🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:36:34 UTC No. 16078129
IFT-3 edition continued
Previous: >>16073259
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:37:21 UTC No. 16078134
>>16078129
they scrubbed the Starlink launch
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:37:48 UTC No. 16078137
1200 posts and page 10 on the other thread, stop being faggots you unpaid floor sweepers
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:38:36 UTC No. 16078141
>>16078129
I want a direct frame extract from the raw file REEEEEEEEEEE
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:38:52 UTC No. 16078143
>>16077737
Why do so many people tend to obsess so much over whether to categorize Starship test flights 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 at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:39:02 UTC No. 16078144
>>16078102
My uneducated guess :
-1week to inspect the pad (in the mean time , start bringing all the equipment necessary for S29 like we saw a couple of hours ago with the platform)
-2-3 weeks for S29 - B11 upgrades depending of IFT-3 data
- 3-4 weeks of Testing campaign
-1 week after for License and all .
Total : 8-9 weeks = 2 months - 2,5 months -> End of May
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:39:06 UTC No. 16078145
>ACKCHUALLY UM SWEETIE THE THERMAL FABRIC IS WHITE THAT CAN'T BE IT
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:39:07 UTC No. 16078146
>>16078129
>TSLA down more than 4% today
the market has spoken, chuds. Elon scam companies are going down.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:39:19 UTC No. 16078148
>>16078141
wait until the ift-3 recap video
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:40:22 UTC No. 16078154
https://twitter.com/StarFleetTours/
From the boaters pov
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:41:19 UTC No. 16078157
>>16078145
yeah lol that is indeed how it works since white things aren't yellow but white
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:41:49 UTC No. 16078158
>>16078154
meh
I'm already bored of seeing alternate launch perspectives
I wanna see the booster splashdown and the reentry disintegration
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:42:34 UTC No. 16078160
>>16078143
Literal communists attempting to rewrite history for their propaganda purposes.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:44:00 UTC No. 16078165
>>16078162
I hope they put actual RCS thrusters on the next ship.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:44:17 UTC No. 16078168
Where was Elon? I just remembered that I didn't see him on the livestream.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:44:52 UTC No. 16078170
>>16078157
Even when they start burning?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:44:55 UTC No. 16078171
>>16077962
I think the "partial failure" indicated there was a Chinese Long March 2 launch yesterday.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:45:05 UTC No. 16078172
>>16078168
New Jersey i think
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:46:13 UTC No. 16078174
>>16078171
Looks like you're right. The second stage had a problem that put it in the wrong orbit.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:46:46 UTC No. 16078177
>>16078165
I think Starship should have at least one tail fin. For control reasons of course…not spaceplane reasons
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:46:53 UTC No. 16078179
>>16078170
Yes. But also it wasn't burning at 130km
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:47:04 UTC No. 16078180
>>16078168
Command and control this time was from Hawthorne. Last time it was Starbase. Elon's at Starbase.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:47:09 UTC No. 16078181
>>16078129
>when NASA switches the HLS funding from SpaceX to Blue Origin
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:48:11 UTC No. 16078183
>>16078129
Well that 60 minutes documentary predicting the doom of Starship looks kinda stupid now.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:48:51 UTC No. 16078185
>>16078183
Its a propaganda hit piece against SpaceX to fluff up Blue Origin.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:48:51 UTC No. 16078186
>>16078183
it looked stupid the day it came out
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:49:39 UTC No. 16078189
>>16078177
Being a spaceplane fan is just so incredibly gay.
>>16078180
They showed it on stream and it was the same room as last time which is a hut at Starbase. You're literally wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:50:38 UTC No. 16078191
WE WANT TO SEE THE REENTRY DISINTEGRATION
INDIANS, WHAT R U DOING?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:50:51 UTC No. 16078192
>>16078183
>baiting faggot
lol. the best rocket in the world sure does make you seethe
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:51:42 UTC No. 16078197
>>16078188
>interstellar
>clearly saturn
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:51:55 UTC No. 16078198
>>16078180
he wasn't in the control room at starbase
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:52:05 UTC No. 16078199
>>16078189
>being a spaceplane fan is just so incredibly gay
If it lands vertically it isn't a spaceplane no matter how many tail fins it has
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:52:43 UTC No. 16078203
>>16078198
is that the fat announcer guy on the right?
why wasn't he in the live stream?
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:53:48 UTC No. 16078206
>>16078205
I kneel
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:53:57 UTC No. 16078207
>>16078203
No that's not Spruck.
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:54:48 UTC No. 16078211
>>16078205
>raptors are unreliable btw
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:54:58 UTC No. 16078213
>>16078205
lewd underskirt shot uwu
>>16078207
where was he? someone on the other thread said he left the company or something
Anonymous at Thu, 14 Mar 2024 23:58:41 UTC No. 16078218
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbW
launch soon
I'm glad john could join!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:00:59 UTC No. 16078220
>>16078218
IMPRESSIVE SARS
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:02:57 UTC No. 16078224
>>16078218
>>16078220
whats the point?
I dont see a crypto link in the desc
views for the sake of views?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:03:08 UTC No. 16078225
>>16078158
no one cares, stop watching them you dumb retard
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:03:37 UTC No. 16078227
>>16078218
what the fuck it blew up again???
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:04:25 UTC No. 16078228
>>16078225
i will now continue to watch them
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:04:43 UTC No. 16078230
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:04:46 UTC No. 16078231
>>16078218
impressive dogecoin +++ elon sir pls tweet
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:06:00 UTC No. 16078232
>>16078224
Views still get you money if you have applied for it
>source: former YouTuber
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:06:12 UTC No. 16078233
>>16078228
ok, good. sorry for being rude.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:06:32 UTC No. 16078235
>>16078230
>>16078228
You should link the good ones
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:07:03 UTC No. 16078236
>>16078162
>around the world around the world
alternatively
>you spin me right round baby right round
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:07:11 UTC No. 16078237
>>16078233
i was lying
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:08:29 UTC No. 16078239
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:10:20 UTC No. 16078240
>>16078236
>Around the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwD
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TG
>>16078239
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:10:44 UTC No. 16078242
>>16078238
>problem with his erector
...
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:12:08 UTC No. 16078246
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:13:55 UTC No. 16078248
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:14:20 UTC No. 16078249
Does Space X publish the music used in their promotional videos?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97G
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:15:09 UTC No. 16078250
>>16078218
fake channel lol, jeet clickbait
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:16:29 UTC No. 16078251
>>16078248
It’s so industrial and utilitarian. Feels like a scene from an empty unreal tournament map or something.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:17:42 UTC No. 16078253
>>16078248
>>16078249
They're published but you have to dig a bit to find who they bought the rights from. https://youtu.be/fgOAgTtrHMQ
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:19:02 UTC No. 16078257
Good thread OP, I approve
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:19:32 UTC No. 16078258
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:20:28 UTC No. 16078260
>>16078253
based thx anon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:21:21 UTC No. 16078262
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:22:29 UTC No. 16078265
>>16078251
Yeah it's a rocket retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:22:30 UTC No. 16078266
>>16078258
Hullo had a good theory on this. You could see the gasses rushing out.
Maybe it was too much pressure and the door mechanism broke itself trying to pry it open anyway.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:23:37 UTC No. 16078268
>>16078262
And that's the last of the highlight clips form last thread
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:26:34 UTC No. 16078271
>>16078253
did they ever publish the awesome music from the 2016 bfr video?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:27:31 UTC No. 16078273
>>16078129
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8T
i looked for a video with a lot of femoids crying in the comments and somehow there are so many guys who apparently cried too, no one of /sci/ would cry about that dog, right??? anyways, its weird that so many cry because of a dog, yet most of them probably eat meat from factory farming.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:29:34 UTC No. 16078278
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:31:58 UTC No. 16078281
>>16078273
you can tell its sad because they put sad twice in the title :(
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:34:37 UTC No. 16078283
>>16078148
just Flight 3 now
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:35:42 UTC No. 16078285
>>16078283
booba looks weird
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:36:17 UTC No. 16078286
>>16078282
Please God I hope that’s a speed limit sign, it would be so funny
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:38:47 UTC No. 16078289
>>16078129
I don't see what all the hubbub is about in regards to the reentry part of the flight test. Don't Spacex post videos of that all the time with F9 fairing videos? Didn't NASA posted a video of Orion capsule reentry?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:39:34 UTC No. 16078293
So what's the summary of what happened?
So from what I've gathered is:
>Liftoff and separation worked very well.
>Starship made it to the correct trajectory.
>Booster was tumbling and couldn't reignite its engines correctly, splashed down faster than it should have.
>Starship did not attempt to reignite engines.
>Fuel transfer happened.
>Cargo door did not close correctly?
>Debris separated from the Starship before reentry, possibly ice or thermal tiles?
>Communication relayed through Starlink satellites worked.
>Starship also tumbling during reentry, spun out of control and blew up.
>Possible RCS malfunction?
Am I missing anything?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:40:01 UTC No. 16078295
>>16078282
starbase needs watercooled steel signs
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:41:47 UTC No. 16078297
>>16078289
i think what makes this one a big deal is that we got an external view and it was live streamed
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:44:50 UTC No. 16078302
>>16078297
It also was more stable than the TDRIS link while video was still available.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:48:26 UTC No. 16078306
>>16078293
AI trash deserves no responses.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:48:29 UTC No. 16078307
>>16078293
>Cargo door did not close correctly?
Its Pez dispenser door, and it opend correctly and closed correctly.
>debris
>tumbling
>rcs
Unknown
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:50:11 UTC No. 16078309
>>16078293
>Booster was tumbling and couldn't reignite its engines correctly, splashed down faster than it should have.
They're still tuning the control parameters for the final decent. There's at least one early Falcon 9 landing attempt that had similar almost catastrophic oscillation issues. And it didn't actually splash down. Something got far enough out of control that the AFTS decide to blow the booster about 500m from the water.
>Fuel transfer happened.
Something happened, but probably not enough to really consider it a real success. At the very least, SpaceX doesn't seem to be highlighting it as something in the win column. Whether it didn't perform because of something inherent in the process or because S28 spent its whole time in orbit tumbling out of control is unclear.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:50:54 UTC No. 16078311
>>16078306
And yet you still responded.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:53:06 UTC No. 16078314
>>16078289
I would absolutely eat the liberal ass of the NASA Space Transportation System Shuttle Orbiter
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 00:56:16 UTC No. 16078317
>>16078307
>Its Pez dispenser door, and it opend correctly and closed correctly.
Oh ok. I thought I saw a video of the door appearing stuck.
>Unknown
Well figure it out NERDS.
>>16078309
>oscillation issues
Fuel tank related?
>And it didn't actually splash down. Something got far enough out of control that the AFTS decide to blow the booster about 500m from the water.
Ah ok.
>Something happened, but probably not enough to really consider it a real success.
Welp.
I hope they'll accelerate the rate of testing from now on desu.
Thanks for the infos guys.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:03:05 UTC No. 16078327
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:05:24 UTC No. 16078331
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:06:56 UTC No. 16078335
>>16078331
Is that edward norton
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:09:26 UTC No. 16078338
>>16078306
>AI trash
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/
>inkcels have devolved to the point that they're calling each other's work AI trash
Holy shit, absolutely mindbroken.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:10:50 UTC No. 16078341
>>16078317
>Fuel tank related?
More like they're still training the flight computers on what angle of the grid fins gets what response. Superheavy was overcompensating in one direction and then swinging back too far in the other direction. The descent also didn't have a reentry burn which would put it further away from what it's Falcon 9 descended control program would be used to.
The big thing that AFTS probably didn't like was whatever kept the engines relighting when they were supposed to for the landing burn. I could see Superheavy realizing that it had zero breaking capability and then deciding that coming down as confetti was the more acceptable option.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:11:05 UTC No. 16078342
I hope the hot staging ring survived intact somehow.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:14:09 UTC No. 16078343
>>16078143
Short sellers mad about losing fortunes shorting Tesla
Deranged leftists mad about: twitter, moving from California to Texas, not bending the knee to covid mandates, environment stuff, etc.
Deranged right wingers made about: government subsidies, the existence of electric vehicles
Deranged gibsmonkeys mad about: money being spent on anything other than them
Musk has tons of people who hate him for various reasons and that flows over onto anything his companies do.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:14:39 UTC No. 16078345
>>16078331
DA BELTAS
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:16:05 UTC No. 16078349
>>16078342
Balkasian scavengers are already scrapping the debris field as we speak.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:19:53 UTC No. 16078353
Help me understand something.
