI2Z5Y.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077211

More here https://twitter.com/StarshipGazer/status/1768316005715984491

Anonymous No. 16077213

>>16077198
It is retarded to waste a real vehicle and not being able to get other data than the telemetry sent while in flight.
They should put like 100s engineering caperas everywhere and have a survivable flight recorder that you can recover from the ocean.

Image not available

2048x1536

GIpRkE0WkAAjyV8.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077214

Anonymous No. 16077215

>>16077211
looks fine I'm not worried about it

Anonymous No. 16077217

>>16076276
I wonder if the glowies on Diego Garcia tracked it
>you will never get to see the SR-72 chase plane footage

Image not available

1536x2048

GIpRkNaW4AA5YnU.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077218

Image not available

1976x1395

Pan_polar_antenna.png

Anonymous No. 16077221

Anonymous No. 16077223

>>16077177
plasma is opaque at all wavelengths, but there's a hole in the back usually

Anonymous No. 16077224

>>16077217
>SR-72 chase plane
A tictac?

Anonymous No. 16077225

>>16077185
Yeah but this Most Engines Cut Off thing looked a bit inefficient. Why shut down most of the engines only to reignite them after sep? Maybe the boostback burn could be more fuel efficient near booster apogee. But then it would suffer sloshing.

Anonymous No. 16077226

>>16077223
REEEE there's got to be a way to communicate though

Anonymous No. 16077227

>>16076308
I wouldn't be surprised to see a long interval here. We might see some major redesigns to Starship and super heavy.

Image not available

1251x645

file.png

Anonymous No. 16077229

>>16077202
>>16077211
>>16077214
During takeoff, I think I remembering seeing what looked like chunks of something fly into the air. What was it?

Anonymous No. 16077230

>>16077226
look out the back, the plasma is only in front of the vehicle bleeding up the sides, if you aim your antenna behind you and hit a Starlink sat you'll have comms the whole way down

Anonymous No. 16077232

>>16077214
What's the point of the shed for dwarves on the left there

sage No. 16077235

>>16077229
probably loose shit around the pad

Anonymous No. 16077236

>>16077232
That's where the propellant lines that go up to the booster are.

Anonymous No. 16077237

>>16077229
ice

Anonymous No. 16077242

>>16077199
Wasn't this barneyfag lookalike a turbo SLSfag that hated Starship? What happened?

Anonymous No. 16077243

>>16077185
The staging regime for IFT-1 was KSP-tier nonsense, "just flip the whole thing and throw the Starship off" is so silly that I can't believe it was ever seriously considered, let alone tried.

Anonymous No. 16077246

>>16077243
I sincerely wish we had gotten footage of it in action. Was it retarded? Yes. Would it have looked awesome? Also yes.

Anonymous No. 16077247

>>16077243
Seriously thats why I wrote that post cause I think if they still wanted to do it then they would be stuck dealing with control/attitude problems and getting the right sequence down and its just unnecessary, just let the engines do all the work, its brilliant

Anonymous No. 16077250

>>16076876
Too based for whitoids.

Anonymous No. 16077253

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1768317619998691696

Why are basically all posts made by NASA related to race or gender politics? How the fuck is this relevant to space tech?

Anonymous No. 16077254

>>16077253
this is every large institution, it's all irredeemably pozzed

Anonymous No. 16077255

>>16077253
Commie mafia wields power over organizations by being loud and visible, despite being a minority of opinion.

Anonymous No. 16077256

>>16076749
Works in KSP

Anonymous No. 16077257

>>16077253

Why are basically all posts made by /sfg/ related to offtopic seething? How the fuck is this relevant to spaceflight?

Anonymous No. 16077263

>>16077253
such bullshit I can't believe it.

Anonymous No. 16077266

>>16077225
The thrust to weight ratio of a near empty booster is extremely high compared to a full starship.
The 3 center engines already have to deeply throttle to let Ship launch off of it without knocking the booster to oblivion

To keep all 13 center engines lit at their minimum throttle means Ship couldn't separate

Anonymous No. 16077282

just watched IFT-3 since I had to be in class, what an amazing flight. it went about as i predicted with landing being fucked up and the ship breaking up in the atmosphere, it seems like spacex takes one step forward from each previous starship launch. so im assuming next time that landing may be solved, and heat shield tiles will hold up. man reentry was just amazing.

