🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:41:00 UTC No. 16080207
things are looking up edition
previous /sfg/ >>16078129
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:42:45 UTC No. 16080210
What am I going to do with all these sunshades for the April eclipse
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:44:32 UTC No. 16080213
I wouldn't trust the safety of my eyes to something with a NASA logo on it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:48:29 UTC No. 16080220
>>16080136
When NASA wants to do a deep space mission using NEP.
>obligatory launch vehicle
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:49:03 UTC No. 16080221
Id rate this a low C higher B tier thread
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:49:38 UTC No. 16080223
>>16080220
liquid boosters when
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:49:47 UTC No. 16080225
>We can feel and hear it in our houses in Brownsville, about 20 miles from the launch site. On clear days you can see the launch as well. POWER
Man, people are not gonna put up with high cadence launches of Starship neither in Texas nor Florida, I can feel it
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:50:04 UTC No. 16080226
>>16080221
Low B high C*
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:52:06 UTC No. 16080229
After yesterday's failure, does spaceX even have a path forward anymore?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:54:34 UTC No. 16080233
I'm sorry anon but no Trump allowed
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:54:42 UTC No. 16080234
BRILLIANT PEBBLES
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:54:53 UTC No. 16080236
>>16080229
No. All that remains for them is to turn 360 degrees and walk away
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:55:13 UTC No. 16080237
>>16080223
They work fine on ksp
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:56:10 UTC No. 16080238
>>16080223
Using what engines?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:57:07 UTC No. 16080240
>>16080229
how does it feel to be dumb?
Anonymous at Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:59:01 UTC No. 16080243
>>16080238
strap two shuttles to the sides and call them flyback boosters
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:00:01 UTC No. 16080245
>>16080220
I hope someone at NASA can convince the admins that we need one on the moon. Lunar nights are long and cold. Sadly it'll probably only be considered after the Chinese stick one up their.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:00:28 UTC No. 16080247
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh7
T-20:00, hopefully
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:04:00 UTC No. 16080251
>>16080225
They said the same thing about airports and railway stations
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:09:11 UTC No. 16080258
How many NK-33 engines does Russia have left for Soyuz-2.1v?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:10:32 UTC No. 16080259
>>16080251
Can't hear either from 20 miles away
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:15:45 UTC No. 16080267
>>16080259
You can if there's an approach path or railway near your house
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:16:49 UTC No. 16080268
>>16080267
Delulu
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:18:23 UTC No. 16080271
>>16080268
Happens when you grow up being doused in avgas exhaust
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:18:44 UTC No. 16080272
phew, seems like SpaceX fixed their erector clamp problem. T-2m for next Starlink launch.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:21:35 UTC No. 16080277
liftoffu
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:26:03 UTC No. 16080284
>>16080253
is the flickering in the clouds real?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:28:02 UTC No. 16080285
>>16080278
When we will see a nighttime Starship??
>127k watching
Is that normal for a starlink?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:28:04 UTC No. 16080286
>>16080284
Those are soundwaves, yes. Like in old WW2 films of explosions.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:30:27 UTC No. 16080289
19th safe landing. lets see if we make it back to port this time
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:31:29 UTC No. 16080291
>>16080258
In 2013 NPO Energomash said that they had 20 of the original NK-33s left in storage and that they could get 10 flight capable units out of those parts, but there have been 12 launches since then. In 2014 OAO Kuznetsov said they had restarted some part of the NK-33 production line so the current 2-1v are probably flying on a mix of old and new components.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:35:59 UTC No. 16080295
>>16080289
youre so sad for following this failed rocket. SpaceX promised full and rapid reusability and then they jsut foget it nd move on to the exact same grift with a larger vehicle. sad.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:39:26 UTC No. 16080299
>>16080289
F9 would have to explode to make me care about it again
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:45:10 UTC No. 16080303
>>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 00:45:16 UTC No. 16080304
>>16080295
>>16080299
I am reveling in the fact that these launches are becoming so routine only train spotting tier autists follow them. For those of us who waited years for the shuttle's returns to flight, this is cool
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:45:57 UTC No. 16080305
>>16080207
hey OP, if I could offer you some constructive criticism: only stage with pictures of trump if they're topical or nothing more interesting is currently happening.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 00:55:32 UTC No. 16080314
>>16080307
ass first engines got fucked
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:05:22 UTC No. 16080321
>>16080207
should I go see the solar eclipse in person? it's ~1 hour train ride away from me for ~15% of the way into the totality zone
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:09:24 UTC No. 16080329
>>16080308
Time to sacrifice another whistleblower to the dark gods of aviation
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:10:46 UTC No. 16080331
>>16080321
100% totality or nothing. I drove to bumble fuck nowhere SC and watched it on the side of the road in 2019
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:14:41 UTC No. 16080337
>>16080331
the place I'm looking at going to is 100% totality according to this site, i'm not sure if being this far off from the center line matters much though
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:19:21 UTC No. 16080344
>>16080337
You'll get the full effect, but the time of complete totality will be just a little less. Idk what the traffic situation in Canada will be, but you're probably better off there than trying to cross the border that day - it will probably be a shitshow
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:22:54 UTC No. 16080345
Hi /sfg/ Do you remember me? im the "when are we leaving this planet bros" guy again, yes, last time i said im never going back here, but after the IFT3 I couldnt help it. I just want to tell you guys about my life cause I consider you my friends at this point. After going to therapy theses last months, I accept interstellar travel is just impossible and my life got better. My psychologist told me I should be one with the nature, so I start walking barefoot on grass, hugging threes and going to parks and rivers. i dont want to go to mars, or visiting other planets or stars anymore, because I realized theres no place as beautiful as our planet home in the universe and how lucky I am to be here. Now im not obsessed with space travel anymore, and im happier than ever. Thanks you guys for making me see how stupid I was
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:25:17 UTC No. 16080347
>>16080345
Imagine that feeling, but in a generation ship otw to a distant solar system. The stars are our birthright, and they will be ours.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:27:15 UTC No. 16080349
>>16080337
Probably loses you like ~1 minute but you'll still have almost 3 mins. There are websites that tell you how much time it'll be in your specific location.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:27:25 UTC No. 16080350
>>16080347
>generation ship
whatever makes it out of it will have no resemblance to primates
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:29:26 UTC No. 16080355
>>16080345
no one gives a shit
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:30:14 UTC No. 16080357
>>16080353
Nice porno name.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:31:18 UTC No. 16080358
>>16080350
>we won't have a flying machine for a million years
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:31:54 UTC No. 16080359
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:33:36 UTC No. 16080363
>>16080353
god I hope IFT-4 is able to make it through reentry,
the kino will be unmatched
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:34:34 UTC No. 16080364
>>16080345
>psychologist convinces anon to give up on space and hug trees and shit
very sad. sadder still that you're proud of it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:39:13 UTC No. 16080370
>>16080358
>>16080350
Though I do agree that we should wantonly GMO ourselves to suit whatever non earth habitats we find ourselves in until we eventually turn into the Flood from halo
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:46:22 UTC No. 16080378
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:51:40 UTC No. 16080386
>>16080314
i bet the engines took the heat better than the dorsal skin did. columbia's engines survived the breakup and ended up making craters in the ground.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 01:58:13 UTC No. 16080400
>>16080393
yeah they have
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:00:50 UTC No. 16080402
>>16080393
Did you pull that pepe from your department's image server? kek.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:08:36 UTC No. 16080408
>>16080400
Thanks, I couldn't find these images anywhere
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:19:58 UTC No. 16080423
>>16080420
this actually looks like vfx you would see from a high-budget Hollywood movie
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:22:10 UTC No. 16080425
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:28:52 UTC No. 16080431
>>16080423
turns out nature has the best special effects of all
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:31:11 UTC No. 16080437
>>16080423
most cool things do
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:34:40 UTC No. 16080440
>>16080437
No, this one just looks "real" but the starship one has a cinematic vibe.