The government says
>Do not make hiring, firing, or recruiting decisions based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.
But
>If a position may require an export license to access certain items or data, employers can condition an offer on the ability to secure a license from DDTC or BIS, if one is required, but should ensure that conditions and requirements are no broader than these requirements.
If the licenses are limited to US citizens, why the fuck can't you just cut to the fucking chase and make the the requirement in the actual job posting?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:22:30 UTC No. 16078356
Reminder Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are payload limited by their upper stages’s structural constraint and can’t even launch 20 tons of payload to any orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:24:02 UTC No. 16078359
>>16078341
>More like they're still training the flight computers on what angle of the grid fins gets what response. Superheavy was overcompensating in one direction and then swinging back too far in the other direction.
I would have assumed that this is the kind of thing they would get right with simulations desu.
>whatever kept the engines relighting
Could this likely (but not necessarily) be damage from the oscillation? Or improper fuel flow due to oscillation?
Was fuel for the relighting coming from a full sub-tank in the booster? Or is that unneeded because the booster slowing down in the atmosphere will keep the fuel at the bottom of the tank?
AIFag !Gy8L8Ggb7w at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:24:29 UTC No. 16078361
>>16078353
pretty much all job related to space engineering requires a citizenship and some kind of higher security clearance.
when I applied for PhD visa in an area that is only even remotely related to space engineering, faggots made me do an administrative processing form and I had to wait for 2 months.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:25:47 UTC No. 16078365
>>16078359
>I would have assumed that this is the kind of thing they would get right with simulations desu.
Might be harder than expected to get this kind of thing right in simulation. Nothing as big and heavy as a Superheavy has ever gone through hypersonic, transsonic, and subsonic flight before, so the previous simulations might not simulate the vehicle dynamics correctly
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:27:01 UTC No. 16078368
>>16078353
because the DoD needs a loophole to offer high paying jobs in their chosen career to enemy states' scientists and engineers
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:31:02 UTC No. 16078376
>>16078368
That’s a pretty broad loophole that leaves a lot of potential for purposeful enemy infiltration
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:31:17 UTC No. 16078378
>>16078268
ACK!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:32:06 UTC No. 16078379
>>16078353
Like all US trade policy, it is market protection behind a thin veneer of equial opportunity global trade.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:33:07 UTC No. 16078380
>>16078376
luckily they're not actual US citizens so there are far, far more legal loopholes not in their favor
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:40:46 UTC No. 16078385
>>16078359
It could be that Superheavy took more reentry damage than they expected. IFT-3's flight profile didn't include a reentry burn.
Supersonic retropropulsion is also a field of study that's almost got more practical experimentation than it does modeling and simulation work. NASA had an impressively complex lineup of experiments to try and validate the models they were working on, but those all got canceled when SpaceX came in with the Falcon 9 and just solved it using trial and error. Superheavy and Raptor could be running into conditions that were never accurately modeled and only start to show up outside of Falcon 9's performance envelope.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:42:57 UTC No. 16078389
>>16078386
EDS patients out in full force even when all the Elon hating publications are handing SpaceX this launch as a success.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:47:36 UTC No. 16078391
>>16078385
Interesting.
Damn I wish they'd explain these sorts of things in their stream instead of emoting and showing us pies.
They had people's attention for almost an hour and they said very little.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:53:36 UTC No. 16078399
>>16078327
back in the days when "falcon heavy" was going to be three falcon 1 cores strapped together
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:58:27 UTC No. 16078404
>>16078398
Go back to the sharty you fat nigger baiter. We dont want you here.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 01:59:31 UTC No. 16078406
>>16078404
i've been here since the SN4 explosion and the early starhopper threads, i'm never leaving
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:00:04 UTC No. 16078407
>>16078399
And for all that you still only get about the same performance as a standard Falcon 9 Block 5
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:01:39 UTC No. 16078410
>>16078391
>and next is the regime of flight were starship does [TRADE SECRET]
>coming up next the booster is going to do a [ITAR VIOLATION]
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:02:56 UTC No. 16078414
>>16078391
they avoid speculation(along with trivia related to said speculation} on stream because the press have trouble distinguishing it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:08:40 UTC No. 16078421
So the /sfg/ consensus is that the excess cryogenic oxygen onboard caused ullage thruster valves to be stuck open and vent into space, resulting in an uncontrolled roll which caused the vehicle to fail to survive re-entry.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:11:06 UTC No. 16078423
>>16078248
Holy kino
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:16:45 UTC No. 16078430
>>16078385
i kinda doubt there was any significant damage taken during entry. it seemed to hold attitude pretty well until the gridfins started moving around. the thermal conditions for a booster entering ass-first are pretty well-understood by spacex at this point.
>>16078421
either that or an RCS feed line got ruptured during ascent
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:17:05 UTC No. 16078431
>>16078283
No niggers please
Space is a no nigger zone
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:20:30 UTC No. 16078436
The Pentagon has just signed papers for five starship launchpads, at three different sites, and three accompanying starfactorys.
Glowie agencies want their own piece of the pie as well.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:22:59 UTC No. 16078444
>>16078436
SOURCE?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:23:29 UTC No. 16078447
They are never going to post the payload bay camera footage during re-entry.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:26:29 UTC No. 16078454
I remember the good ol days when you could just intercept SX engineering cam footage
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:26:33 UTC No. 16078455
>>16078430
Just add a couple backup RCS feed lines bro
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:31:58 UTC No. 16078462
i'm sure somebody figured this out from IFT-2 but staging occured at about 1570 m/s, so starship itself provides a little under 6000 m/s delta v during ascent. i'd seen some speculation that it might go higher but 6 km/s is what you need to return to earth from the martian surface.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:32:36 UTC No. 16078464
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:45:10 UTC No. 16078482
>>16078353
Because you need to look up what Temporary Protected Status means to the State Department. A refugee / asylee so designated becomes equivalent to a citizen for every legal consideration related to employment. Because there is a counterfactual to "US Citizen" as a requirement, it can't be part of the requirements of a job posting. It's stupid, but that's what happens when you make broad exemptions like that.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:47:23 UTC No. 16078483
T+48:39 - starlink video stops
T+49:38 - steady telemetry stops
T+50:20 - tiny telemetry update
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:53:49 UTC No. 16078487
>>16078462
You need to account for gravity losses.
Mars has less gravity but the ship will also be pointed upright for longer there compared to on earth from staging upwards.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:57:04 UTC No. 16078490
>>16078483
Guy from west australia (near Perth) that I know was on the lookout for it and reported something at least
>Two dots. About 20 degrees alt. Started from the south west and rose north east but stayed low. Flare lasted about 10 seconds, then both slowly faded to nothing. From being first visible to disappearing was about 1-2 mins. total sky area covered might be 15 degrees. Time would have been roughly t+ 55 mins
Timing is about right, and the location is generally correct but it would have been pretty far offshore still so I'm a bit doubtful. May have been an Iridium, but the time and location do seem to match up somewhat.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:59:13 UTC No. 16078491
>>16078490
He also drew this map. Might have typed "north east" instead of "north west" on accident
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:59:38 UTC No. 16078492
>>16078212
I love the shock waves. Think about the diameter of those pressure fronts. It's like a 2000lb bomb going off a few times a second
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:04:46 UTC No. 16078495
So, it happened AGAIN. We can blame FAA , we can blame NASA, we can praise SpaceX's effort but the truth is it's simply not enough. We need more changes, determination you name it, it all stinks.
Don't get me wrong, I still have full faith in Elon and the lads, but MASSIVE reinforcements are desperately needed in the next launch. Otherwise I'm not very optimistic about starship, or our chances in making it to the moon or mars for that matter. Not launching like this. What do you think, /sfg/
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:05:43 UTC No. 16078496
>>16078490
A satellite wouldn't have been multiple dots and I don't think flares would last nearly that long. It could have been a meteorite but ten seconds is pretty slow for something coming in off of a solar orbit. That's about the speed you'd expect for something coming in at LEO velocity.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:06:06 UTC No. 16078497
>>16078431
she cute af dude
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:07:04 UTC No. 16078500
>>16078496
Yeah it definitely doesn't sound like a sat, but I feel like it would have been too far offshore to see from Perth. Idk what else it could have been especially if it was 2 dots. I hope someone has a video of it or something.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:10:03 UTC No. 16078502
>>16078306
That's not AI if you look closely. AI is almost at that level but not quite. Everything makes a little too much sense in the picture.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:12:18 UTC No. 16078504
>>16078497
>happy pi day
>3/15/24
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:18:28 UTC No. 16078511
>>16078504
time travellor?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:22:33 UTC No. 16078519
>>16078353
Anti-discrimination laws are mostly retarded. Outside of extreme situations (i.e. mid 20th century US with race and India with caste system) and a few select businesses that tend towards monopolies or other situations where people have few or unclear options (i.e. hotels, utilities, banks) they're completely pointless. And it ultimately harms race/gender/etc. relations by creating a mutual paranoia where employees think that they'd be screwed over by the company if not for those laws and the company classifies all "protected" individuals as litigation risks simply on account of their immutable characteristics.
but society has decided that racism bad therefore it should be illegal so we just have to deal with it and pretend that it's normal
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:29:42 UTC No. 16078530
>>16078495
Zoom zoom
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:32:48 UTC No. 16078533
>>16078530
I'm afraid the zoomzoom is you
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:33:30 UTC No. 16078534
>>16078519
you have never lived in the real world
segregation wasn't even that long ago
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:34:45 UTC No. 16078536
>>16078533
Yeah, no. Just leave.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:36:27 UTC No. 16078541
420, Pi Day... We should make this a tradition of launching on meme days
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:37:05 UTC No. 16078542
so now that starship has FAILED again will you finally accept that giving it the HLS contract was a mistake?
only blue origin can take us back to the moon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:37:46 UTC No. 16078545
>>16078511
Should have her limbs flying off and naked
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:38:00 UTC No. 16078546
>>16078500
I'd depend on how far the pieces of S28 were able to fly after telemetry was lost. When SpaceX was saying that Starship was heading into the Indian Ocean my mind just wrote that off as it coming down "Somewhere near Diego Garcia and nowhere else," but the east end of the reentry zone is right on top of western Australia. I'd say it's pretty likely they saw it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:38:22 UTC No. 16078547
>>16078541
we should make a tradition of launching as soon as possible
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:41:22 UTC No. 16078548
>>16078545
im erect
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:47:14 UTC No. 16078553
>>16078511
>alternate reality where starship lands in hawaii
would she have made it bros?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:51:49 UTC No. 16078558
>>16078495
you sound like a retard
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:54:20 UTC No. 16078561
>>16078236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uB
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:55:34 UTC No. 16078562
>>16078553
Made it? Yes. Made it into the surf in one piece? No.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:55:51 UTC No. 16078563
>>16078558
no way, the retarded bait post is retarded?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:02:19 UTC No. 16078571
>>16078546
assuming that map is right then there's no way it got even close to australia. it took ~200 seconds to travel 15 degrees of longitude east at near-orbital speed (it had only lost 4% of its maximum velocity at loss of signal) but it was starting to hit the altitude where deceleration would have gone >1g.
if we assume 1.5g deceleration then it reaches a speed of 0 after 1730km or so, which translates to about 16 degrees of longitude at the equator. those are rough numbers, but they're conservative ones. there's no way it could have gone as far east as dhaka even.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:11:42 UTC No. 16078574
I can't separate the propaganda and truth on the internet anymore, the liars have so many hornets up their asses. Somebody give it to me straight, was it a success or did it blow up?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:12:11 UTC No. 16078575
>>16078574
yes to both
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:15:34 UTC No. 16078578
>>16078574
>success
Yes, massive. They've learned all their previous mistakes, repeatedly outperformed and have consistencies in their past perfect executions (so its not a fluke that they left pad/all engines lit/stage separation happened/hot staging happened/reached orbit/coasted/in orbit fuel transferred happened/pez doors test happened/etc.
Thats operational capability 101 for all rockets barring Falcon 9 (which comes down for reuse).
So with that, they should be able launch missions on the next launch. In that respects, Starship is a massive success.