Anonymous No. 16077309

>>16077229
Beetles

Anonymous No. 16077312

>>16077225
Ever accidentally staged rocket while the lower stage was still on?
Booster would have kept pushing into Starship

Image not available

1280x720

soft splashdown.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077317

Is there a ground video of the booster bomb diving at Mach 1?

Anonymous No. 16077324

FUCK I had no idea it was today. Incredible launch

Anonymous No. 16077325

>>16077317
give it a few months and there will be a kino video from wb57

Anonymous No. 16077330

>>16076964
it was never supposed to barbeque roll in the first place

Anonymous No. 16077333

>>16077136
chris is a faggot

Image not available

600x336

booster landing.webm

Anonymous No. 16077338

>>16077317
found it

Anonymous No. 16077341

https://twitter.com/Starlink/status/1768330178156204420
lol

Anonymous No. 16077345

>>16077194
during this launch it could clearly be seen that no hot fragments of metal were flying out of the interstage so my prediction is minimal damage easily mitigated by some water jackets and/or higher heat tolerance materials.

Anonymous No. 16077347

>>16077213
Every camera a gopro inside a crash tolerant buoyant sphere with a radar beacon that activates on contact with salt water.

Anonymous No. 16077348

>>16077185
>it just fucking works
disagree

Image not available

320x240

r-pjXI.gif

Anonymous No. 16077353

Starship Loss of signal screen be like

Anonymous No. 16077355

>>16077341
Huh, this makes me think, is this the first time a reentry could be livestreamed?

Anonymous No. 16077356

Why can't stainless steel be pressed like normal steel

Anonymous No. 16077357

>>16077353
me when I'm rotating about the vertical axis

Image not available

740x138

1689600257563333.png

Anonymous No. 16077358

SpaceX chuds, your response?

Image not available

800x1000

429312040_3355073....jpg

Anonymous No. 16077359

Another spacex failure...
meanwhile, someone else is quietly (and ferociously) making progress.
Tick-tock felon...

Anonymous No. 16077361

>>16077358
The secret payload was successful then

Anonymous No. 16077363

>>16077358
Of fucking course BBC is reporting on Africa

Image not available

1920x2880

BezosNewLook.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077364

>>16077359
Bezos and his stylish sneakers...

Anonymous No. 16077365

>>16077358
They had internet?!

Anonymous No. 16077366

>>16077358
Africa has internet?

Anonymous No. 16077368

>>16077358
VOODOO. da white mans silver pipe has made my goats sick and my wives pregnant. dis is da devils work

Anonymous No. 16077369

>>16073626
>that one on the bottom
Who paid to put a fucking AC unit into space lmao.

Image not available

414x233

Lockheed_Martin_S....png

Anonymous No. 16077371

>>16077224
>a tic tac?
I'm sure those were following along too

Anonymous No. 16077373

>>16077358
Houthis cut undersea cables

Anonymous No. 16077375

>>16077373
Surely it wasn't Elon's ICBM crashing into a sea cable at mach 5?

Anonymous No. 16077378

>>16073717
We tried that. We still have knife crime, and now Australians exist and post on 4ch.

Shipping the problem elsewhere never works.

Anonymous No. 16077379

>>16077355
yeah usually its just recorded

Anonymous No. 16077381

Raptor ignition was confirmed to have been aborted by flight computer due to high roll rate, basically confirms some kind of loss of attitude control

Image not available

762x1926

1679165382983341.png

Anonymous No. 16077382

Initial write-up is up on SpaceX's website.
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-3

Anonymous No. 16077383

>>16077381
so the bbq anons were wrong

Anonymous No. 16077384

>>16077375
you think the ocean is as shallow as a pond? Moreso water is denser than air.