I think it's the reflection of the plasma and the earth on the ship.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:36:35 UTC No. 16080445
>>16080431
analog is just better
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:37:06 UTC No. 16080447
>>16080440
Also the angle
This shot is from First Man
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:43:12 UTC No. 16080454
>>16080337
I just checked the map a couple of hours ago, once you're in the totality stripe, you don't have to go very far in to get to 2 minutes.
[spoiler]The Alamo will be just outside of totality.[/spoiler]
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 02:50:43 UTC No. 16080461
is the crew version of Starship also gonna roll to its side during ascent?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:03:41 UTC No. 16080474
>>16080461
Why not? Decreases drag a lot.
Since you aoa is in pitch.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:07:01 UTC No. 16080478
>>16080474
Yeah, but I got confused since every animation I've seen of Starship's launch shows it with the heatshield up or down, but never to the side.
I didn't even realize that it rolled like that until CSI Starbase pointed it out in his recent video.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:08:33 UTC No. 16080479
>>16080478
Well it's the lowest drag position.
Also drag on the top of the stack is really bad for controls.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:09:56 UTC No. 16080481
>>16080479
Yeah I know from trying out inline shuttle designs in KSP lol
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:16:42 UTC No. 16080487
We. Are. Going.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:17:49 UTC No. 16080490
>>16080308
The seething from Boing fanboys is amazing
>t-the plane was 25 years old
>ITS UNITEDS FAULT THE PLANE IS NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED!
Will they blame NASA if starliner fucks up?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:35:03 UTC No. 16080507
Thinking about how you would design the crew compartment on a mars transit starship.
To start of with, the space is totally reasonable.
There is constant hemming and hawing about crew mental health living in space for prolonged periods of time in research spaces, however the reality is that ever since the introduction of nuclear powered submarines, these kind of mission durations in a confined space are fairly routine.
6 months underwater with 150 crew has been done, 4 months with 20 in a similar space will be fine.
The primary design driver for crew ergonomics will likely be radiation mitigation.
The ship will need a radiation bunker that can hold all of the crew in the event of a solar flare.
I think it would make sense if this also functioned as the crew sleeping area as this is really the low hanging fruit for dose reduction; 1/3 of the time your crew are completely stationary and can be easily shielded.
This area would likely be at the core of the ship and would use supplies like water, food and mission systems for protection.
One thing to consider is that you don't necessarily need as many beds as you need crew, on military vessels crew will operate on separate shifts and actually share beds in turns, this can potentially reduce the space required for sleeping.
Contrary to some flashy proposals, the access chute or stairway between levels would go up the side of the ship as crew would ultimately spend little time in this area and it could be the least shielded part of the ship.
The takeoff and landing positions could also be located somewhere without much protection as the crew will rarely use them, potentially up at the nose of the ship.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:44:36 UTC No. 16080517
>>16080507
How will they deal with cum in space?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:50:58 UTC No. 16080523
>>16080420
imagine the kino footage we'll get when spacex manages to reenter this thing without it tumbling over itself like a drunken sailor.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:52:18 UTC No. 16080524
>>16080517
just eat it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:54:57 UTC No. 16080529
>>16080361
Old
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 03:59:57 UTC No. 16080536
>>16080507
All depends on crew size. With small crew, you can have relatively luxurious accommodations with plenty of room for amenities and rad shielding. I'd think the initial voyage would have 1 crew lander with like 5-10 crew max, and at least 1 or 2 more supply landers with stuff they can set up on the surface/use as back up return vehicle/ hold enough supplies to hold out for another transfer window if they can return for some reason
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:00:59 UTC No. 16080537
>>16080517
Fed to quail chicks
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:02:09 UTC No. 16080538
>>16080523
if they can get that thing to re-enter with continuous live footage all the way, I will have such a boner
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:05:00 UTC No. 16080544
>>16080481
post your inline shuttle designs, anon
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:05:34 UTC No. 16080546
>>16080240
Saving this. I remember hearing 1 Starship a day Elon you better god damn deliver
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:06:35 UTC No. 16080549
>>16080544
>>16080481
Fuck off skittle lovers
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:07:53 UTC No. 16080552
>>16080549
skittles are nasty-ass fruity trash, now post your fucking KSP shuttles
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:21:12 UTC No. 16080564
Boeing deserves to get assfucked by the FAA for longstanding institutional issues, but most of this current drama is just confirmation bias.
These kinds of minor incidents happen a lot, they just don't typically make the news, because usually people don't find them interesting.
It's actually incredible and kind of disappointing to see how normies have no self awareness about this kind of thing.