>blow up
It likely broke up while re-entering rather than blowing up.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:19:11 UTC No. 16078585
>>16078273
I acknowledge that it's unfortunate, and I wish that the people that talk about Belka and Strelka here (I'm Russian) didn't sweep Laika under the rug, but at the end of the day, this happened while my grandma was a toddler (Gagarin's flight was on her 6th birthday), so I don't really care.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:28:11 UTC No. 16078588
>>16078273
>>16078585
a lot of the overreaction to sputnik 2 was cynical american spin doctoring as cope for how badly we'd been beaten. it was a valuable scientific experiment that killed a grand total of 1 dog, at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace. if we'd had a launcher capable of putting a dog into orbit in 1957 we would've absolutely done the same.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:31:23 UTC No. 16078591
>>16078574
It's kind of a silly question desu. It's a test of something that is still in development with many uncertainties as to how it would behave. It got farther than last time and problems were identified. Engineers know what they need to work. If it leads to progress, it's a useful test. If they were like "wtf it wasn't supposed to blow up like this, it makes no sense and the data is garbage" then it wouldn't have been a very useful test.
If by "successful test" you mean "has everything worked", then no, it hasn't. But it's why there are tests.
If you mean "was it disappointing", then it's pretty subjective. I'm sure they would have hoped both the booster and starship had survived longer, but if they really thought it was likely, who knows. And what does it even matter.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:35:11 UTC No. 16078596
>>16078588
>at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace
wtf I hate science now
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:35:24 UTC No. 16078597
>>16078591
holy fucking based
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:41:36 UTC No. 16078603
>>16078591
the only real failures with iterative design are when the same problem causes a loss of mission twice
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:46:05 UTC No. 16078608
>>16078574
Spacex has now successfully tested an expendable rocket that can put double the mass in LEO compared to its nearest competitor for less than 10% the price.
Incidentally, they're having some issues figuring out how to reuse that miracle rocket.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:47:32 UTC No. 16078610
>>16078495
I'm tired, John
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:48:40 UTC No. 16078611
>>16078588
>at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace
Also ones which killed surprisingly few dogs for how fucked up they were, like the old classic "How Long Do You Have to Expose Something to Hard Vacuum Before it Dies?"
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:53:10 UTC No. 16078616
>>16078608
Can't put a payload in orbit very well if you don't have attitude control (and for a second stage this large, not deorbiting isn't acceptable either so in-space relight needs to work)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:57:25 UTC No. 16078622
>>16078596
dont post that wtf
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:59:44 UTC No. 16078627
https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachm
>FCC Lets SpaceX Starlink Use E-Band for Four Times the Bandwidth
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:13:45 UTC No. 16078644
>>16078608
Anyone got that meme news article from the 2050's of the jurno bitching that the boring company is only half finished with the tunnels circumnavigating mars?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:40:50 UTC No. 16078687
IMO the key to Starship’s success is making the Raptor tech WORK RELIABLY — not hyper hand-pick the perfect set of peak engine samples, but be able to reliably produce working engines all the time. So if they got past the boost stage this time just because they went through a bunch of engines before finding the perfect set than it’s not really a success. Everything else is solvable if they can just get the engines right. If Raptor can only work in super-low-yield boutique platinum samples than the tech simply isn’t worth it.
Although losing thermal tiles seems embarrassing. This should be a solved problem, why is it losing tiles?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:40:51 UTC No. 16078688
>>16078191
They where all hard at work in scamming callcenters.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:47:55 UTC No. 16078697
>>16078349
More like chinese subs are looking for raptor engines.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:53:34 UTC No. 16078704
>>16078703
stupid frogposter
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:53:44 UTC No. 16078705
>>16078687
>making the Raptor tech WORK RELIABLY
They work on the ground but they fail in real use.
This tells me that they're probably not roughing them up enough during ground tests.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 05:55:11 UTC No. 16078707
>>16078704
That's just, like, your opinion, man.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:01:07 UTC No. 16078711
>>16078703
starlink in ~15 hours
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:04:31 UTC No. 16078715
>>16078711
But what about Starship?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:05:00 UTC No. 16078718
>>16078715
it won't launch in ~15 hours
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:07:17 UTC No. 16078720
>>16078421
>ullage thruster valves to be stuck open
I'd say the vent or some engine valves rather than thrusters or there would be a lot more spin otherwise. After a while they lost main tank pressure and rcs with it, and then the flap control software couldn't account for no rcs and stabilize the tumbling by itself alone when reentry began and it gained some authority.
They still seemed to have propellant in header tanks and did the transfer test by releasing some of it into the main tank, which then quickly vented into space as well, hence it was a questionable success.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:07:38 UTC No. 16078721
>>16078622
this is you.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:24:11 UTC No. 16078726
>>16078715
2 months
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:30:13 UTC No. 16078730
They should just launch a falcon upper stage to push the inert starship upperstage safely into the pacific so they can get the beancounters at faa to approve expendable starship. No need to thank me elan
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:32:20 UTC No. 16078734
>>16078730
what is a falcon upper stage?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:42:44 UTC No. 16078739
>>16078734
A miserable pile of secrets
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:43:58 UTC No. 16078741
>>16078739
trade secrets
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:45:38 UTC No. 16078743
>>16078737
nice try
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 06:57:13 UTC No. 16078757
>>16078223
It's absolutely nuts how quickly it clears the tower.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:01:51 UTC No. 16078761
>>16078268
00:47:52 to 00:48:03, and then 00:48:12 to 00:48:18 is beyond beautiful. That plasma wake is stunning to watch.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:02:27 UTC No. 16078762
>>16078162
4 RPM. Spincels BTFO.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:04:57 UTC No. 16078764
>>16078223
I'd have to go back and check but I think the staggered ignition sequence was new
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:07:01 UTC No. 16078766
Honestly, IFT-3's success or failure is irrelevant. This flight basically proved that Starlink signal works in a plasma wake from 100km down to around 65km stable in a hypersonic regime. That's bonkers and probably opens up the doors for a lot of hypersonic capable hardware.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:16:17 UTC No. 16078772
>>16078608
>can put double the mass in LEO
Two more weeks.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:00:10 UTC No. 16078790
>>16078725
cool
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:01:14 UTC No. 16078791
>>16078766
That depends on how much plasma we’re talking about. Millimeter wavelength (3+ GHz) will get through and Starlink is at 137 MHz so unless it’s doing something very unique I doubt it; it just wasn’t generating that much plasma / away from the antenna.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:03:07 UTC No. 16078792
the issue was canceling that roll right? seems easy enough
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:04:54 UTC No. 16078793
>>16078792
There are three axis for body rates: pitch, yaw, and roll. Roll presented obvious long term problems, but the yaw rate was basically just as bad and the pitch wasn't looking much better.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:12:36 UTC No. 16078798
>>16078797
was just about to post that yep. wow.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:21:33 UTC No. 16078803
>>16078792
The roll happend because the RCS thrusters didnt work.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:24:25 UTC No. 16078804
>>16078797
V3 is insanely tall if you have ever seen renders of it. 150m tall iirc. I wonder at what height it will be more practical to just build large diameter rings and move on to the next design. I'm predicting gigaheavy will be 18m
>>16078803
You think a valve issue or hot-staging fucked it?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:39:25 UTC No. 16078813
>>16078804
Some anons are claiming the gas we see venting on several parts of the stream could be the leaked thrusters gas, so the thrusters themselfs where fine but the gas leaked out somewhere else.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:53:09 UTC No. 16078819
Any footage of the booster going Pepsi yet?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 08:55:29 UTC No. 16078820
A lot of people are talking about how long the ship survived re-entry. Now this might be retarded but in KSP the visuals for re-entry start a whole before the actual temperature warnings show up. Is this the same IRL because if so then the ship surviving as long as it did is not so impressive
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:01:27 UTC No. 16078821
>>16078820
In real life, reentry gets intense starting at around 70km. If it was going to fail, it was going to fail somewhere in the range of 60km, give or take 10km.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:07:55 UTC No. 16078826
>>16078821
The chart here is for a sample return capsule at interplanetary velocities. https://www.techscience.com/fdmp/v9
Pic unrelated
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:15:28 UTC No. 16078833
>>16078820
>>16078821
from my many misadventures in RSS/RO, 65-70km is exactly where you'd expect to have thermal failures on an out-of-control reentry vehicle too, with skin temps shooting well above 2000K. if it had failed earlier then there would have been a serious design problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:15:49 UTC No. 16078835
I feel like this FAA investigation will take awhile due to how complex the mission was. We might only end up with 2 or 3 more launches this year.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:33:42 UTC No. 16078849
>>16078847
today's launch was successful. it launched.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:34:09 UTC No. 16078850
>>16078847
It did have a successful launch. Just not a successful reentry.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:34:52 UTC No. 16078852
>>16078849
>>16078850
you know what i meant
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:37:20 UTC No. 16078857
>>16078851
Balloons to limit the ulllage volume increase the number of systems that can fail and add a membrane that's generally superfluous to the job.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:39:03 UTC No. 16078858
>>16078851
using a bladder's been thrown around as an idea going back to the '60s but you can settle propellant with a miniscule amount of acceleration, less than 1/100g, and that's way simpler in practice.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:43:11 UTC No. 16078860
>>16078858
fair enough in space. but maybe it should be reevaluated given the reentry shenanigans
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:48:57 UTC No. 16078865
>>16078860
it's going to be a while before we get confirmation of what caused the reentry shenanigans in the first place
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:49:23 UTC No. 16078866
>>16078865
What problem is the balloon supposed to solve?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:51:38 UTC No. 16078868
>>16078866
ullage, so engine fuel feeding and more predictable center of mass
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:53:17 UTC No. 16078869
>>16078868
What ullage problem?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:54:10 UTC No. 16078870
>>16078146
EV profit margins are certainly going down
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:05:57 UTC No. 16078876
>>16078246
Does the ship cut off the RVACs early to get a more accurate final orbit insertion? I wonder if it's because the sea level raptors might have better deep throttle capability, or just because they want to have gimbal control right up till the end
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:07:19 UTC No. 16078877
>>16078876
My guess would be G-limiting while needing to keep good control of the vehicle at SECO, which requires engine steering through shutdown.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:14:52 UTC No. 16078882
>>16078804
Length / diameter:
Starship V3 : 145 / 9 = 16.1
Falcon 9 : 70 / 3.75 = 18.7
A lot of room to grow for Starship
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:20:01 UTC No. 16078886
>>16078870
Cant help it. With feds raising interest rates, its cutting all the demand.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:21:34 UTC No. 16078887
>>16078847
at this rate they can happily launch payloads in expendable mode, with or without attempted recovery
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:24:17 UTC No. 16078890
>>16078519
i fucking hate single mothers and retirees, whats the word for this feel
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:25:11 UTC No. 16078892
>>16078882
Still limited by volume
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:25:19 UTC No. 16078893
>>16078386
all the were succesful launches, because it launched
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:26:05 UTC No. 16078895
>>16078386
>they source arab shit
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:39:18 UTC No. 16078901
>>16078893
Absolute truth
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:44:39 UTC No. 16078908
>>16078157
>white things aren't yellow but white
Except the Sun.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:46:16 UTC No. 16078910
So we can all agree that IFT-4 will basically be a near total success?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:48:25 UTC No. 16078913
>>16078757
Man, you weren't kidding. That thing really books it off the pad. It didn't feel anywhere near as fast while watching it live.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:54:11 UTC No. 16078918
>>16078162
>This is no time for caution
>hans zimmer music intensifies
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:54:12 UTC No. 16078919
>>16078386
Oh no, how come they list the N1 flights as failures even though they learned so much with each of them and made good progress. You say they have EDS. Maybe you have fragile bitch syndrome.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:56:42 UTC No. 16078920
>>16078919
because americans hate russians
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:56:51 UTC No. 16078921
>>16078519
False. They are always wrong and should never be implemented.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:57:45 UTC No. 16078923
>>16078919
N1 was an objective failure and it never made it to staging.. It was also a very clunky rocket due to design flaws resulting from making compromises on the internal structure.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:59:27 UTC No. 16078926
>>16078851
>cryogenic balloons
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:01:18 UTC No. 16078928
>>16078365
>>16078359
The data from this flight might be useful for creating a simulation. The more flights they do, the more data they get, the better they can start simulating more complex flights.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:07:34 UTC No. 16078933
>>16078923
im trans btw. if that matters.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:09:05 UTC No. 16078936
>>16078926
anyone got the Atlas Agena webm?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:09:50 UTC No. 16078937
Did this already launch or will it launch soon? I want to watch with that one vtuber again
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:10:27 UTC No. 16078938
>>16078386
Thank god wikipedia in my language doesn't have so childish editors.