Anonymous No. 16077389

>>16077358
China, Africa, Russia, and the Arabs should never have been permitted to connect to the internet.

Image not available

2160x3840

GIpo5isbAAEoeM7.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077394

https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1768341226187850116

Anonymous No. 16077395

>>16077382
That all seems pretty clear cut. What about this necessitates a FAA investigation?

Anonymous No. 16077396

How likely is that the booster roll oscillation was the sole cause for the landing burn failure?

Anonymous No. 16077397

>>16077384
Corrrect. For this same reason if a 3 kilometer wide iron-nickle meteorite crashes into the ocean it won't cause the cataclysm the s0i science types think would happen

Anonymous No. 16077398

>>16077382
>The booster's flight concluded at approximately 462 meters in altitude and just under seven minutes into the mission
explain why it didn't conclude at 0 meters

Anonymous No. 16077402

>>16077395
The fact that it was a space launch that blew up. They legally have to do this. Should be well known how this works by now

Anonymous No. 16077404

>>16077398
FTS I guess

Anonymous No. 16077406

>>16077394
fake. starship didn't launch at night

Anonymous No. 16077407

>>16077396
I'd say pretty likely, it looks like their PID loop needs some tuning.

Anonymous No. 16077408

>>16077394
what does off axis grid fin mean

Anonymous No. 16077413

>>16077402
Would they have launched the investigation if it crashed into the sea at a slightly slower speed? Seems like any flight experiment where the test article isn't being planned to be recoved is a mishap then.

Anonymous No. 16077421

>>16077413
I think it has more to do with the submitted flight plan vs the actual flight

Anonymous No. 16077423

>>16077413
I think the real thing is that SpaceX is legally obligated to understand and submit a remediation for the issue before they can launch again. Keep in mind that Starship is a government program.

Anonymous No. 16077426

>>16077413
The license specifies what the objectives of the flight were and what objectives not being met would constitute an anomaly.

Anonymous No. 16077429

>>16077383
It seemed like a cope to me, no reason to go to such an extreme for heat management in a short test flight. Starship will probably coast with it's shiny back towards the sun, reflecting most of the heat

Anonymous No. 16077431

>>16077382
This pretty much confirms what we talked earlier : "Starship did not attempt its planned on-orbit relight of a single Raptor engine due to vehicle roll rates during coast"

They lost all control of the vehicle from the beginning

Anonymous No. 16077432

>>16077407
Exactly, it started pretty early on, as soon as the booster hit denser atmosphere and grid fins got some control authority. Probably some super sonic aero fuckery.

Anonymous No. 16077438

>>16077431
Wasn't the roll initiated for the fuel transfer demo?
Do they need some hypergolic thrusters to keep things under control?

Anonymous No. 16077440

>>16077407
they probably lost control because they are not using good old PID but some bizarre algorithms some deranged phds came up with

Anonymous No. 16077444

>>16077407
>SpaceX engineer: 40% less D please
>It works flawlessly next flight
It really is that easy in flying skyscraper control systems

Image not available

1080x2293

translation_20240....jpg

Anonymous No. 16077446

Putin ordered to build nuclear power plant in space

Anonymous No. 16077447

>>16077438
having hypergolic RCS thrusters is not part of the reusability plan. In my opinion, they need to use much bigger Cold gas thruster now in the test phase BUT transition to Hot gas thrusters using the methane and oxigen on the vehicle . I think its the only way

Anonymous No. 16077450

>>16077446
what does a meltdown in space look like? molten radioactive plasma raining down on us from the sky?

Image not available

350x255

vqGeMsr-2407778616.gif

Anonymous No. 16077452

>>16077444
numbers confirm that randomly fucking with control algorithms fixes all spaceflight problems

Anonymous No. 16077453

>>16077446
Knowing Roscosmos' rate of satellite production, it will probably be ~5-10 years before this goes up, if it goes up.

Anonymous No. 16077454

>>16076276
>trying to crash it directly into Christmas Island
SANTA NOOOOOOO

Anonymous No. 16077457

>>16077450
A brief spike in roentgen, 3.6 at most. Not great, not terrible.