It's important to be aware of this phenomena when we are more responsible than ever for finding our own information about the world.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:28:19 UTC No. 16080573
>>16080240
is this a reference to Josephs dreams? eleven ears of corn and all that?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:29:21 UTC No. 16080576
>>16080564
>These kinds of minor incidents happen a lot
The don't, I've read all NTSB aviation incident reports for over a decade as part of my job and what been happening recently is unusual and excessive
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:30:47 UTC No. 16080578
>>16080358
the joke's on you
that was written 20 million years ago
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:33:23 UTC No. 16080580
>>16080517
just cum on the girl
after that it's her problem
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:33:46 UTC No. 16080581
>>16080328
I think what we're looking at is a digital noise (it goes as a horizontal line across the screen)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:39:43 UTC No. 16080585
>>16080328
Uhh does this mean there's propellant leaking into the cargo bay?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 04:42:35 UTC No. 16080588
>>16080585
It's moist air that got carried up to space.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:17:37 UTC No. 16080613
>>16080386
would painting the shuttle external tank (or at least the shuttle facing half of it) in this have prevented foam strikes?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:20:04 UTC No. 16080615
>>16080613
Yes
It would also destroy the payload capacity
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:23:57 UTC No. 16080618
>>16080613
foam strikes happened on sts-1 too. you can't really tell because nasa never really got a good handle on the dynamics of foam falling off the tank, but i bet paint flakes hitting the tiles would've caused more problems than it prevented in the long run.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:23:57 UTC No. 16080619
>>16080393
you don't even take high res pictures of the moon from earth. you need to take them from lunar orbiting spacecraft like the LRO
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:40:47 UTC No. 16080641
>>16080386
Columbia breaking up is always so morbidly fascinating to me, but its taboo so I can only discuss it on an Indonesian carpet cleaning forum.
What happened to the astronauts? Were they killed instantly? By what? Did they ignite and their limbs break off?
Reading the stories of the people finding astronaut remains in the recovery effort implied that they were recognisable/identifiable to some degree. Were their faces intact or was their flesh burnt up?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:41:22 UTC No. 16080643
>>16080618
>but i bet paint flakes hitting the tiles would've caused more problems than it prevented in the long run.
you really believe this? the only time they really got in trouble was when a multi-pound foam chunk greater in size than a briefcase struck the wing leading edge
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:46:54 UTC No. 16080651
>>16080641
https://www.asma.org/asma/media/asm
this has the answers you seek, it's a good read
basically they were rendered unconscious very very quickly due to being exposed to near vacuum with no suits or helmets on
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:48:58 UTC No. 16080656
>>16080615
Kek, this old oft-spoke retardation, if a few hundred pounds of anything could kill your payload capability than you never should have built the thing in the first place (and it wouldn't have). Personally I think a light weight but strong net, worn like a tight fitting sock over the top half of the tank, and woven of kevlar thread with a sub-6 inch cell size would have kept the damn foam from shedding "big enough to be dangerous" pieces onto the orbiter.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:50:47 UTC No. 16080659
Why are there so many doomer headlines saying that starship was lost? No shit it was gonna get destroyed one way or another? Does SECO not matter at all? Any other vehicle would have declared that a complete success but I guess the goal posts have to get moved because it's a Musk company and he sometimes says things that makes journalists look stupid.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 05:58:21 UTC No. 16080666
>>16080656
>Space Shuttle, but wearing stockings
hot
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:08:48 UTC No. 16080673
>>16080666
thank you, Satan
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:23:50 UTC No. 16080683
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:29:04 UTC No. 16080689
>>16080461
>the crew version of Starship
Thats never gonna happen
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:31:58 UTC No. 16080691
>>16080229
Apparently not. Sad really.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:38:46 UTC No. 16080694
>>16080619
200m/pixel from Palomar, but 5m/pixel with the VLA.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 06:45:06 UTC No. 16080697
anyone has the "water tower" collage?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:05:11 UTC No. 16080709
>>16080552
Take your redditroon meme and gtfo tourist
>>16080564
Damage control kikes in full force I see. Your company failed 33 of 89 audits, and FAA directly said "it wont be back to business as usual." You cant escape this situation that YOU brought upon yourselves, stop trying to make it seem less than it really is because its not working.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:23:55 UTC No. 16080725
>>16080507
nice insight. the psychological environment of 200+ people on a sub isnt exactly the same as a dozen people on a starship. however the crew going to mars would have the advantage of be able to send messages and vid-dox to their friends and family at home, which I don't think nuclear submarine crew are allowed to do because of the stealth.
ladder anywhere but the middle also makes sense, aswell as crew quarters in the central.
Here's my quick take on how a single deck could be organised.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:35:19 UTC No. 16080731
>>16080689
you mean starship will never get off the pad? too many engines firing at once, it'll be the N1 all over again
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:35:29 UTC No. 16080732
I wish to know the cause of the booster's failure
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:40:10 UTC No. 16080736
>>16080253
The rocket exhaust doesn't do anything to the cloud that's how you know it's fake.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:44:53 UTC No. 16080742
>>16080732
Plumbing or flight controller issue during boostback results in the booster's burn ending too soon. Booster ends up dropping in a near vertical orientation and runs into severe wind shear at high mach. Booster is put into a roll moment that the control loop and flight surfaces aren't able to compensate for. The boostback issues and roll oscillation combine to result in far too few engines being in their start box and two of the three flame out before the booster meets its high speed demise.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:55:31 UTC No. 16080750
>>16080651
neat. I didn't know their bodies were flying through the air outside the shuttle after it broke up.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 07:56:39 UTC No. 16080751
>>16080742
I noticed the booster was oscillating before the engines even turned on. And when the engines did turn on their distribution was asymmetrical
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:00:37 UTC No. 16080754
Just how automated are the Starship missions? Can they override something if they think the computer is fucking it up, or do they just program in all the possibilities they can think of and hope they didn't forget anything?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:04:38 UTC No. 16080760
>>16080689
hey if they have to launch Dragons with crew up to single-launch 250 ton stations then so be it, or mate two together and make a 500 ton station even better
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:05:40 UTC No. 16080762
>>16080691
>It's over.
KEK
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:07:28 UTC No. 16080764
>>16080725
no sub has ever had 200+ crew, you could have said 100+ and been correct
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:08:46 UTC No. 16080767
>>16080754
almost entirely automated.
here's a fun fact: F9 is programmed to know the location of important buildings around the cape. So if it is really going off course on landing, it will attempt to miss like the VAB.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:14:20 UTC No. 16080770
>>16080767
so what are all the people in the control room doing?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:31:33 UTC No. 16080784
>>16080770
browsing sfg
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:34:07 UTC No. 16080787
>>16080770
enjoying kino stream
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 08:35:40 UTC No. 16080790
>>16080767
>mfw it knows the location of FAA HQ
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:09:18 UTC No. 16080816
>>16080794
translation?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:16:05 UTC No. 16080822
>>16080207
so, how "successful" was this launch with regards to reaching orbit?
in full expendable mode starship could theoretically launch actual payloads next week?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:19:03 UTC No. 16080823
>>16080822
We don't know how well payload door worked and if it's uncontrollably spinning I don't think they could deploy payload.