Failures are listed as failures no matter their marketing.
No debate is required to reach consensus on obvious matters.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:14:13 UTC No. 16078939
>>16078938
>disputed
The thing has proved itself in expendable mode so I would say yesterday's launch was a success
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:24:03 UTC No. 16078941
>>16078939
grey area because it was spinning out of control so would likely not deploy a payload cleanly. its also unclear if the payload door worked properly. if it maintained attitude control during the coast and opened the door properly then it would be an undispuitable expendable mode w
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:24:20 UTC No. 16078943
>>16078939
Thank god your opinion holds exactly zero value. You don't even understand what the disputed tag means.
But I digress. The point was, this circus has repeated itself three times on en.wikipedia.
Each IFT was at first listed as partial failure because elon fanboys are incredible manbabies. Then everyone's time is wasted by it going through wikipedia's process and a bunch of autistic rules lawyering, and then it was listed as failure.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:27:17 UTC No. 16078946
I mean, it's one thing if trolls do drive-by vandalism, or hostile state actors try to undermine wikipedia's neutrality and reliability.
But petty manchildren doing it because they don't want their favorite toy to look bad? Jesus fucking Christ, what went so wrong?
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:27:55 UTC No. 16078948
>>16078941
I assume they tested the payload ba in a wind tunnel, they did do that, r-right?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:29:13 UTC No. 16078950
>>16078948
no, why would they when they could test in the actual environment
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:37:21 UTC No. 16078955
>>16078546
So how long until debris starts washing up on Mauritius?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:38:37 UTC No. 16078958
>>16078946
You ever played with superhero action figures as a kid? My guy is stronger than your guy.
It's not a coincidence a lot of them are marvel capeshit fans.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 11:40:42 UTC No. 16078959
>>16078955
The raptors are all destroyed right? Asking for Chi- , a friend here.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:05:28 UTC No. 16078986
>>16078454
wut
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:06:08 UTC No. 16078988
>>16078892
any excess propellant can be in theory offloaded to a depot
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:09:38 UTC No. 16078994
>>16078986
They used to broadcast it in the clear with no encryption.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:13:28 UTC No. 16079002
>>16078143
Because the SpaceX Rocketplane is a terrible design, and us engineers knew that from the beginning.
It doesn’t have enough surface area to survive reentry.
But if they add wings like the Space Shuttle, it will be too heavy to reach orbital velocity.
So SpaceX is quite literally fucked.
Unless they put on their big-boy pants and say “We fucked up, this design is shit, we’re going to recreate the Space Shuttle instead.”
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:15:56 UTC No. 16079010
>>16078959
It got plasma'ed up the ass end. Sub-atomic assembly likely required on the raptors.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:19:00 UTC No. 16079015
>>16079002
>us engineers
the only thing you've ever engineered is the IKEA shelf for your funko pops.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:21:04 UTC No. 16079019
>>16078282
Kek
>Rapidly reusable
>Oh, we have to rebuild our entire launch facility after every launch at the cost of millions of dollars.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:21:56 UTC No. 16079021
>>16079002
The truth is Lockheed and Boeing killed Tory Bruno's (actualy really good) idea.
This was meant to be the future of US space.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:22:05 UTC No. 16079022
>>16078959
Even if they get their hands on the raptor Blueprints they still could not make them.
The chinese still have problems with making their own reliable jet engines too.
It's about having Quality Materials, the engineering, etc...
Same with semiconductors, anything that needs a high level of detail on every step they have trouble copying it from the West.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:27:59 UTC No. 16079024
>>16079016
what alternate reality do you live in? Starship was suppsoed to be landing on the moon this year, meanwhile in reality its burnt through its entire artemis budget and is 0 out of 3 sucessful
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:33:54 UTC No. 16079028
>>16079021
>rotating fluid
won't that eventually come to spin on it's largest axis due to liquid sloshing?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:37:20 UTC No. 16079035
>>16079024
>supposed to be landing on the moon
could be more likely that was simply a marketing ploy to get congressmen and investors to keep paying
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:37:59 UTC No. 16079036
>>16079028
We literally do not know, because it was only tested once (yesterday)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:44:47 UTC No. 16079040
>>16079016
Losing Starship due to an inability to control its attitude is a bit embarrassing. There's no way to sugarcoat that.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:46:18 UTC No. 16079041
>>16078994
I broadcasted into clear if you know what I mean
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:51:57 UTC No. 16079043
>>16079040
yeah idk if they really need to boost the entire vehicle like that just to collect data
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:52:29 UTC No. 16079044
>>16079043
lose*
WTF is that autocorrect
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:53:35 UTC No. 16079047
>>16078797
>V3
What? Considering they still have not made a single V2, why not just skip it and have the V3 be the V2?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:55:08 UTC No. 16079048
Silly question: who or what replaces the heat tiles when Starship lands on Mars?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:55:57 UTC No. 16079049
>>16079016
first it will be that starship can't survive reentry
once it starts landing regularly the cope will be that it can't be reused
once it starts being reused the cope will be that it can't be rapidly reused
then that it can't carry humans
then that it can't get to the moon
then that it can't land on the moon
then that it can't return from the moon
then that it can't take passengers to the moon
then all the same objections repeated for Mars
they'll be talking about how starship will never succeed even after there are thousands of them regularly flying cargo and passenger routes between Earth and Mars
none of it means anything except that someone's feelings are hurt
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 12:59:14 UTC No. 16079053
>>16079022
>Same with semiconductors
laughs in mandarin (哈哈)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:02:35 UTC No. 16079056
>>16079048
The heat tiles are not intended to be expendable. If the design doesn't work it will be modified or replaced. What a weird objection.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:09:52 UTC No. 16079061
>>16078180
Elon was in Europe at the time IIRC
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:14:31 UTC No. 16079064
>>16079053
>Laughs in economic collapse
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:18:04 UTC No. 16079071
>>16079064
2 weeks
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:27:30 UTC No. 16079080
>>16079071
Yes, that's the amount of days you need to work in the West to earn what a chinese earns in a year.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:32:30 UTC No. 16079081
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:33:34 UTC No. 16079083
>>16079002
>It doesn’t have enough surface area to survive reentry.
Why would you need more surface area to survive re-entry? The shuttle had wings because it had to glide down and land on a runway. You can survive re-entry in a soyuz just fine. Given the starship enters belly first, it's mass to surface area won't be much different from a capsule.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:34:53 UTC No. 16079085
>>16078431
She works in a coal mine.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:35:54 UTC No. 16079087
>>16078306
Get your eyes checked, retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:36:01 UTC No. 16079088
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:38:23 UTC No. 16079090
>>16079083
>soyuz
>ablative heat shield
Why bother opening your mouth when only shit comes out?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:41:12 UTC No. 16079092
>>16078331
TV show Ashford is a lot more likable than book Ashford
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:42:48 UTC No. 16079093
Remember transpiration cooling?
Remember how heatshield tiles were lame and oldspace?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:50:14 UTC No. 16079099
>>16079044
>>16079043
>>16079040
it really is amateur. what were they thinking?
Rumor has it that NASA held SpaceXes hand through all of dragon development, and the more I look at the state of Starship the more I think it's true. Dragon would have killed astronauts if NASA didnt make it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:51:19 UTC No. 16079100
>>16079093
Kek, dont remind em, it causes seizures.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:53:58 UTC No. 16079101
>>16079092
Books got worse and worse and the ending was just a "yeah, we gave up deal with it". Waste of time.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:54:11 UTC No. 16079102
>>16079049
Who’s coping? I see NOTHING but breathless cheerleading by soifaces on YouTube and media. I’m the only person I know of who’s been skeptical. Why? Simply because the whole concept is based on making cheaper full-flow staged methane-oxygen engines work reliably to greatly improve the economics of heavy lift. Those types of engines were abandoned a long time ago because they’re inherently unreliable. A lot of delicate hoops must be jumped through. The whole purpose and promise of Starship is achieving a next level of cost-efficiency for heavy lift, and if it can be done it’ll revolutionize the space industry because by making lifts much cheaper. But that will only happen if working Raptors can be manufactured reliably. Like, how many Raptors did SpaceX have to go through before finding just the right, perfect golden samples just so they won’t fail right after launch? That’s why I’m skeptical. If that can be solved, if Raptors can be reliably built the the economy of Starship will be realized — but if not then it’ll just be a flop.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:58:52 UTC No. 16079108
>>16078797
>Shuttle: 29000 kg to LEO
WRONG
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:00:19 UTC No. 16079110
>>16079102
nice cope post
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:05:13 UTC No. 16079118
>>16079108
Do that and you have to account of the weight of every empty final stage along with its payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:06:33 UTC No. 16079121
>mishap investigation for a "successful" mission
uh, muskrats??
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:06:58 UTC No. 16079123
>>16079102
Just give up anon.
200t/400t to LEO. Brilliant Pebbles and other megastructures are coming.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:07:06 UTC No. 16079125
>>16079118
Pretty sure that's how we do that for every other rocket
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:07:19 UTC No. 16079126
>>16078289
we've NEVER had an external view, we've never seen the shock forming across the surface before
>>16078611
personally my favorite vacuum trick is "gloves are optional actually"
does anybody have that image I can't find it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:07:29 UTC No. 16079127
>>16079040
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t want to sound like an ass-ravaged liberal shill, but, REALLY, basic control (and keeping heat tiles on) seems like kindergarten-level shit that SpaceX fails at somehow. If it was Roscosmos, the Chinese or one of these startups you’d just smirk and be like "lol of course" — but SpaceX? With such a crucial project? Who’re the engineers? Do they not have the best fluid mechanics modeling and CAD / design software? Do they not do laboratory testing?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:09:25 UTC No. 16079132
>>16079108
Embarrassing correction: I mean "fuel remaining at orbital velocity" not fully-fueled
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:10:33 UTC No. 16079134
>>16079127
>Do they not do laboratory testing?
SpaceX is known to falsify test results if a failed test would result in delays
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:11:15 UTC No. 16079137
>>16079102
>Those types of engines were abandoned a long time ago because they’re inherently unreliable.
No, they were abandoned because Glushko stopped having hypergolic autism when the UR-700 was cancelled and went with developing kerolox engines, which can't be practically made FFSC because of the clogging from soot.
The Raptor has already proven itself to be as reliable as any other engine at this point. And soon it will be as reliable as the Merlin.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:12:10 UTC No. 16079141
>>16078169
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:12:28 UTC No. 16079143
>>16079121
Shows over, take this (You) and go back to whatever board you came from and bait there
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:13:02 UTC No. 16079145
>>16079125
No we don't. The drymass of the final stage is never included because it's not a useful metric. Otherwise shit like Long March 5B would be considered super heavy lift rockets.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:18:59 UTC No. 16079151
>>16079145
The mass of the CSM and LM combined would not be anywhere near 140 tons by itself. I go and look for the mass of the S-IVB and remaining fuel however, and as it turns out, it's exactly 140 t
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:20:59 UTC No. 16079154
>>16079088
NTA but I've also been looking for this.
Thanks.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:22:34 UTC No. 16079158
>>16078707
>>16078715
>>16078730
>>16078847
stupid frogposters
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:24:07 UTC No. 16079162
>>16079127
they blew up a thruster or had some other control systems failure
maybe they ran out of prop due to higher than expected propellant consumption, maybe it froze because using ullage gas as RCS is a bad idea
they'll figure it out
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:25:09 UTC No. 16079163
>>16079126
I found the image
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:25:16 UTC No. 16079165
>>16078943
Wow thanks for alerting me to this rabbit hole of soijacking fanboys desperately trying to run damage control / propaganda on Wikipedia.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:26:31 UTC No. 16079168
>>16079118
the orbiter was much more explicitly a payload than it is for other rockets. you can argue about the plumbing and the engines, but the rest was clearly a space station the rocket always brought with it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:28:53 UTC No. 16079172
>>16079127
Fluid dynamic modules for a lot of the extreme enviroments Starship undergoes simply doesn't exist that are accurate enough to use current finite element analyzers. Too many of factors are simply unknown. The best way to make a useful analyzation is through practical tests.