Anonymous No. 16077459

>>16077457
Speaking of roentgen, it was super cool to see the radiation flashes on the engineering cameras in Starship

Anonymous No. 16077464

>>16077457
Grok tells me that's the equivalent of a mild chest x-ray.

Anonymous No. 16077465

>>16077402
So they should have said they were just going to dump it in the ocean like every other launch vehicle and be fine?

Image not available

913x633

flow.png

Anonymous No. 16077470

People dont realize how impressive is to have your unprotected butt , full of engines , wiring , plumbing etc almost directly into the flow of plasma and survive , even if its only for 30s

Anonymous No. 16077471

Will we se footage of the booster hitting the ocean at about the speed of sound?

Anonymous No. 16077476

>>16077470
I'm impressed at seeing a reentry as it was happening from on-board, I've never seen that before, not live.

Anonymous No. 16077477

>>16077471
no, see >>16077382

Anonymous No. 16077478

>>16073259
Didn't even know this was happening. watched the replay this morning. The footage of both the booster and starship during reentry was probably the coolest thing I've seen since the perseverance landing footage. Highest order of kino.

Anonymous No. 16077480

Hot-staging fucked up the Ship's coast phase. The ship was doomed to its unrecoverable roll thanks to fires or vents.

Anonymous No. 16077483

>>16077476
we've never seen reentry from a selfie stick like that either, looking back at the vehicle is an extremely unique PoV

Anonymous No. 16077487

>>16077382
>successfully opened the payload door
I'm hoping this means the next one will have a payload

Anonymous No. 16077489

>>16077487
they didn't test relight in space, so they can't take it to orbit yet
that's my speculation

Anonymous No. 16077491

>>16076867
Dang what a comfy time. Based Nips.

Anonymous No. 16077492

>>16077446
Putin also ordered a three-day "special" operation to take over Ukraine two years ago, what's your point.

Anonymous No. 16077494

>>16077471
I hope some Australian might have recorded the starship reentry.
The expected area was near Malacca strait, so some ship has probably recorded it as well.

Anonymous No. 16077496

>>16077483
Why the fuck haven't rockets been doing that all along? We could've been swimming in amazing footage for the last several decades.

Anonymous No. 16077501

Which new objectives do we expect for IFT4?

Anonymous No. 16077503

>>16077501
dummy payload maybe

Anonymous No. 16077506

>>16077501
dummy payload so starship can be operational while theyre testing landing

Anonymous No. 16077507

Now that I think about it, it's great that we got to see the Starship rolling into its unshielded side somewhat for re-entry. The ship is a lot tougher than I first thought.

Anonymous No. 16077511

>>16077507
Re-entry plasma can't melt steel rings anon

Anonymous No. 16077517

>>16077015
>>16077020
I can't explain why, but this part of the flight reminded me of that song by Omega. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQDmyCUKHf4

Anonymous No. 16077519

>>16077501
A more robust prop transfer test
Payload of some kind
Booster landing burn.

Anonymous No. 16077520

A shame it was out of control I wonder if spacex will get any data of how well tiles performed in this test.

Anonymous No. 16077525

>>16077501
They probably have to demonstrate raptor relight before they can go orbital, so next flight is almost certainly suborbital again. That said, the obvious goals are successful soft landing of both booster and ship*. Outside of those, we'll probably see more prop transfer and door operations. I'm thinking they'll probably go for a test of their slarlink pez dispenser hardware with a few V2 mockups.
*I wouldn't be suprised to see a long interval before IFT 4 while they redesign aspects of the booster and ship

Image not available

1583x1058

GIpniXIWUAAHJPw.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077536

https://x.com/Marco_Langbroek/status/1768343531163160896

Anonymous No. 16077538

>>16077525
>I wouldn't be suprised to see a long interval before IFT 4 while they redesign aspects of the booster and ship
Isn't starship getting redesign anyways? I doubt they are changing much for upcoming flights.