We might see dummy payload next flight though.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:22:47 UTC No. 16080829
>>16080816
According to someone on Xitter:
>It all comes down to clusters!
>30-combo cluster beats everything!
https://x.com/johnchen40904/status/
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:35:36 UTC No. 16080854
>>16080822
it did reach (almost) orbit as intended, but it was tumbling all the way. they need two things: fix reaction control system and prove raptor relight in space. they wont put ship in actual orbit before they can deorbit it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 09:50:48 UTC No. 16080882
>>16080849
they don't exist dumb anime poster
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:44:22 UTC No. 16080967
>>16080945
I would guess that hydraulics can theoretically be just as accurate given enough time, gearing, and money, but as a practical matter, I think they're hampered by not having any equivalent to the electrical stepper motor, by which rotation can be commanded in precise, discrete steps.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 10:55:48 UTC No. 16080978
>>16080420
SpaceX has the heavenly mandate. There are goblins out there trying to stop them. But they land the boosters, win the contracts, win HLS with an interim NASA leadership team, and now Starship feels like it’s practically cruising its way into being operational.
SS still has a lot to prove but I imagine we are going to see a lot of Starship launches in the next five, six, seven years.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:15:41 UTC No. 16081006
how do we punish people that program AI algorithms to post on anonymous online forums?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:19:34 UTC No. 16081009
>>16080709
Not my company, the point is that they would have failed audits 5 or 10 years ago as well.
The FAA have been giving Boeing the soft touch for a long time now and they may finally toughen up which is good.
This news cycle is just a typical revolving door though, you can see it in how people use it to confirm whatever pre-existing bias they had (society is collapsing because of Woke/capitalism/diversity ect)
>>16080576
Surely there is an actual quantifiable change in the mishap rate you can cite?
Genuinely interested to see.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:19:56 UTC No. 16081010
>>16081006
Do you have proof of this happening or are you just asking hypothetically
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:26:16 UTC No. 16081013
>>16080258
Isn't it being replaced by the RD-193? It's like the second best engine in the world after the Raptor.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:29:33 UTC No. 16081016
>>16080666
>not showing her naked breasts from having the cargo doors open during orbit
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:36:30 UTC No. 16081020
I don't know shit about cargo doors and cargo in general, but isn't that door too small? I mean, surely it'll be fine to let small Starlink satellites being pushed out line a whore pushing out anal beads, but it doesn't seem practical for bigass payloads, like, I dunno, a fully realized JWST
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:37:18 UTC No. 16081021
>>16080770
they're there to report when the RUD happens
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:39:05 UTC No. 16081022
>>16081020
Have you even watched a single Starlink deployment? They're flatpaks. That's why all the references to "pez dispenser".
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:42:25 UTC No. 16081025
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 11:52:18 UTC No. 16081035
>>16081022
he's talking about non starlink payloads
>>16081020
it's unlikely there's anything that is being designed around starship's payload bay volume/dimensions that would need to be launched within the next couple years, by which time the whole system should be more mature and able to accommodate a change to something like the shuttle's payload bay doors, or the nosecone flipping off or something
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:11:38 UTC No. 16081051
the turbopump is the heart of the engine
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:29:14 UTC No. 16081071
I wonder if it's too late to buy airbus stock.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:35:35 UTC No. 16081080
he can't getting away with it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:41:50 UTC No. 16081088
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blW
new manufacturing video dropped
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:42:50 UTC No. 16081089
>>16081088
not spaceflight
gb2/biz/
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:45:07 UTC No. 16081091
Guesses on IFT-2?
I'm going to guess late May
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:47:26 UTC No. 16081093
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:48:03 UTC No. 16081094
>>16081092
China offering this man 10 000$ for the tile.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:48:28 UTC No. 16081095
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:49:06 UTC No. 16081097
any potential for cost reduction by building Starship out of reinforced concrete instead of steel?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:50:56 UTC No. 16081098
>>16081091
I'm guessing it already happened
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:51:18 UTC No. 16081099
>>16081022
Pez aren't really flat though. They're more like Pogs.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:52:05 UTC No. 16081103
>>16081092
>ecological disaster
How? I don't see the forbidden oreo's entering the foodchain.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:53:09 UTC No. 16081105
https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/sta
this one was particularly aggravating, I wonder if he is actually this retarded or if its just a way to drive engagement
with CSS I'm pretty sure its just unadulterated EDS, but with thunderfoot it sometimes seems like he is being disingenious and pretending to be more retarded than he actually is
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:54:05 UTC No. 16081107
>>16081105
>$3bn of tax payer money
Where did he even pull that shit from?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:54:50 UTC No. 16081110
>>16081107
HLS award was 2.9bil
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:56:05 UTC No. 16081113
>literal garage tier door gets stuck open
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:57:16 UTC No. 16081115
>>16081110
They didn't launch a HLS vehicle, did they?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 12:59:27 UTC No. 16081121
>>16081115
I'm not saying it makes sense, but that is where the number comes from
he brings it up multiple times in replies
https://twitter.com/thunderf00t/sta
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:00:38 UTC No. 16081123
>>16081093
I don't know shit about tiles but I like how it looks like polystyrene from that side
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:01:10 UTC No. 16081124
>>16081121
Well, he is a fucking retard when it comes to space. I'll be sure to ask him if I ever need a baking soda chemical reaction question answered or whatever the fuck his thesis is about.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:01:30 UTC No. 16081125
>>16081114
does he really have 3000 citations?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:02:08 UTC No. 16081126
Anyone (specifically Thundertard; though there are many others) who argues Musk’s timelines are off by a few years / SLS worked “first time” compared to Starship is either a bad actor and/or a complete and utter nincompoop
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:02:19 UTC No. 16081127
>>16081125
At least he claims to. I don't care to go fucking look because I am not a chemist, like he is.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:03:33 UTC No. 16081128
>>16081114
>musk is launching reusable rockets intp space while tendert0e makes youtube videos
lel
>papers
in these days of junk publishing that means nothing more than something to wrap your doobage in
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:03:45 UTC No. 16081129
>>16081126
SLS "worked" first time because they spent 3 decades computer modeling a minimum viable conservative rocket based on 60 year old parts.