I don't really understand why you redditors can genuinely believe you know better than the world leaders in rocket development and manufacturing.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:31:32 UTC No. 16079174
>>16079151
It was a payload to LEO. Payload can include stages. It's all about useful payload. You could replace the S-IVB with another payload and still reach orbit. That's what they did with Skylab. You can't do that with the Shittle.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:36:44 UTC No. 16079183
>>16079015
>>16079081
>>16079083
See this picture? It's the Space Shuttle gliding to the ground.
The SpaceX Rocketplane burned up in the atmosphere, because it's a terrible design and they are unable to control it enough to stop it from rolling over onto the NON-heat-shield side of the rocketplane. Oh, and its design doesn't allow it to bleed off enough speed so that it can land either. So that's two major problems as a results of the terrible design.
When the vehicle rolls over, the steel becomes soft or melts, loses structural integrity, and disintegrates.
In order for the SpaceX Rocketplane to survive re-entry, it's going to need a MUCH LARGER surface area to help control its descent and glide through the atmosphere.
Go ahead.
Screencap this please.
I would actually love to be proven wrong on my assumptions about this rocketplane.
Also, there is no way the current configuration could ever hope to survive a landing on Mars or The Moon if it can't survive re-entry on Earth first.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:37:40 UTC No. 16079185
Nobody is screenshotting your gay bait.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:38:19 UTC No. 16079186
>>16079158
Do you just patrol every board looking for pepes you absolute tumor
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:39:21 UTC No. 16079190
>>16079186
haha stupid frogposter
<- its me, using AI to find and ridicule frogposters
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:40:07 UTC No. 16079191
>>16079185
I'll be here for the next failure.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:41:14 UTC No. 16079195
>>16079191
I'll call you a faggot then, too.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:41:55 UTC No. 16079197
>>16079183
Based boomer.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:47:16 UTC No. 16079205
>>16079183
>>16079185
One of you is going to look bad after the next test.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:54:32 UTC No. 16079216
>>16079108
>>16079132
retard
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:56:01 UTC No. 16079220
BTW, isn’t it bullshit that the FAA is getting involved? Does Lockheed Martin need FAA approval to test a new missile? Does FAA oversee all space launches?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:56:35 UTC No. 16079221
>>16079220
>Does FAA oversee all space launches?
From US soil? Yes.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:57:05 UTC No. 16079225
>>16079220
why are they even having a mishap investigation for this, there was never a mishap investigation for Falcon 9 reuse attempts
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 14:58:06 UTC No. 16079228
>>16079221
incorrect, all space launches by US commercial companies from Earth
that may be expanded to Mars at some point
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:02:34 UTC No. 16079234
I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect SpaceX Heavy Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean.
2. How do they expect SpaceX "Starship" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:02:39 UTC No. 16079235
>>16079220
you can't even launch a 4lb toy rocket without FAA approval
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:07:08 UTC No. 16079242
>>16079234
1. well obviously they need to get the engines to reignite, which seems solveable
2. obviously they need to maintain control of the vehicle during on-orbit operations and the entry interface, so that the flaps have the chance to maintain control of the vehicle during re-entry, which seems solveable
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:12:08 UTC No. 16079256
>>16079234
1. By finding out the cause for why they didn't ignite and solve it?
2. By finding out why the attitude control system didn't work properly and solve it?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:14:12 UTC No. 16079261
KEEEEK what is this thread?
>>16079234
>1. How do they expect SpaceX Heavy Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean
Do you know what the Falcon 9 is?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:15:47 UTC No. 16079268
>>16079261
he's right though, falcon 9 doesn't survive re-entry if the engine doesn't reignite
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:16:14 UTC No. 16079270
>>16079225
Because falcon 9 was successful at first, at starship blew up twice and the last one was orbiting without control
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:16:28 UTC No. 16079272
I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect SpaceX Falcon Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean.
2. How do they expect SpaceX "Dragon" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:16:48 UTC No. 16079273
>losers who have never done a hard thing in their life recommend you stop doing things because it could lead to failure
many such cases
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:16:53 UTC No. 16079274
>>16079270
most objects orbit without control though
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:18:01 UTC No. 16079276
>>16079268
>he's right
He's not making an argument. Falcon 9 has landed 100 in a row. It is successfully reusable
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:18:21 UTC No. 16079278
I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect NASA Redstone Rocket to survive liftoff if the engines don't ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "expendable" booster just crashes into the ground.
2. How do they expect NASA "Mercury Capsule" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:19:31 UTC No. 16079279
>expendable booster just crashes into the ground
yeah
they're meant to do that
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:21:48 UTC No. 16079284
NEXT GOALPOST:
>it cannot reenter
>it is impossible
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:23:45 UTC No. 16079286
>>16079183
I'm assuming in the upper parts of the atmosphere, or during the early parts of reentry Starship would not have enough authority with the flaps and would rely on RCS until the atmosphere became thicker, the issue was they could not stop the roll as it re-entered, not the flaps being too small. The same would apply to the shuttle, high up in the atmosphere without reaction control it would pretty much be fucked unless if it's incredibly lucky.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:25:55 UTC No. 16079291
>>16079163
can you actually expose your hands to vaccum and be fine?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:26:02 UTC No. 16079292
>>16078918
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqj
Too big for webum
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:28:23 UTC No. 16079294
>>16079292
>fully doxxing yourself on 4chan
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:29:13 UTC No. 16079295
>>16079292
uh oh..
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:34:04 UTC No. 16079298
>>16079291
yeah but you gotta moisturize and it's not pleasant
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:35:06 UTC No. 16079301
>>16079294
>>16079295
I dunno Bob seems cool, we should let him get away with this one
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:36:05 UTC No. 16079305
>>16079292
/sfg/ moment. Next time Robert, upload it to https://catbox.moe/
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:37:28 UTC No. 16079307
So starship's RCS didn't work at all? Not even once?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:38:40 UTC No. 16079309
>>16079305
Catbox is slow as molasses for video.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:39:34 UTC No. 16079310
>>16079307
we just don't know
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:39:39 UTC No. 16079311
>>16079307
No, you can thank Estronaut for that
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:40:31 UTC No. 16079312
>>16079305
>>16079295
>>16079294
Nobody gives a shit it's not 2007 anymore. This is just another content platform full of nerds.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:40:48 UTC No. 16079314
>>16079307
At the beginning it looks like it was holding position.
But it never stopped venting out the bottom and I think it was just losing pressure due to leaks and the RCS became ever more ineffective.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:43:25 UTC No. 16079316
>>16079312
Lots of retards would on this site. Thankfully I doubt anybody on /sfg/ would care unless they're some porn spamming avatarfag.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:43:25 UTC No. 16079317
>>16079292
You get a 'like' from me
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:46:17 UTC No. 16079324
>>16079291
on one of Joseph Kittinger's high altitude jumps his glove depressurized on the way up. his hand swelled to twice it's size but as far as I know it went back to normal when he landed and he had no long term problems
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:52:08 UTC No. 16079338
>>16079242
>>16079256
>>16079261
I'm skeptical of SpaceX being able to pull this off.
How many exploded spacecraft is it going to take?
Wouldn't it be better to just design it correctly from the beginning. Apollo engineers in the 1960s were able to create functioning spacecraft without so many expensive tests.
The design of Starship should've been tested with a 1/10th scale model first or something like that.
Oh well, I guess we'll just have lots of lulz as Musk burns through government subsidies and investor cash.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:55:21 UTC No. 16079340
>>16079278
Re-entry capsules have passively stable aerodynamics. They literally can't turn the wrong way due to the re-entry forces acting upon them.
Meanwhile Starship is flopping uncontrollably with a plethora of attitude control systems. KSP-tier.
Unlike Elon Musk, Max Faget knew what he was doing. Elon may preach "no part is best part" but still builds convoluted failure-prone systems.
Apologize to Project Mercury engineers, you brat.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 15:56:40 UTC No. 16079341
>>16079340
I don't know if you've ever played KSP but if your vehicle is flopping uncontrollably during reentry you are experiencing a "skill issue"
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:01:00 UTC No. 16079345
>>16079340
SpaceX built a passively stable capsule spacecraft too. It works great.
So I don't understand the argument.
You're saying they shouldn't do the more difficult thing that results in higher capability because it's hard?
Sounds like loser talk
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:09:30 UTC No. 16079358
Although there is a possiblity you could make Starship passively stable with some modifications to the OML.
What would that look like?
>inb4 shittle
not that wasn't passively stable during reentry
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:12:15 UTC No. 16079363
>>16079341
It's KSP-tier because it's a fucking joke that only works in KSP.
In fact, in KSP it's a great way to distribute the heat load to all parts evenly. And if structural integrity is ever a problem, you are using autostruts wrong.
>tfw you share /sfg/ with newfags who weren't in /kspg/ since ksp alpha
気持ち悪い
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:13:43 UTC No. 16079367
>>16079358
shittle not being passively stable during entry despite having massive aero surfaces was a hilarious design feature.
I think starship is passively stable during entry, its just that it didnt catch enough air to stop the spin before disintegrating, and it seems like the flight computer didnt try to correct the spin so maybe that was fucked too.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:13:57 UTC No. 16079368
>>16079363
it works in KSP because kerbal parts have uniform TPS across the entire skin
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:20:57 UTC No. 16079377
>>16079367
I doubt it.
There were times when rates were low and it was facing roughly in the right direction.
If there was a basin of stability it should have fallen in.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:27:49 UTC No. 16079384
>>16079377
idk. theres a realm of passive stability where if it's stationary in the right direction it will be stable, but if it's spinning too fast the upper atmosphere air won't be enough to push it into the correct orientation. please do stop concern trolling though. these are solvable issues. if nothing else powerful RCS rockets and a fuck ton of fuel would fix it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:30:27 UTC No. 16079389
>>16079377
maybe the header tank was empty causing the com to be too low
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:44:41 UTC No. 16079434
>>16079307
Yup
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:45:10 UTC No. 16079436
>>16078797
Always seeking the absolute limits of the design. Admirable, and certainly the reason spacex is so dominant in the industry with Falcon, but I worry about them sacrificing robustness and weather resilience in the name of asymptotically increasing payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:45:41 UTC No. 16079439
KEEEK he's gonna kill himself https://youtube.com/watch?v=CYMewo1
many such cases
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:46:54 UTC No. 16079442
>>16078919
N1 never made it to stage seperation
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:48:56 UTC No. 16079445
>NASA has used a small constellation of Tracking and Data Relay Satellites to communicate with spacecraft, beginning with the Space Shuttle. Starship was able to communicate with these satellites upon its reentry, but it was only at a low data rate, and it dropped out as the plasma thickened. The Starlink connection remained longer and is what enabled the stunning video of reentry.
Starlink > TDRS
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:49:32 UTC No. 16079447
>>16079108
The Orbiter is the rocket not the payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:52:01 UTC No. 16079454
arsetechnigger
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:52:46 UTC No. 16079457
>>16079445
Yeeeeah I’m pretty sure NASA/the DoD saw that reentry live and coomed
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:53:23 UTC No. 16079458
>>16079047
>why no V2
Possibly because ROCKET NAME BAD
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:53:49 UTC No. 16079460
NRO must have been salivating watching a reentry live feed.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:55:53 UTC No. 16079464
>estronaut violently soigaping at the rocket
it really is like a reflex for them lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:56:15 UTC No. 16079466
>>16079464
I was doing it too so I can’t blame him for this one
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:57:49 UTC No. 16079469
>>16078928
>The data from this flight might be useful for creating a simulation. The more flights they do, the more data they get, the better they can start simulating more complex flights.
Yep, that's what they'll end up doing, looking at the data and figuring out what aspects are missing from the simulation to fix it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 16:59:38 UTC No. 16079474
>>16079460
if you asked me a few days ago I would have said it's physically impossible to get a data stream like that out of a craft entering the atmosphere
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:00:15 UTC No. 16079476
>>16079455
>less than a hundred parking spots
Is the factory automated?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:01:10 UTC No. 16079477
>>16079225
Because the objectives of the rocket define the scope of the FAA's own oversights. They don't apply the same standards for one guy's private plane as they do for commercial airliners, and they don't apply the same standards for expendable rockets to reusable ones because they aren't trying to do the same thing. The FAA's mishap investigation into SpaceX not achieving their filed flight plan is perfectly reasonable.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:03:44 UTC No. 16079484
>>16079338
>>16079340
Here's your (you). It turns out that engineers cost more money than hardware and you don't need to spend as many engineer hours simulating the hell out of everything if you just build the hardware and find out how it actually performs instead of trying to calculate it all in advance and still being wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:03:45 UTC No. 16079485
>>16079377
I think its AoA might have been consistently too high, it's designed for ~60 degrees AoA and it probably won't be recoverable if it hits 90, which it did (from my experience in KSP lol)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:04:50 UTC No. 16079487
>>16079464
me during livestreamed reentry
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:04:56 UTC No. 16079488
>>16079439
what a hero, that's how you can tell he's based
>>16079445
>>16079457
I REALLY REALLY can't wait until we get footage all the way down, that's going to be sick
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:09:56 UTC No. 16079495
>>16079493
The mega mach diamonds are even more pronounced than last flight.