Anonymous No. 16077540

The worst failure today was the fucking payload door. Thankfully all ships thus far have been constructed in shitty tents/unfinished bays. Once the version 2 ships start flying the quality should go way up.

Anonymous No. 16077541

>>16077496
Upmass cost is 25k/kg, please understand

Image not available

1920x1080

rapidsave.com_sta....webm

Anonymous No. 16077544

Reentry portion sped up

Anonymous No. 16077546

>>16077501
Probably the same, the coast phase was suboptimal, you want to demonstrate attitude control and deorbit burn before putting any kind of payload

Anonymous No. 16077548

>>16077540
they said they successfully opened and closed the payload door though

Anonymous No. 16077549

>>16077548
They did - what failed was after

Anonymous No. 16077550

>>16077492
nta but that order was based and caused an incredible amount of seething online, so I'm in favour of Putin's orders, as they have a propensity to incite seethe.

Anonymous No. 16077551

>>16077548
you can clearly see in the stream when the door shits the bed and doesn't close

Anonymous No. 16077552

>>16077540
Looks like there was some residual pressure inside the cargo bay that wasn't vented. Sus.

Anonymous No. 16077553

>>16077544
So pretty much zero control other than maybe a tiny amount from aero surfaces...

Anonymous No. 16077554

>>16077551
>>16077552
Here :
>>16075819

Anonymous No. 16077555

>>16077538
I think we might see some changes to the flaps, grids and RCS thruster system. The unmet objectives of this past test in both the booster and ship were due to failures in attitude control

Anonymous No. 16077556

Starship is an actual scam lol. Insprucker left because of this. Think about it. It got to near orbit with virtually no propellant left despite having no payload. something doesnt add up.

Image not available

635x635

yeah.jpg

yeah No. 16077559

>>16077556
yeah

Anonymous No. 16077560

>>16077536
Personally, I think ot blew up because the propellant left in the tanks got superheated

Anonymous No. 16077562

>>16077556
Ship was underfueled purposely genius. T/W ratio was 1.5 , it reached mach 1 very fast

Anonymous No. 16077563

>>(you)
They intentionally under filled it today because they packed too much last time around. Did you notice how quick it ascended compared to last time?

Anonymous No. 16077564

Missed the Spruck today, but the comms dude they stuck in the mega bay was kinda cool

Anonymous No. 16077567

>>16077556
Insprucker left?

Anonymous No. 16077573

>>16077567
>he didn't read the whistleblower documents
lol

Anonymous No. 16077574

>>16077199
Wasn't the plan to 'lose' it in the ocean? Did it make it to where it was supposed to?

Anonymous No. 16077581

>>16077574
lost the ship 3 minutes too early and the booster 1/4 of a second too early. sorry, gotta do a mishap investigation now

Anonymous No. 16077584

>>16077573
Link?

Anonymous No. 16077585

>>16077581
6 more months

Anonymous No. 16077586

>>16077581
Oh okay, they expected better control and the engines to restart? Or was that just going to be a bonus?

Anonymous No. 16077588

>>16077548
>build a big ass rocket
>no fairings
>no shuttle-like doors
>just a Pez slot
Is this vehicle a one trick pony to deliver scamlinks and massively spy on everyone?

Anonymous No. 16077590

>>16077581
There is no it mostly went right investigation. Not according to flight plan means mishap. What it should mean is a shorter investigation.

Anonymous No. 16077591

>>16077588
the second trick will be killing everyday astronaut

Anonymous No. 16077598

>>16077591
based

Anonymous No. 16077599

>>16077559
take your reddit meme and gtfo

Anonymous No. 16077621

Anyone got the playlist of Elevator music they used?

Anonymous No. 16077655

Should add retro thrusters to fix rolling. They look cool too.

Anonymous No. 16077662

the launch site looks so empty now. nothing on the OLM, nothing on the suborbital pad

Anonymous No. 16077663

>>16077136
Everybody knows that Starship's purpose is BRILLIANT PEBBLES, but few will admit it.