And I'm tired of pretending otherwise. Boomerspace can suck my dick.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:08:54 UTC No. 16081133
It's either keep exploding rockets or spend 30 years making one that would end up being at least 10 times more expensive
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:10:07 UTC No. 16081135
>>16081133
or just build a good rocket that works in 2 years like Germans did with Saturn V
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:10:08 UTC No. 16081136
>>16081092
>>16081103
Maybe he should have read the environmental assessment.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:10:44 UTC No. 16081138
>>16080225
They are free to move.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:11:50 UTC No. 16081140
>>16081136
I'm tempted to go toss a car battery in the ocean now just to spite that fag.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:14:11 UTC No. 16081143
>>16080240
I don't enjoy it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:14:14 UTC No. 16081144
>>16081114
Somebody mug him, it'd be funny.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:21:51 UTC No. 16081151
>>16081136
>residual fuel
it's all cryogenics, what didn't vaporize immediately would just freeze the water until it evaporated, this is how you know it's all concern trolling
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:26:21 UTC No. 16081155
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:27:25 UTC No. 16081156
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:34:15 UTC No. 16081163
>>16081138
Not only are they free to move, they will be subsidized by rapidly increasing real estate prices.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:35:30 UTC No. 16081164
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCw
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:36:19 UTC No. 16081166
>>16080207
Is there any way to make a space probe within the solar system to generate a signal which appear to be from another starsystem many lightyears away? I guess it can be always triangulated but i dont really know anything about it, is there a way?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:36:32 UTC No. 16081167
>>16081163
but muh gentrification
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:37:18 UTC No. 16081168
>>16080225
>high cadence kino
sounds like something people will want to pay extra for
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:37:45 UTC No. 16081169
>>16081144
I don't recommend it. I already tried and all he had in his pockets was a guide to local gay bathhouses, a leather gimp mask and a so-called chastity cage. Still, I had a good time that weekend.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:39:30 UTC No. 16081173
>>16081020
this shit has been floating around the internet for years now. they will use different "shell" designs for the ship based on what its deploying
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:39:35 UTC No. 16081174
MY TAX DOLLARS!!!
FELON MUSK!!!!!!!
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:40:33 UTC No. 16081175
This is a cool idea - basically a reverse railgun in LEO to brake rockets into orbit. It doesn't seem to require magic materials or any tech that doesn't already exist, unlike tethers/elevators/etc
https://medium.com/@rokomijic/the-s
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:40:36 UTC No. 16081176
>>16081166
not really since if its orbiting the sun the signal source would be in motion. this would be apparent from doppler shift even if it was only a brief signal.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:41:15 UTC No. 16081179
>>16081021
After all this time I'm just now noticing there was one moteor not firing.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:42:21 UTC No. 16081182
>>16081173
Yeah, the pez dispenser was tested first because starlinks are apparently the first non-inert payloads.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:43:23 UTC No. 16081185
>>16081166
There was a novel where part of the premise was a signal which seemed to originate from outside the solar system was actually only half a light year away.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_O
>>16081176
Yeah, it has to be far enough away that you wouldn't notice the parallax. (And they would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling belters.)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:43:42 UTC No. 16081186
>>16081175
How is it powered and cooled?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:46:24 UTC No. 16081189
>>16081175
Is there a chance the track could bend?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:47:43 UTC No. 16081194
>>16081114
>le dunning-kruger!
>his scientific qualifications only prove dunning-kruger since the more you think you know the less you actually know!
What if he said "so wheres you PhD in rocket science?", how do you respond to that without sounding like the biggest dunning-kruger of them all?
>err well I have been following the situation closely for a few years and ....
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:49:12 UTC No. 16081196
>>16081186
it says "solar array" right there
>fucking electromagnets
I think the hard part is getting lined up to it to start. I guess the payload goes through it like a railgun.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:49:28 UTC No. 16081197
>>16081186
Braking and cooling are passive, re-boost via solar panels + Lorentz force against Earth's magnetic field
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:49:53 UTC No. 16081198
>>16081169
It's less about the haul and more about making a smug man cry.
>>16081180
"PEZ" is a branded name, isn't it?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:51:54 UTC No. 16081201
>>16081175
tethers don't require magic materials and Starship is approaching or exceeding the theoretical $/kg to orbit that a space elevator would do
Starship is so good it is basically making space elevators obsolete (even if it was possible to build one on earth)
this and tethers might make stuff launched with Starship or a subsequent system even cheaper though, you would need to launch quite a bit of propellant just to keep this thing in orbit, but I guess the gain is that the station keeping engines on this thing would ultimately have better ISP than a Starship uppter stage?
so with large enough scale it would make $/kg cheaper (or perhaps you could even launch propellants from the moon with mass drivers to fuel these)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:52:12 UTC No. 16081202
>>16080736
The exhaust is pretty much exerting all of its force straight down. The waves you see are just from sound.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:55:06 UTC No. 16081206
>>16081175
>requires additional power generation equipment and large magnets on a spacecraft that already has fuel, tanks and engines
>requires megatons of completely inert mass in orbit
delightfully counterintuitive
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:55:20 UTC No. 16081207
>>16081197
how would you get extra speed from that? you can use the magnetic field to rotate or slow down, but for propulsion?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:56:11 UTC No. 16081208
>>16081154
>Starship will be on Mars winthin 5 years
Damn it was supposed to be there 4 year ago though.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:56:57 UTC No. 16081209
>>16081175
Uh... how does the track hold itself up if it's connected to the ground at one end?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:57:56 UTC No. 16081210
>>16081166
As you say it can be triangulated.