Such a beautiful vehicle.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:11:48 UTC No. 16079499
>>16078797
Sounds like Elon wants to get to ~100 Starlink V2s per launch.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:13:46 UTC No. 16079502
>>16078913
23 seconds from engine ignition to climb to 1km is wild.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:14:25 UTC No. 16079503
>>16079455
Founder Kang Yonglai estimates a launch price of ¥20,000/kg ($2,780/kg) for TL-3 (assuming I interpreted this correctly)
https://weibo.com/5658451754/O3NQND
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:20:55 UTC No. 16079512
>>16079503
Now calculate it without subsidies.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:25:31 UTC No. 16079516
>>16079476
There's some more around the back. I've no idea what the public transport situation is in Zhangjiagang.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:26:44 UTC No. 16079521
>>16079503
>Predictions and publicity from a "private Chinese launch company"
I simply do not care what anyone in that branch of the CCP has to say
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:28:41 UTC No. 16079523
>>16079516
I wonder how they climate control a building that size? I only see like three air exchanges and they have a shitton of glass
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:30:55 UTC No. 16079527
>>16079523
Then what are all those shits on the roof?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:34:25 UTC No. 16079529
>>16078926
New engineers should be hazed by having them procure cryogenic non-permeable elastomers. One day someone might be stupid enough to invent them!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:35:49 UTC No. 16079533
>>16079529
I'd come up with an elaborate trash-compactor mechanism involving telescoping slats before trying something involving novel chemistry
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:37:12 UTC No. 16079535
>>16079523
Maybe just gas heating and no cooling like european houses?
Though it being a rocket factory that would impact precision manufacturing.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:38:48 UTC No. 16079541
>>16079476
Space Pioneer calls it 智能制造基地 "intelligent manufacturing base". They don't detail what exactly it means in that statement on their website. I'm not very good at Chinese, but after looking around a bit, as far as I understand, 智能制造 "intelligent manufacturing" is apparently often used by people when they want to hype the automation level or some other effort-saving aspect of a factory.
They don't say how large a fraction of the value chain this facility will be responsible for. It might just be final assembly of components produced elsewhere.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:39:16 UTC No. 16079545
>>16079523
If you look at the promo pics on their site, the workers are frequently in heavy coats.
The climate control is for the executive offices and areas for sensitive processes like painting or resin curing.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:42:13 UTC No. 16079549
https://spacenews.com/global-commun
They really are going to build the second Internet in space
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:48:34 UTC No. 16079555
What? You thought Artemis was just about sending women to the Moon?
DARPA wants 'economic activity' on the Moon.
https://sam.gov/opp/909fd645b59c479
Establishing economic activity on the Moon is basically colonialism.* Like they're indirectly saying we want to claim territory on the moon.
*It's cool though. Like it's probably gonna mostly be robutts up there any way. No people to exploit and there is no environment. Like fucking none. So LET'S GO MOON COLONIALISM!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:51:13 UTC No. 16079559
>>16079090
1. Ablative heat shield has nothing to do with aerodynamics
2. Starship didn't fail because of it's heatshield. It failed because it didn't have correct orientation on re-entry.
3. They obviously couldn't control the attitude before it even started re-entry. Nothing to do with ablation or heat shield, again.
4. Nigger
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:53:14 UTC No. 16079563
>>16079476
Space Pioneer calls it 智能制造基地 "intelligent manufacturing base". They don't detail what exactly it means in that statement on their website. I'm not very good at Chinese, but after looking around a bit, as far as I understand, 智能制造 "intelligent manufacturing" is apparently often used by people when they want to hype the automation level or some other effort-saving aspect of a factory.
They don't say how large a fraction of the value chain this facility will be responsible for. It might to a large extent be for final assembly of components produced elsewhere. They seemed to say they manufacture at least the tanks in this facility, if I understood the statement correctly. These windows look like the windows on the side building
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:54:17 UTC No. 16079568
>>16079563
windows to the left
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:55:46 UTC No. 16079571
>>16079555
Remember when the Apollo astronauts joked they'd need extensions on their tax returns because they were out of the country? This would be an interesting exercise in economic jurisdiction
I bet they'll end up handling it like they do in antarctica
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:00:53 UTC No. 16079578
>>16079571
>This would be an interesting exercise in economic jurisdiction
why would it be? american citizens are taxed even when they don't live in the US, unless they renounce their citizenship. also, US courts and laws have applied extraterritoriality many times.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:02:13 UTC No. 16079580
>>16078791
>Millimeter wavelength (3+ GHz) will get through and Starlink is at 137 MHz so unless it’s doing something very unique I doubt it
The only thing Starlink uses frequencies that low for is tracking beacons; everything else is above 10 GHz.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:05:24 UTC No. 16079584
>>16079582
K I N O
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:06:59 UTC No. 16079586
>>16079578
It's literally not on earth, in space the world's governments have almost unanimously agreed can't be claimed as territory or part of a jurisdiction. Sure extraterratoriality can be employed but at some level where the activity takes place is going to be important
I believe the last time this was a question was when Chris Hadfield was filming the Space Oddity cover on the ISS and everyone was wondering how many copyright laws it was subject to
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:07:24 UTC No. 16079588
>>16079512
Space Pioneer is mostly funded by equity investments from state-owned VC companies as well as Zhangjiagang. Also, they probably got the land in Zhangjiagang at a discount. As far as I know, they haven't got any big government contracts with in the style of NASA's COTS/CRS.
It wouldn't really be surprising if a Falcon 9 clone launching with Falcon 9 cadence would have Falcon 9 prices. The primary customer for launches is going to be state-owned enterprises anyway, so subsidies to lower operational costs would be pretty meaningless.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:08:16 UTC No. 16079589
>>16079586
Grossly misinformed speculation across the board, that. The restraints on sovereignty are not "universally agreed" by any stretch of the imagination, and are in fact subject of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, which can be abrogated with prior notice at any time.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:11:19 UTC No. 16079591
>>16079588
This is just a roundabout way of saying the company is state owned. I guarantee you there's a desk in that building for a full-time party officer.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:11:25 UTC No. 16079592
>>16079588
>state-owned VC companies
Like I said, without the subsidies.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:16:01 UTC No. 16079596
>>16079458
Yeah the name is the only problem, rename the rocket and build it in America and it is as American as Apple pie.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:16:53 UTC No. 16079600
>>16079521
>"private"
Space Pioneer is a private limited-liability company, founded by an ex-CASC employee, with state-owned VC firms as the most important equity investors. So it's a partially indirectly state-owned company, that is run as a for-profit commercial company.
Not that its ownership status makes much difference. They will chase government contracts. And any private ownership can be overruled at any time anywhere, even in the highly capitalist US (such as with the Defense Production Act, or any new similar law that Congress might pass)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:18:50 UTC No. 16079604
>>16079592
It's not really a subsidy if the investor gets an equity stake in return, unless they are grossly overpaying for that stake.
In any case, such investments won't help subsidize continuous operations, because the investment is a one-time payment.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:19:10 UTC No. 16079605
>>16079596
the V2 was a terror weapon the Nazis used to kill British babies. the A4 was sounding rocket the Americans used to further science
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:22:12 UTC No. 16079608
companies better be scrambling on cuz of IFT-3. the game has changed and super cheap spaceflight will be here in a year or two. the old way of doing business in space is no longer viable, so they need to drop their plans and create new ones based on starship. Companies aren't going to be launching satellites to geo, they'll be launching large platforms that fill multiple roles.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:28:45 UTC No. 16079615
>>16079591
It is indirectly state-owned.
All Chinese companies that are above a certain size or that are publicly traded have a party committees. Generally, any organization that has three or more CPC members must have a party committee, according to the CPC constitution article 30
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:30:19 UTC No. 16079619
>>16079608
This call's been made repeatedly from Starship SN8, to SN15, to IFT1; they didn't heed it then, and they won't heed it now.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:30:27 UTC No. 16079620
>>16079313
Good edit thanks
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:30:54 UTC No. 16079621
If I was an astronaut, I'd feel uncomfortable in the shitliner when Boing is suiciding its whistleblowers
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:33:15 UTC No. 16079625
>>16079608
>they need to drop their plans and create new ones based on starship
The lead time for creating a proper Starship clone from scratch is over a decade. For someone like BO or Rocket Lab, it's probably better to bring their partially reusable rockets across the finish line, than to be stuck with just nothing/expendables and huge R&D bills for over a decade
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:34:30 UTC No. 16079628
>>16078205
Dat too many nozzles
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:38:06 UTC No. 16079634
>>16079529
what's the limitation here? anything flexible at those temperatures is going to be a gas at RT or something?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:38:59 UTC No. 16079637
>>16079615
"State owned" and "indirectly state owned" are not meaningfully distinct terms here
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:39:49 UTC No. 16079638
>>16079559
very true
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:40:28 UTC No. 16079639
>>16079636
Way too long to be practical.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:40:37 UTC No. 16079641
>>16079625
I think he meant "give up on launch and develop payloads instead," which many companies should absolutely be doing if they want to survive.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:42:23 UTC No. 16079642
>>16079636
it really depends on where and when you're launching them from as well as how much rocket you're willing to dedicate to the purpose
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:44:26 UTC No. 16079646
>>16079608
I really hope spacex build out their depot(s) to be more than just a single starships in orbit. Cigarettes and lotto tickets optional
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:45:44 UTC No. 16079649
>>16079636
Too long.
The size of the constellation of satellites necessary to beat the average delivery time of an ICBM is impractical, if you want to have global strike coverage.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:49:47 UTC No. 16079652
>>16079646
they will once we get [spoiler]starship shuttles[/spoiler]
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:51:17 UTC No. 16079654
Does anyone else foresee starship only being reusable on starlink and depot top-off flights? we haven't seen any development work on the clamshell door and given how long spaceX has been struggling with just the pez dispenser I wonder if they'll find a reliable door the full size of the payload bay unworkable
don't tell me I'm concern trolling
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:52:02 UTC No. 16079656
>>16079636
Gonna need fantasy fuel density to have rockets capable of departure from orbit in less than tens of minutes
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:53:08 UTC No. 16079657
>>16079654
they'll build something because they already have a few customers like vast and that geo sat
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:54:38 UTC No. 16079658
>>16079654
I'm sorry to tell you this anon but you're concern trolling
I'm afraid it's terminal
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:54:42 UTC No. 16079659
>>16079657
of course they will but I wonder if they'll just give up on the door mechanism and go with a more traditional fairing.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:56:49 UTC No. 16079660
>>16079659
yeah who knows. the pez dispenser only works for some types of payloads, so it looks like a dead end to pursue it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 18:56:54 UTC No. 16079661
>>16079439
>tells us to fly safe
>this happens
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:00:30 UTC No. 16079662
>>16079313
kino
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:05:19 UTC No. 16079666
>>16079439
All the pilots eating him alive in the comments lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:06:24 UTC No. 16079667
>>16079637
It is to some extent.
A company that is directly owned by SASAC (the asset management organ of the State Council) will usually be subject to a high degree of control by the State Council, and will generally act as a policy company rather than as a for-profit company. An example is CASC, which is right now deliberately aiding its future competitors in the space sector by supplying them with engines, tooling, test facilities, etc. CASC invested into the Hainan commercial launch site which is specifically intended to help CASC's future competitors. If CASC was a for-profit company, it wouldn't do that. China's major banks, which are also directly owned by SASAC, are famous for acting as policy banks rather than as strictly for-profit banks.
A company that is owned by the state indirectly - such as fractional ownership by multiple VC subsidiaries of companies that are controlled by a mix of central, provincial and municipal governments - wouldn't usually subject to the same top-down control for the furtherance of public policy aims, rather are managed more like a normal investment would be.
Lots of companies in China are indirectly state-owned to some extent or another. State-owned VC companies often invest in sectors the government wants to support. When the stock market crashes (which happens at regular intervals in China), state investors can go on a share buying spree (like happened just recently). That doesn't mean SASAC then begins to try to micromanage those companies' like a policy company.