Anonymous No. 16077679

>>16076497
>NO FAA MISHAP INVESTIGATION
spoke too soon: they've officially called this a mishap

Anonymous No. 16077683

https://twitter.com/Lezzyl_/status/1768333324773114138

KEK

Anonymous No. 16077684

>>16077683
expect rockets, furries, and urban design. I dont agree with everything the people i follow believe.

Anonymous No. 16077688

>>16077446
>ordered to
by who? the bogdanoffs?

Anonymous No. 16077691

>>16077503
>>16077506
One of my rules would be never a dummy payload. If the stated goal is get up and down, put your assets or your ass where your mouth is

Image not available

288x270

1696378954340250.png

Anonymous No. 16077694

burns up its so joever

Anonymous No. 16077695

>>16077010
Totally didn't realise that was the leftover atmosphere in the payload bay going out of the open pez dispenser when I was watching it live.
I wonder if that's what caused the spin we see during the coasting phase and then the rcs couldn't fix it for whatever reason?

Anonymous No. 16077697

so fucking weird to see the wing start to get red with the plasma forming

like it's fucking cgi

Anonymous No. 16077701

>>16077253
Look everyone!!! Niggers can be just as smart as white people!!!!! AMAZING WHAT MONKEYS CAN DO
t. average lib

Anonymous No. 16077702

>>16077697
That's what they said about falcon 9 landings. Cybertruck. Starlink. Starship. All of it.

It IS sci-fi because he's keeps making it real

Image not available

705x536

1701263041462905.png

Anonymous No. 16077704

>>16077697
when I saw this reddish hue live earlier I could not believe what i was seeing, then a few seconds later it becomes apparent

Image not available

720x812

like father like ....webm

Anonymous No. 16077706

>>16077683

Anonymous No. 16077707

>>16077683
>>16077684
genuine question: whats wrong with twitter people? somehow every single on of them is some sort of freak. I've never even seen one of these fags in real life, why are they all like this?

Anonymous No. 16077708

>>16077707
whats so freakish about that tweet

Anonymous No. 16077713

>>16077243
I reckon IFT-1 only happened because they had a bunch of old stuff lying around and decided to launch it rather than scrap it.

Anonymous No. 16077721

>>16077359
>Not for Flight

Anonymous No. 16077726

>>16077243
was it planning on doing a flip, or was it losing control?

Anonymous No. 16077731

>>16077707
you've never seen someone with a nose piercing or colored hair irl?

Anonymous No. 16077736

>>16077726
It was planning to do a flip, but it lost control first.

Image not available

254x48

1706076161995427.png

Anonymous No. 16077737

wiki war is happening

Anonymous No. 16077739

>>16077737
lol classic. Bet the talk page will be a fun read in a couple of days

Anonymous No. 16077740

why don't they do hops first and gradually fly further

Isn't reuse the point

Anonymous No. 16077743

>>16077740
what the fuck do you think the mission profile of today’s test was RETARD

Anonymous No. 16077744

>>16077737
once it starts flying real missions are these going to get stuck in some footnote about the test campaign so they stop polluting the metrics? I sure hope so, you don't see the full launch history of starhopper there

Image not available

628x431

Capture.png

Anonymous No. 16077746

>>16077708
its the account thats freakish

Anonymous No. 16077749

>>16077744
It should be/will eventually be tallied the same way they do F9 reuse attempts including the 2015 hop campaign. Until then it’s going to be autistic infighting for a couple of days

Anonymous No. 16077750

they just dumped their rockets in the ocean like every other old space launches so i think it's successful

Anonymous No. 16077753

>>16077035
Hopefully not months of delay.

Anonymous No. 16077755

>>16077746
Putting some stupid comical little fake location on your account should be illegal and punishable by death
>inb4 some stupid QUIT HAVING FUN meme response

Image not available

911x53

1693718542038758.png

Anonymous No. 16077756

>>16077737

Image not available

107x144

Capture.png

Anonymous No. 16077764

>>16077755

Anonymous No. 16077765

>>16077750
Unironically SS could have easily gone orbital here with a conventional (expendable) flight profile so yeah I’m gonna call it a success

Also this goes to show how hard reuse is, even when you know what you’re doing. I will be left speechless if New Glenn manages a perfect landing first time.