>>16081176
but you wouldn't know the original frequency so how would you know it's doppler shifted
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:58:22 UTC No. 16081212
>>16081180
what's with the shitty undersampled render. just use eevee if you can't spare the cpu time
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:58:44 UTC No. 16081213
>>16081209
It's not connected to the ground. They claim they'll use ion thrusters
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 13:59:06 UTC No. 16081216
>>16081209
its not connected to the ground and apparently it uses ion thrusters (or some other high efficiency thruster)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:00:41 UTC No. 16081219
>>16081210
I guess if it was a one off and didn't change over time you wouldn't notice the doppler shift. but any alien message need to be prolonged to ensure it wasnt reflecting off a satellite. also it would need to be coming from a particular star, which nothing orbiting the sun would be able to hold.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:01:38 UTC No. 16081221
>>16080420
Looking at this actually turned me on.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:01:43 UTC No. 16081222
>>16081209
american reading comprehension everybody
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:01:54 UTC No. 16081223
>>16081213
>>16081216
Oh, I see. Imagine having to launch perfectly with your theoretical magnet-rocket to catch that thing.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:02:04 UTC No. 16081224
>>16081194
>how do you respond
I'm not running around on youtube and twitter pretending to be an expert on something I'm not, nor am I trying argument to authority with a degree that's not applicable.
This is a man who stated on stream that F9 ran on methane and was basically a redstone rocket.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:02:55 UTC No. 16081225
>>16081207
like this. or just use ion thrusters
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:11:02 UTC No. 16081229
>>16081175
Are you telling me that we could get a 10x increase in efficiency by simply building a 150 km long self powered orbital megastructure and subjecting passengers to lethal accelerations?
Why hasn't anyone done it yet?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:18:48 UTC No. 16081234
>>16081154
>starship on mars in 5 years
so they're aiming for 2029? it actually sounds legit.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:20:20 UTC No. 16081237
>>16081175
>ASI will eat us
the what now
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:21:07 UTC No. 16081239
>>16081237
Artificial SuperIntelligence
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:22:03 UTC No. 16081243
>>16081237
Augmented Sexual Intelligence
we will make AI to fuck, but it will fuck us instead
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:31:35 UTC No. 16081252
>>16081201
>Starship is approaching or exceeding the theoretical $/kg to orbit that a space elevator would do
if space elevator $/kg estimations were done the way elon estimates starship $/kg then the theoretical cost would be 0.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:33:31 UTC No. 16081255
>>16081252
$10/kg is starting to look more and more probable >>16081161
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:35:52 UTC No. 16081259
>>16080709
I've been posting space shuttles in launch threads since before you knew /sci/ talked about space
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:37:33 UTC No. 16081261
>>16081255
>One way space trips starting at $699.99 USD
Starship is crazy the more I learn about it. With it's payload capacity, reusability, and price it seems like I could live to see a noon base or even a mars base.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:37:44 UTC No. 16081262
>>16081225
TRL of this contraption?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:37:49 UTC No. 16081263
>>16081261
yes
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:40:46 UTC No. 16081268
>>16081261
>One way space trip
This is all I've ever wanted
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:44:17 UTC No. 16081271
>>16081261
you can't just multiply the cost per kg by the weight of a person to find the cost of a ticket. there's not a chance in hell of fitting 200 tons of people in starship, even before all the life support and structural overheads to transport humans.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:45:01 UTC No. 16081272
>>16081243
Our only hope for surviving the AI apocalypse is that the super intelligence is female and likes to suck dick
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:46:31 UTC No. 16081274
>>16081271
transatlantic_slaver_starship_bluep
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:48:09 UTC No. 16081275
>>16081255
feasible and probable aren't the same thing
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:49:58 UTC No. 16081279
>>16081022
I'm now imagining a JWST-like telescope but instead of folding, it's assembled in orbit with the mirror segments being delivered from a Starship door.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 14:59:37 UTC No. 16081287
>>16081154
I can believe it, it just necessarily won't be in one piece
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:00:36 UTC No. 16081291
There are 2 big problems that no one is talking about
1. Payload doors
This one is obvious, because instead of making one, universal type of Starship for cargo, they decided to make a Starlink dispenser type, which also encountered structural problems. First two Ships had their doors welded shut and next got a lot of reinforcement. This makes you think, how are they going to solve the issue of one huge payload door? Not even a single prototype for bigger payloads has been constructed yet.
2. Ship and Booster catching
It seems like a task that's barely possible, compared to "normal" landing. Barge or a pad are large enough to allow a margin of mistake and if you watch Starlink launches, there are still many cases when the Booster ends up off-center. Now, SH has an advantage of ability to hover, allowing for more precise landing but your fuel is very limited and your target is very small. It has to hover perfectly in place while chopsticks move quickly enough to attach themselves. What we have seen so far is that chopsticks are very slow and even a simple stacking can take 3 hours. One small mistake and it would be a farewell to arms.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:02:59 UTC No. 16081294
>>16081291
>a farewell to arms
heh
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:03:30 UTC No. 16081295
>>16080641
They were only strapped in at the waist, their necks and backs broke immediately after depressurisation
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:07:22 UTC No. 16081301
>>16081291
1)having different cargo starships is not a big problem, they are going to be launching so many starlinks dedicated vehicles could make sense
they need to make a specialized moonship, propellant ship and depot anyway, a mars ship and probably one for deep space missions
so you have a bunch of special ships already
and launching their internal satellites while they iterate on the ship is so much easier than trying to negotiate some commercial payloads with a rocket that is still under rapid development
2) that is why you want to launch starlinks while you iterate
they are going to do water landings until they are very sure they can actually land on the chopsticks
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:19:32 UTC No. 16081316
>>16081295
*oops meant to say one crew member was strapped in at the waist
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:20:43 UTC No. 16081318
I wouldn't be surprised if we see boosters with landing legs coming down on droneships and pads, since getting the hang of the chopstick catch could take a while. There's plenty of mass budget to go around (send up 80 Starlinks instead of 100 if they have to), but booster production (or, more specifically, the Raptors going in to the booster) could well be the bottleneck on launches, and launch cadence is what determines how fast they can iterate and learn; they might as well get the booster back while they practice landings and then reuse it. This virtuous cycle (reliability and performance leading to reusability leading to higher cadence leading to more learning leading to better reliability and performance) is exactly what's made Falcon 9 into such a good rocket. The chopstick catch can be revived whenever they've got the hang of making precise enough landings - and, more importantly, the confidence that they're reliably precise enough not to destroy all the GSE.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:21:39 UTC No. 16081319
>>16081291
1. structural issues arise with the pez door because it's very wide, basically the width of the ship. Shuttle style doors that aren't as wide but are much taller would likely be structurally stronger, but wouldn't have the width required to launch the big ass v2 starlinks
2. it will be a while before starship is launching with anything near its rated payload to LEO, so there should be a comfortable margin of fuel to hover for as long as required. The chopsticks basically don't move at all during the catch. That being said I wouldn't be surprised if they end up putting legs on one or both of ship/SH
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:21:40 UTC No. 16081320
>>16081301
I wonder how big would be the mass penalty from adding landing gear. Maybe it would be worth it to have landing legs in V1 Starship and when they master it, they could switch to catching in V2. That could be a waste of resources, but they would have achieved reusability much earlier.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:30:30 UTC No. 16081329
>>16081092
someone tell them what happens to literally every other rocket except falcon 9
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:34:21 UTC No. 16081331
>>16081318
I would be, I don't think we have seen any leg hardware anywhere or the preparation of a droneship for a booster to land
I'm pretty sure super heavy is way too big for F9 droneships
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:36:03 UTC No. 16081334
>>16081320
HLS is going to need legs in any case
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:38:27 UTC No. 16081335
>>16081092
Can you believe there will be 18,000 of these on ebay soon?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:42:35 UTC No. 16081346
>>16081335
My bathroom could use some new tiles.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:45:23 UTC No. 16081352
Yesterday I made a post about Space Pioneer's press release on their new Zhangjiagang facility, which is intended to produce 30 rockets and 500 engines per year.