And to some degree, it doesn't matter anyway, because private companies usually act based on the incentives and regulatory environment the state creates around them. Ultimately, the state can take control over even the most private company, even in the US (Defense Production Act). So the distinction between state-owned for-profit, privately-owned for-profit, or mixed-ownership for-profit, is a distinction that doesn't really matter.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:11:21 UTC No. 16079672
>>16079641
SpaceX needs a competitor. Being that competitor is a business case all by itself, even if you can't match SpaceX on price. Just look at NSSL's redundant providers, or Amazon's anyone-other-than-SpaceX launch procurement. As a launch provider, you don't need to beat SpaceX, you just need to beat everyone else.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:15:10 UTC No. 16079683
Who else could even develop starship like program? Even the infrastructure required to support the whole thing is ridiculous.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:16:03 UTC No. 16079686
>>16079679
easily dismissed as ai generated / photoshop
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:16:53 UTC No. 16079687
>>16079683
What happened to BO's project Jarvis? Are there any news/rumors on that?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:19:51 UTC No. 16079690
>>16079671
Stupid. The best door design is picrel.
Just the nose including forward flaps hinging open to a 9 meter wide barrel.
Minimizes length of seals and latch area, way better than Shittle design and way better structurally.
Header tank QD is a solvable problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:20:27 UTC No. 16079692
>>16079687
There are barely any news about new glenn
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:22:19 UTC No. 16079694
>>16079683
china or someone really rich but not retarded like jeff
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:22:47 UTC No. 16079696
>>16079671
They likely will have a few different classes built for different roles. They may occasionally refit some, but I don't think there will be modular swap outs for a single ship to fill multiple roles. They'll have a bunch of starlink dispensers and tankers, then a few rideshare busses and other payload haulers, and a couple crew rated ones for LEO ops, HLS, mars, ect
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:23:26 UTC No. 16079698
>>16079637
Do you think it is accurate and meaningful to say that most large publicly traded corporations in America are state-owned, since public pension funds own shares?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:29:01 UTC No. 16079708
>>16079683
China
maybe Europe, eventually
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:30:23 UTC No. 16079713
>>16079690
On the ground this can be operated without tipping the ship on its side by just supporting the hinging end on a crane cable in the high bay or using a custom jig like they have for lifting the ships already.
This way the actuator can be reasonably sized and the hinge doesn't need to be so strong as to hold the lever arm just the weight of the nose with the other end crane supported.
In zero-g opening and closing will require no force at all.
I firmly believe this is the right design and hope to see SpaceX converge on it soon.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:31:07 UTC No. 16079714
>>16079683
how many companies do you need? there's really only 2 companies that make passenger jets. which yeah, it's too few, but only by like 1 or 2
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:31:32 UTC No. 16079715
>>16079690
>JUST CRACK OPEN A SPACESHIP
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:33:26 UTC No. 16079716
>>16079715
Yes. Same requirements as the plane.
Thinking these two aren't the same problem is oldspace mentality.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:33:32 UTC No. 16079717
>>16079713
that hinge necessitates a break somewhere in the heat shield
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:34:04 UTC No. 16079719
>>16078129
Did it went into orbit? Or it was a suborbital flight?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:34:34 UTC No. 16079720
>>16079717
Yes that's not a big deal. The heat shield has centimeter wide gaps already.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:35:47 UTC No. 16079721
>>16079683
No one. The reason Elon can is because he understands high volume production thanks to Tesla. Also he understands Price's Law, and uses crazy ambitious goals for his companies to get around it. That way he has access to the best engineering talent that graduates every year. No one else is doing this, at least not in the realm of manufacturing.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:36:32 UTC No. 16079722
>>16079708
As a European, I'm skeptical about that
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:36:38 UTC No. 16079723
how much more weight they will need to add to make sure starship doesn't break in half during flight if they add a huge door
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:37:37 UTC No. 16079725
>>16079719
Suborbital
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:38:13 UTC No. 16079726
>>16079719
Suborbital.
It did about half orbit at very close to orbital velocity and we got some live views of re-entry plasma
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:40:26 UTC No. 16079730
>>16079719
Orbital except they designed the apogee to intersect the Earth so it ended up being suborbital. If they changed the parameters of the target it would be fully orbital.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:41:41 UTC No. 16079734
>>16079730
*perigee
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:43:59 UTC No. 16079739
>>16079694
>>16079708
China is a dystopian hellhole where getting excited about cool shit is illegal. Europe is too complacent because we have it too good. It's also regulated to hell, also no good spots to build a Starbase equivalent.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:45:06 UTC No. 16079741
>SpaceX failed again
China and Russia wins again. Americans will never go to space.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:45:55 UTC No. 16079742
>>16079741 (You)
here you go, you didn't earn it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:46:46 UTC No. 16079744
>>16079742
>coping this hard
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:47:28 UTC No. 16079747
>>16079741
at least make your bait believable ffs
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:48:32 UTC No. 16079748
>>16079734
Whoops, yeah, that.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:50:28 UTC No. 16079750
>>16079723
None, the door is on the opposite side of the heat shield, it wont be getting the plasma blanket treatment
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:51:15 UTC No. 16079752
>>16079750
i'm talking about max q
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:51:25 UTC No. 16079753
Why did noone post the newest eager space?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnx
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:54:59 UTC No. 16079758
>>16078129
WHEN WILL BE THE NEXT TEST FLIGHT? AND WILL THERE BE ANY CHANGES OF THE TEST PROFILE????????????????????????????
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:58:00 UTC No. 16079762
>>16079755
hasn't happened to me yet but I've seen several people complaining about it. they got rid of the IP counter on threads too
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:58:22 UTC No. 16079763
>>16079723
It won't work, it's gonna be a glorified pez dispenser for starlink.
And good luck getting HLS human-rated.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:58:42 UTC No. 16079764
Saturn V has 13 launches, all of them successful. The greatest failure was Apollo 6, the second test flight, when the second and third stages lost some engines, and could not complete the trans lunar injection. It just did a highly elliptical orbit with an apogee of 22,000 km.
SLS has 1 successful launch - a trans lunar injection.
Starshit has 3 launches, all failures. In all of them had there been astronauts, they'd be dead.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:59:24 UTC No. 16079768
>>16079755
No, it's the malware you're using
Total Phoneposter Death soon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:59:36 UTC No. 16079769
How many more of "old" starships are left? 3? Is it possible they might scrap them after 1 more flight?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:00:17 UTC No. 16079771
>>16079743
Who are the yiggers then? We already know wiggers
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:01:11 UTC No. 16079772
>>16079763
You are talking like making HLS human rated is the hard part especially when it's not even going to reenter atmosphere.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:02:47 UTC No. 16079774
>>16079769
They need the factory operational and building new ships first.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:03:13 UTC No. 16079775
>>16079769
Old Starship stops at S32, old Booster I think is B14 but not sure on that. They may toss them out but who knows. Also Elon already talking about V3 being 20-30m taller seems like he might be talking out of his ass since V2 has barely started.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:03:51 UTC No. 16079779
>>16079771
>yiggers
cool it with the anti-semitism
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:04:30 UTC No. 16079780
>>16079755
I got this too a couple threads ago. Not a phone poster if that makes a difference.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:05:31 UTC No. 16079784
>>16079775
>V2 has barely started
has it started at all? I've never seen any evidence of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:06:11 UTC No. 16079785
>>16079784
Pretty sure there were some photos of parts
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:11:15 UTC No. 16079798
I hope drunk OmegA anon is doing good these days
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:13:56 UTC No. 16079805
>>16079767
Musk keeps repeating this—but life could have been made almost equally multi-planetary with the Saturn V, were she not cancelled!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:15:37 UTC No. 16079811
spacex has to push hard if they want to meet the 2033 deadline
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:16:02 UTC No. 16079813
>>16079717
that'll be fine as long as it's a sawtooth gap and not a straight line
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:20:40 UTC No. 16079829
>>16079755
he typed (You) after the link, anon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:22:19 UTC No. 16079834
>>16079764
it's a good thing they were expecting for them to blow up and didn't fly astronauts on them yet
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:25:57 UTC No. 16079840
>>16079805
Wrong.The Saturn V was entirely expendable thus its minimum cost would be very high.
How come you post on this thread without understanding reusable rockets?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:29:37 UTC No. 16079848
>>16079829
explain how the ">coping this hard" post which is replying to that post has a real (You)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:31:01 UTC No. 16079851
>>16079848
you're a retarded schizo who has forgotten what he posts
>>16079840
solveable problem with the correct political incentives
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:31:16 UTC No. 16079852
>>16079840
>multiplanetary is when booster lands
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:32:17 UTC No. 16079856
>>16079852
>I do not understand prohibitive costs per kg of upmass with disposable rockets - the post.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:37:18 UTC No. 16079865
>>16079854
https://www.blueorigin.com/blue-rin
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:40:01 UTC No. 16079871
>>16079755
retard
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:45:56 UTC No. 16079885
>>16079743
what's upmass?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:47:34 UTC No. 16079887
>>16079856
It's a two-factor equation: you also need enough mass going up to make high payload expendable rockets with theoretically low dollars per kilogram actually pay off. With fully reusable vehicles, the cost equation is fully oriented around the cost of the technical support staff and per-flight consumables.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:48:13 UTC No. 16079889
>>16079885
not much, what's up with you
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:48:55 UTC No. 16079890
>>16079885
it's mass that is updog
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:49:36 UTC No. 16079892
>>16079889
>>16079890
ligma balls
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:49:38 UTC No. 16079893
>>16079885
downmass but wrong way
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 20:51:07 UTC No. 16079897
>>16079856
one-dimensional thinker, you are
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:01:02 UTC No. 16079925
>>16079854
completely useless, yet I'm sure they have 50 people in an office building working on concept art for it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:05:32 UTC No. 16079936
>>16079925
dont forget about the second team building 5 different models to show off when important people come visit
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:08:34 UTC No. 16079945
>>16079851
>dude just print more money
>>16079887
Saturn V was never going to be mass produceable (launching every day)
basically every part had to be handcrafted by expert craftsman/artisan
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:09:16 UTC No. 16079950
>>16079945
It would have been fine, it was all mass-producible except for the engines, which only needed some manufacturing technology maturation to solve.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:10:46 UTC No. 16079954
>>16079950
>today on /sfg/ handwaves
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:13:47 UTC No. 16079959
>>16079945
do you not know about Saturn Shuttle and the other reusable Saturn proposals?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:14:17 UTC No. 16079960
>>16079852
multiplanetary is when you can afford to send millions of tons of supplies and crew and then actually do it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:14:48 UTC No. 16079962
>>16079955
it blew up only seconds from orbit, huh
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:14:57 UTC No. 16079963
>>16079945
You could save a lot of cost and labor by upgrading to the F-1A and J-2S. Both of those were designed to have lower part courts as much as higher performance.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:15:55 UTC No. 16079965
>>16079963
F-1B would have taken it a step further with a modern sandwich style construction of inconel and copper instead of brazed tube construction and dispensing with the nozzle extension.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:16:16 UTC No. 16079967
>>16079892
who the fuck is steve jobs?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:18:13 UTC No. 16079971
>>16079965
F-1B was vaporware and would still have terrible performance for its size by modern standards
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:18:27 UTC No. 16079973
>>16079767
You could just as easily do that by filling the universe with kitty cats. No one is going to Mars.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:18:31 UTC No. 16079974
>>16079967
what a classic
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:23:51 UTC No. 16079984
>>16079973
we should send all incels and ai girlfriends to mars so they found inceltopolis. Earth would be so much nicer
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:23:52 UTC No. 16079985
>>16079763
>Starship won't be human rated because there's no launch escape system
Shuttle didn't have one either
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:23:57 UTC No. 16079986
>>16079965
If we're talking about a Saturn V in the F-1B era then you'd be better off going with a staged combustion idea like the RS-76 or RS-84, but then you'll have someone insisting that you use a cluster of RS-25s as second stage engines and another cluster of RL10s on the third stage like we're devolving back to the S-IV.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:25:45 UTC No. 16079988
>>16079985
remind me again why we aren't still flying shuttles
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:26:46 UTC No. 16079991
>>16079945
you’re maxing out the gaydar with your dogshit faggy reddit-tier conjectures
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:27:09 UTC No. 16079993
>>16079986
if you have the thrust and ISP to get the S-IV into orbit it will have more payload than the S-IVB
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:27:23 UTC No. 16079994
>>16079986
The RS-25 would be a terrible upper stage engine since it can't be air started.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:29:09 UTC No. 16079997
>>16078938
>>16078943
IFT-3 should be listed as a successful launch unless we're to believe wikipedos are using different criteria for Starship than they do for every other launch vehicle in existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:30:06 UTC No. 16079999
>>16079455
>>16079503
Thank you Chinese news poster, ignore the tards
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:30:31 UTC No. 16080000
>>16079971
Yeah I think people get too swept up in nostalgia. F1B would have been “okay” only because it was shitty but huge. Imagine making the shittiest Merlin variant ever but making it laughably gigantic and calling it “a good idea” because on paper it performs better than a current highly-optimized “small” merlin
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:31:41 UTC No. 16080003
>>16079950
it absolutely would not been fine
the computer had to had to have the flight program hand-woven into rope memory
each individual relay, every valve and every actuator had to be individually hard-wired to the avionics
yes, eventually you could update the technology with integrated circuits, automate a lot of handcrafting etc.
but then it's not Saturn V anymore, is it?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:32:37 UTC No. 16080005
>>16079994
NASA put a lot of thought into that in the late 80s when they were planning next generation heavy lift launchers. The conclusion was that it was possible but expensive, and therefore it was acceptable.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:33:35 UTC No. 16080006
>>16078497
>Starship as a knight in shining armor
such an obviously good design, surprised I haven't seen more like this
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:36:42 UTC No. 16080011
>>16080003
>but then it's not Saturn V anymore, is it?