Image not available

373x104

file.png

Anonymous No. 16077770

>>16077737
faggots the lot of them

Image not available

1259x385

1684942096426783.png

Anonymous No. 16077771

>>16077770
there's an edit war going on oh my fucking god

Anonymous No. 16077772

>>16077770
We all saw this coming though, kek

Anonymous No. 16077776

>>16077737
Wiki is pozzed and has been for a while. Its controlled by troons and commies

Image not available

498x264

whatever-angry.gif

Anonymous No. 16077777

>>16077706
Gridfins giving me these vibes

Image not available

376x75

file.png

Anonymous No. 16077785

>>16077770
Reverted back to success lole

Anonymous No. 16077787

>>16077243
Worked with starlink for ages, no reason yeeting starship can't work as well

Anonymous No. 16077788

So did starship reenter steel-side first into the plasma at one point???
I take back everything I’ve ever said—and I kneel. I thought losing one tile alone would be enough to kill her. Turns out you fags were right about it her being a hardy breed!

Anonymous No. 16077794

>>16077788
It didn't get to the hottest part of reentry, but yes it went in the wrong way initially. You can see the plasma going down over the bottom and probably up into the engines

Image not available

944x712

where do you thin....jpg

Anonymous No. 16077795

>>16077755
>being against online anonymity

Anonymous No. 16077797

>>16077737
lol the anti-Musk cult is seething so hard they're trying to rewrite history

Anonymous No. 16077811

>>16077771
Why are spacex fanboys so cringe?

Anonymous No. 16077831

>>16077408
>>16077408
Super Heavy needs a lot more pitch control than the other direction, so it clusters them closer together to generate more lift in that axis. I think Elon said the final design might only have 3 fins.

Anonymous No. 16077836

>>16077777
Wasted quints

Anonymous No. 16077837

>>16077788
Ass-backwards even.
It seems it's not aerodynamically stable at all and relies completely on active control, so if one fin motor dies for example then it's fucked during reentry. I wonder if the new version with offset nose flaps will be better in this regard.

Anonymous No. 16077838

>>16077837
prolly had too much fuel and weight in the ass end

Anonymous No. 16077843

>>16077756
>this experimental vehicle's entirely untested flight plan was a failure comparable to the columbia disaster
lol
lmao

Anonymous No. 16077845

>>16077838
>prolly
kill yourself

Anonymous No. 16077848

>>16077413
The law assumes that what a company plans a rocket will do is the same as what the expect it to do. Bureaucracy lacks a high tolerance for nuance.

Anonymous No. 16077859

>>16077737
Success and failure is nonbinary in R&D
It's all cold hard data
The only real failure is if you fail in exactly the same way twice and so failed to learn from the first mistake

Image not available

1280x720

EVyFz8-U8AEO5N2.jpg

Anonymous No. 16077863

Looks like blunderfoot hasn't posted for 2 weeks. CSS is giga-coping though.

Anonymous No. 16077898

>>16077863
>blunderfoot
>https://www.youtube.com/post/UgkxDK5_lg6nsI0S4OqPBYfnPtYhOf-XT0F_
The comments are mentally ill and not really worth engaging with (also he censors opposing views when they aren't poorly articulated).

Anonymous No. 16077928

>>16077898
Even on a Starship day, SpaceX doesn't rest
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fRfJerFqqo
Starlink 6-44 launches in T-48:00

Anonymous No. 16077955

>>16077770
>>16077785
What even is a "Partial failure" anyway? Why not call it a "Partial success" like they usually do and find the middle ground?

Anonymous No. 16077958

>>16077785
>>16077770
if they're going to add a new category why not just add a fucking "test flight" category

Image not available

287x328

Capture.png

Anonymous No. 16077962

uhh /sfg bros, how do we explain to wikipedia editors that starship wasn't on an orbital trajectory?

Anonymous No. 16077963

>>16077359
That someone is expecting to land boosters the first time they try.