http://www.spacepioneer.cc/news/det
It was pointed out that it seems to have not many parking spaces for that production volume (depending on the availability of public transportation in Zhangjiagang). So I searched around a bit more to find out exactly how much of the value chain this facility is supposed to be responsible for. The press release mentioned testing and assembly. It also mentioned welding and machining (机加 abbreviation of 机械加工), and I got the impression that they machine parts and weld a lot of stuff together. But apparently pretty much the whole rocket is delivered from Tianjin to Zhangjiagang in a structurally almost complete state. Essentially, they've shifted final integration and testing from Tianjin to Zhangjiagang.
Sources
https://www.sohu.com/a/733587090_12
https://news.2500sz.com/doc/2024/02
Video of a visit at the Zhangjiagang facility. In the main assembly hall is pretty much an entire TL-2 rocket body, that he says was just recently unpacked. He then talks to a guy assembling a TL-3 first stage safety relief valve. Facility manager Tian Weifeng mentions that the TL-3 first launch this July is to be followed by two TL-3 launches for paying customers in September and November.
https://www.bilibili.com/video/BV1T
Other stuff I read:
* TL-3 is especially intended for megaconstellation deployment, and can carry 30+ satellites
* The intent is to reach a 30/year cadence within 3 years of TL-3 first launch (i.e. 2027), which seems pretty ambitious
* Although TL-3 will use the new universal pad in Hainan, a TL-3 pad is also being built at Jiuquan
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:47:30 UTC No. 16081355
>>16080794
Saint Energia...
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:56:27 UTC No. 16081367
https://www.reuters.com/technology/
>SpaceX is building a network of hundreds of spy satellites under a classified contract with a U.S. intelligence agency, five sources familiar with the program said, demonstrating deepening ties between billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk's space company and national security agencies.
>The network is being built by SpaceX's Starshield business unit under a $1.8 billion contract signed in 2021 with the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), an intelligence agency that manages spy satellites, the sources said.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:59:05 UTC No. 16081369
>>16081198
It's probably trademarked or whatever, but I doubt anyone is going to get starship and a small plastic candy dispenser mixed up.
>>16081334
But HLS doesn't need any re-entry stuff like flaps or tiles so that's a load of saved mass.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:01:46 UTC No. 16081373
>>16081367
Did some Starlink satellites got reclassified as Starshield? I know that the problem was with Ukies using them in suicide drones and it stopped for a while and then resumed.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:02:36 UTC No. 16081374
>>16080437
Has cryogenic fuels been tried on aircraft before?
Could the SR-71 used them?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:05:27 UTC No. 16081377
>>16081374
>cryogenic fuel on a plane that's supposed to cruise at Mach 3
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:05:31 UTC No. 16081378
>>16081369
I figured the owners of the PEZ trademark might want something for the use of their name, but they appear to be the original founder's family who owns majority stock and maybe they're cool enough to not be lawfair dicks about it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:06:52 UTC No. 16081380
>>16081367
https://archive.is/r6Y5p
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:17:38 UTC No. 16081393
>>16081369
SpaceX isn't using the term like a trademark. In >>16081180 it's the people who made the video that are using it. A trademark isn't a monopoly on a word.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:24:54 UTC No. 16081404
>>16081367
>24/7/365 multi-spectrum view of the entire planet
bad for our enemies, worse for us. grimdark times ahead.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:26:29 UTC No. 16081406
>>16081154
The same dude that said we would have cities on mars in 2020
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:27:24 UTC No. 16081409
>You can potentially send a few Starships offset by a few days. If the first one fails to land you look at the data, and remotely make software updates to the second.
the plan congeals
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:30:41 UTC No. 16081415
>>16081352
>The intent is to reach a 30/year cadence within 3 years of TL-3 first launch (i.e. 2027), which seems pretty ambitious
It's ambitious, but it's Elon's kind of ambitious.
One of the big issues that other companies in the west have with imitating SpaceX is that 2024 doesn't have the payload backlog that we did back in 2012. That's not an issue in China. Their current launch capacity shortfall might actually be worse than ours was. They also don't have to waste time evaluating questions like parachutes vs retropropulsion (just imitate Falcon 9's choices) and funding might be a bit easier to come by (everyone wants to invest in the next SpaceX). The biggest stumbling block I can see for them is other rockets like the Zhuque-2 that are trying to the same market space at the same time.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:34:34 UTC No. 16081427
>>16081406
elon has put himself in a position where he can get away with saying whatever he wants and the only recourse people who can't do anything about it have is complaining that it doesn't come true.
yeah. we don't have martian cities right now. I can tell you today that the million people on mars in 2050 isn't happening. what are you gonna do about it?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:38:57 UTC No. 16081433
>>16081406
he never said that
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:39:31 UTC No. 16081436
This guy is so annoying.
The 'spreadsheet warriors' here are people who called him out for not doing the basic maths on starship regarding deltaV and transfers.
He is someone uses their credentials as authority, in order back up very trite opinions on starship and Mars missions that have been argued about for decades as if it's god's holy truth.
I really wish someone like Zubrin would take him to task on this.
His overall point that Mars colonisation is a long shot is actually fine, but all of the reasons he provides are extremely dumb and incurious.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:40:10 UTC No. 16081438
>>16081436
>This guy is so annoying.