Yes, it is, and screeching about the advance of avionics technology and engine design as if it's actually integral to the substance of the vehicle is retarded.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:37:08 UTC No. 16080014
watched Thunderfoot's reaction to flight 3 because anon's mentioned it
holy fuck how can someone be so confident while having no idea what is going on?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:39:30 UTC No. 16080015
>>16080000
The downside to massive engine clusters is the complexity of the internal plumbing of the vehicle along with needing more sophisticated guidance and control algorithms. Not so difficult with modern day CFD and raw computational power, granted.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:41:01 UTC No. 16080017
>>16078162
I just watched this while high.
I think I understand the universe now.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:17 UTC No. 16080026
>>16080014
Dunning-Krueger Effect, aka "I have a PhD (in some unrelated field) so I know better than you".
Motherfucker's mugshot should be in dictionaries when you look up that term.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:48:20 UTC No. 16080027
>>16080014
because of (you), (you)
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:49:11 UTC No. 16080029
>>16080011
Saturn V, in its original form (!) was not going to work for affordable mass production and high flight rate.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:49:18 UTC No. 16080030
>>16080026
Sorry, *Dunning-Kruger.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:49:36 UTC No. 16080031
>>16079656
Simple, just add a pusher plate and detonate a nuke in orbit, in a retrograde+radial in direction, to send them as fast as possible vertically
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:51:41 UTC No. 16080033
>>16080026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ngg
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:52:36 UTC No. 16080034
>>16080014
He aligned himself with the "everything Musk does is bad" stance, and is sticking to it until the bitter end. That plus any critical video on Musk he puts out still gets him decent-ish engagement
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:53:55 UTC No. 16080038
>>16080031
>rocket accordions in on itself
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:57:12 UTC No. 16080044
>>16078205
Sex
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 21:58:28 UTC No. 16080046
>>16080033
Dunning-Kruger is a hell of a drug.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:04:30 UTC No. 16080054
>>16080014
Musk never even heard of him. most likely never will. the whole thing is just sad
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:06:04 UTC No. 16080057
>>16079732
too soon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:06:38 UTC No. 16080058
>>16079994
the S-II does not need restarts and air-starting an RS-25 would have been baked into the specifications in this scenario, it's simply too divergent from our own timeline
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:07:51 UTC No. 16080060
>>16079016
booster gridfins will be 5 times bigger and starship will lose the flaps for gyro stabilizer
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:09:03 UTC No. 16080061
>>16080060
Flaps will probably stay. Gridfins might not change at all except for orientation and possibly folding like on F9.
Better RCS will come for sure.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:09:21 UTC No. 16080062
>>16080014
it's a flaw in human brains where when they establish a principle, sometimes it refuses to let go of that despite mounting evidence that it's wrong. 10 or 15 years ago, Musk had promised a ton and delivered on very little so it was valid to be skeptical about him back then. But since then he's accomplished a great deal and is obviously extremely competent at leading companies that produce innovative technology; he still overpromises, but his ambitions are so big that even when he underdelivers, it's still in the form of industry-leading products. People just can't let go of that principle they formed over a decade ago.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:12:05 UTC No. 16080065
>>16080003
Shaving a ton off of Saturn V with the Mod II specification (using 1970s computers instead of 1960s computers) doesn't make it not a Saturn V
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:14:05 UTC No. 16080068
>>16079732
>>16080057
oh shit that's the mriya, isn't it
fuck
I will never forgive those Russky bastards, TZD soon
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:20:34 UTC No. 16080077
https://x.com/prinamauro/status/176
>tfw no SS tile installation gf
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:21:24 UTC No. 16080079
>>16079811
Uninformed person here. What has a 2033 deadline?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:22:45 UTC No. 16080081
>>16078920
50 years ago (((americans))) hated the Poles the most but yes ever since the interference in Syria and now especially with Russia sabotaging (((their))) plans for the Ukraine they now hate Putin/the Russians with a burning intensity
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:23:08 UTC No. 16080083
>>16079313
if it wants to roll so bad then cover entire ship in tiles and let it roll
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:24:30 UTC No. 16080086
>>16080079
a lower deltaV Mars transit due to where the Earth and Mars are in their orbits
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:24:37 UTC No. 16080088
>>16080077
anon that's a child...
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:29:08 UTC No. 16080093
>>16079854
What are these protuberances? Is one an RTG? How many good goy points do you need to get before uncle Sam let's you have your own?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:31:51 UTC No. 16080096
>>16080093
Fuck forgot pic
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:33:19 UTC No. 16080099
>>16080096
Payloads on standardized payload interfaces. The cluster looks like imaging cubesats.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:33:26 UTC No. 16080100
>>16079854
interesting engine housing idea
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:33:27 UTC No. 16080101
I thought the deadline reference was for a Starlink 50% completion milestone (must be achieved within six years of a license grant), but neither Starlink V1 (2024) or V2 (2028) have deadlines in 2033
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:36:30 UTC No. 16080102
>>16080088
out of ten
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:38:11 UTC No. 16080106
>>16079016
Starship didnt accomplish anything more this launch than on IFT2.. It was clearly spinning out of contorl during the whole ballistic coast, so they have yet to prove getting to orbit safely. Ultimately starship has failed 5 seperate time during these 3 launcha attempts.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:38:34 UTC No. 16080107
>>16079646
You dont want that. If something explodes 'its best no habitat is nearby.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:41:12 UTC No. 16080113
>>16079752
max q is a meme
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:42:12 UTC No. 16080115
>>16080113
Redpilled take
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:44:48 UTC No. 16080120
>>16080106
that is some serious cope and seethe
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:44:54 UTC No. 16080121
>>16080107
How big of a shit storm (physically and politically) would it cause if there was a depot rud on orbit, with 1 or more starships?
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:50:28 UTC No. 16080128
>>16079047
Maybe V3 requires up-rated Raptor engines? If the rocket is made taller, doesn't each engine need more thrust to lift the column of mass above it? He mentions ~10kt thrust, which I believe would be a ~30% increase over the current level
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:51:36 UTC No. 16080133
>>16079458
V1 is also bad though
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:52:43 UTC No. 16080136
When will we start chucking big reactors into space? Starship will give us the ability to get where we want to go with a lot of stuff, but we need to start figuring out what we're gonna do when we get there. Any real colony will need a lot of power to get going and sustain itself. We are a long way off from being able to bootstrap a reactor from ISRU and I could honestly see Earthers being against that. Would a mars colony get the Iran treatment if they started up a local nuclear industry?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:53:05 UTC No. 16080137
>>16080126
normies about to shell out 10x for a plane ticket
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:53:37 UTC No. 16080138
>>16079047
Maybe v3 requires greatly improved Raptor engines that won't exist for quite a while? If the rocket is made taller, doesn't each engine need more thrust to lift the column of mass above it? He mentions ~10kt thrust, which I believe would be a ~30% increase over the current level
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 22:53:37 UTC No. 16080139
>>16080133
Normalfags don't know/care, it never got the same evil nazi weapon pop culture attention.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:00:19 UTC No. 16080145
>>16078804
>I wonder at what height it will be more practical to just build large diameter rings
Yesterday really. But now they are stuck because to make larger diameter rings is basically starting from scratch since they will need to remake stage zero and all the heat tiles etc.
Starship diameter is far too small because of the carbon fiber era where construction was a major problem. Musk should have made the call to double the diameter when they switched to stainless, but unfortunately he missed it and here we are.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:04:00 UTC No. 16080152
>>16080136
You're in fantasyland. A mars colony would never need to invent nuclear power from scratch, they would already have nuclear power delivered before humans even arrived. check out this NASA blueprint for a potential mars mission. fission is delivered first.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:06:22 UTC No. 16080155
>>16080144
1: Mir is not a spacecraft, but a space station
2: Mir wasn't launched in a single launch
So starship was and is the heaviest spacecraft ever launched to orbit (in one launch), and is by far the largest spacecraft to re-enter the atmosphere.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:07:30 UTC No. 16080156
>>16078955
Get rid of that shit name. ITS STARBASE NOW
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:09:32 UTC No. 16080159
>>16080152
lmao they want to refill a centaur stage from a starship?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:11:56 UTC No. 16080160
>>16080126
I think this might be a United Airlines problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:14:20 UTC No. 16080164
>>16080156
wow starship is very small compared to cybertruck!
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:21:50 UTC No. 16080175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh7
Here we go again
Starlink 6-44, T-60:00
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:25:45 UTC No. 16080181
>>16080152
That's my whole question. When will we start developing and deploying multi megawatt space based reactors? Obviously they'll need to be made and shipped from earth for the foreseeable future. The problem is that the only people who know how to make small, closed loop reactors are the people who make nuclear submarines. The navy probably won't fork one over to spacex or even Nasa, since that's top secret national security stuff
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:30:32 UTC No. 16080192
>>16080182
Cool
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:36:27 UTC No. 16080198
what happened with Starship in the end? wrong reentry attitude or?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:41:45 UTC No. 16080208
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:42:05 UTC No. 16080209
>>16080136
when NASA wants to start operating NEP transit vehicles
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:53:44 UTC No. 16080232
>>16079445
>it dropped out as the plasma thickened
Classic Berger. The SpaceX announcer specifically pointed out TDRS and Starlink cutting out at the same time as a likely indicator of the loss of vehicle. This might end up being true but it quite literally wasn't here.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:08:02 UTC No. 16080256
>>16078129
How many NK-33 engines does Russia have left for Soyuz-2.1v?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:11:15 UTC No. 16080260
>>16080182
Imagine where we could have been if not for that gay ass shuttle.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:20:20 UTC No. 16080274
>>16080152
>Earth to Mars = 650 day journey
>one Venus and two lunar flybys needed
absolutely ridiculous and nothing but torture for the 4 unfortunate astronauts suckered into subjecting themselves to this
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:42:06 UTC No. 16080301
>>16080144
>Starship S28
>100,000 kg
Not so fast, Ivan.
https://www.faa.gov/media/76836
>p. 45
>Some residual propellant (approximately 30,650 kg in the headers and approximately
70,000 kg in the mains) would remain in Starship.
AmeriGODS win again.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:35:32 UTC No. 16080366
>>16079088
Thx, needs to be edited to have the X X logo. Kinda showing it's age a bit.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:00:52 UTC No. 16080403
>>16079340
>Project Mercury engineers
I don't remember Project Mercury including a fully reusable rocket. I hail from the universe where Nelson Mandela did not die in prison but the fruit of the loom did have the cornucopia; which universe are you from?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:17:11 UTC No. 16080419
>>16079755
Because IPV4 will outlast the cockroaches at the end of time but we only have a finite number of addresses; your ISP puts thousands of people on the same ipv4 address. My guess is you share an ISP with the other poster. You can test this by getting banned and waiting to see him kvetch about it.