Anonymous No. 16077997

>>16077553
Yeah the thrusters seem to have failed in one way or another.

Anonymous No. 16078007

Space is easy
Landing is hard

Anonymous No. 16078023

>>16078007
landing is the easiest part...

Anonymous No. 16078024

Would be ironic if this F9 booster decided to die as well kek

🗑️ Anonymous No. 16078033

its up
>>16078030
>>16078030
>>16078030
>>16078030
>>16078030

Anonymous No. 16078034

>>16078007
I genuinely wonder how they are going to make the fuel and oxidizer settle next time so the booster landing engines actually work. I thought that was the whole point of header tanks but apparently they do jack shit

Anonymous No. 16078036

>>16078034
Bruh the booster is decelerating at mutliple gees.
It's as settled as it gets.

Anonymous No. 16078038

>>16078036
Only two engines lit

Anonymous No. 16078044

>>16078038
Atmospheric deceleration. Very much so. Look at the velocity indicator.
The fuel is settled and the engines probably failed to relight for another reason.

Image not available

177x38

file.png

Anonymous No. 16078099

>>16078033
real

Anonymous No. 16078109

>>16076867
>all the good weather ghosts
cute

Image not available

850x561

Size-Comparison-o....jpg

Anonymous No. 16078112

>largest flying object ever built
Yeah um, no.

Anonymous No. 16078113

>>16078099
>>16078033
its gone

Anonymous No. 16078116

wtf happened to the other tread ?

Anonymous No. 16078117

Somebody do a non-gay thread.

Anonymous No. 16078118

>>16078112
I think they mean heaviest.
Janny seething or retard OP?

Anonymous No. 16078120

>>16078116
mods don't like Trump apparently

Anonymous No. 16078121

drunk jannie, there wasn't even a thread war

Anonymous No. 16078122

Make the same thread, exactly as it was. Fuck the mods.

Anonymous No. 16078123

>>16078044
Okay then why?

Anonymous No. 16078125

>>16078116
launch thread and this one is still up so i guess they don't want any more than that

Image not available

640x360

4c91f5c199c87823a....jpg

Anonymous No. 16078126

>>16078122
I recommend a catastrophic reentry failure theme

Anonymous No. 16078127

Fucking tranny jannies kill yourselves

Anonymous No. 16078128

Tipping point clause completed

Anonymous No. 16078133

>>16078129
>>16078129
>>16078129
>>16078129
New thread

Anonymous No. 16078135

>>16077737
Why do people obsess so much over whether Starship test flights can be categorized as "success" or "failure"? What does that even mean in this context? They are development test flights. Imo "success" and "failure" are only meaningful terms for certification test flights or operational flights.

Anonymous No. 16078139

I knew leaking the LOX because of no payload was going to fuck Starship up again. I called it

Just put weights in it, jesus

Anonymous No. 16078142

>>16078135
>Why do people
These are wikipedos, anon, not people.

Anonymous No. 16078149

>>16078135
It's for commie rent free Elon seethers to point at and say LOOK HE FAILED SEE IT SAYS IT ON WIKIPEDIA

Anonymous No. 16078151

>>16078139
Yeah it might have. Valve froze open. Lose all ullage gas.
RCS doesn't work any more.

Anonymous No. 16078166

>>16078139
yeah but they need a way to get rid of that weight for reentry

Anonymous No. 16078255

>>16076838
I doubt it made it to the ocean in one piece

Image not available

2308x3264

Uncle Sam (Chines....jpg

Anonymous No. 16078267

>>16073259
Well done, USA. SpaceX is making history and reinvigorating interest in space. At this point, they should just cancel SLS.

Anonymous No. 16078269

>>16077005
esa is just a jobs program

Anonymous No. 16078303

>>16078269
more like esl kek

Image not available

1024x768

no_gay_retards.jpg

Anonymous No. 16078347

>>16077136

Anonymous No. 16078354

>>16077136
He has a followup tweet.
It's entirely delusional kek.

Image not available

1488x420

5cientist.png

Anonymous No. 16078474

>>16077777