I wouldn't know, I don't read twitter garbage.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:43:44 UTC No. 16081445
>>16081377
Yes?
An aircraft that has a bunch of cryogenic fuel to dump heat into is a great idea.
This has been proposed many times for scramjets.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:45:00 UTC No. 16081448
>>16081367
LEO mega constellations are the future of space militarization.
NRO + Space Development Agency is relentlessly moving ahead here with Starshield and missile tracking layers.
Anyone who isn’t aggressively building production facilities to churn out tens of thousands of LEO satellites and the rockets necessary to launch them (ideally reusable rockets), and developing civilian commercial use cases from telecommunications to ADAS to spread some of the costs, might as well by living in the 2010s still.
Anyone who isn't working on next gen counterspace (attacking satellites without causing a shit ton of debris - yes there is a way) is ngmi.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:45:24 UTC No. 16081449
>>16081409
its so obvious yet I've never thought about it or seen discussion
doesn't help if there are physical design or engineering problems though
but SpaceX could just send a bunch of mars starships, like 10, and have them arrive every few days
or even a week apart to have more time to analyze the data, then iterate the landing within one launch window
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:46:21 UTC No. 16081453
>>16081436
he's using his credentials as a springboard for his shitposts and trolling to farm engagement in order to get money from twitter blue
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:46:21 UTC No. 16081454
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:46:25 UTC No. 16081455
>>16081021
>one of the launch officers had to tell his insurance company a rocket fell on his car
This will always be funny to me.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:47:07 UTC No. 16081456
>>16081427
he can't keep getting away with it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:49:20 UTC No. 16081460
>>16081367
Do you think this is separate from the Space Force constellation or is it the same thing?
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/IF1
>In 2017, the Air Force again proposed replacing the E-3 AWACS with a new program called the Advanced Battle Management System (ABMS). Following release of the 2018 National Defense Strategy, the Air Force reevaluated its requirements for ABMS. According to a 2020 Government Accountability Office report, the Air Force “concluded that no single platform, such as an aircraft, would be the right solution to providing command and control capabilities across multiple domains.” Air Force officials testified in April 2019 regarding a new vision for ABMS, which aims to provide a family of command and control systems in air, space, and cyberspace.
>The U.S. Space Force has disclosed that it intends to develop a low earth orbit satellite constellation to provide GMTI and AMTI capabilities in the future. The Air Force has also stated it intends to eventually transition airborne battle management aircraft to a space-based capability. It remains unclear when this space-based radar constellation would be operational.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:50:21 UTC No. 16081463
>>16081092
>NNOOOO THE ENVRIONMENT
Death to all environmentalists. The only way to stop pollution is to kill all humans, untenable and pointless.
Reminder that environmentalism is a soviet plot created with the intention of destroying western industry by subversion from the inside. So far it's worked excellently for that goal.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:51:59 UTC No. 16081464
>>16081463
They also encourange "Area 51 enthusiasts" to take photos inside classified airstrips and facilities.
The Cold War never ended.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:52:39 UTC No. 16081466
So from what I gather, Starship survived peak heating with its bare ass pointed the wrong way and only broke up due to prolonged melting/erosion. Those tiles are probably more than enough, could even lose some I bet
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:59:09 UTC No. 16081473
>>16081466
I'm still not sure when and if Starship broke up at all, I presume it did for obvious reasons but did anybody get a good look at it after signal loss? Any views of the reentry showing it break apart? I wonder how much disintegrated, if it blew apart there would probably be a lot of steel that made it down to the sea. Maybe it stayed in a couple big pieces, or one even?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:59:23 UTC No. 16081474
>>16081455
Last week someone had to tell his insurance company that a plane wheel fell on his car.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 16:59:32 UTC No. 16081475
>>16081404
What is gridmark? Also this is a schizo nightmare come true.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:01:06 UTC No. 16081477
>>16081473
IFT-2 stayed in some pretty big chunks, though reentered at lower velocity
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:05:19 UTC No. 16081482
>>16081436
I'd tell you to get off twitter, but what I really want you to do is go back.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:10:44 UTC No. 16081492
>>16081367
>Roughly a dozen prototypes have been launched since 2020, among other satellites on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rockets, three of the sources said.
>A U.S. government database of objects in orbit shows several SpaceX missions having deployed satellites that neither the company nor the government have ever acknowledged. Two sources confirmed those to be prototypes for the Starshield network.
lol
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:16:05 UTC No. 16081499
https://www.reuters.com/technology/
Is this all Starship and Starlink were about? A massive glownıgger spy network?
So no Mars BS?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:16:18 UTC No. 16081501
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:17:04 UTC No. 16081502
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:17:49 UTC No. 16081504
>>16081499
It was obvious military would want to be part of it and why would spacex say no to free money?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:18:09 UTC No. 16081505
>>16081499
How is this a scoop? Does reuters not know what Starshield is
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:19:26 UTC No. 16081509
>>16081499
no that is not what starship and starlink were about, that is just an obvious military application of starlink tech (cheap LEO satellite megaconstellation)
putting some sensors on the sats is obvious
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:20:27 UTC No. 16081510
>>16081499
also see >>16081367
and archive link >>16081380
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:22:16 UTC No. 16081512
>>16081501
Payload deployed, mission success
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:23:46 UTC No. 16081514
>>16081512
partial failure, not in target orbit
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:28:38 UTC No. 16081521
>>16081221
Stabilized version
https://twitter.com/ophello/status/
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:29:36 UTC No. 16081524
>>16081291
Wooden payload doors on a spaceship?!
They can't expect us to believe this.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:29:43 UTC No. 16081525
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:29:54 UTC No. 16081526
>>16081492
>A U.S. government database of objects in orbit shows several SpaceX missions having deployed satellites that neither the company nor the government have ever acknowledged. Two sources confirmed those to be prototypes for the Starshield network.
God I love spooksat deployments, makes our enemies worry and the autistic satellite catalog trackers seethe
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:32:54 UTC No. 16081532
>>16081291
you're right
doors are very new technology
archaeologists have determined that the first doors were invented near the end of 1997
it's pretty cutting edge stuff that's never been done before
maybe with a few thousand years of experience with "door" technology they'll be able to put some fucking hinges on a piece of metal in the year 5000 or so
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:33:05 UTC No. 16081533
>>16081526
Are we sure they are not being deployed all the time already together with starlinks?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:37:07 UTC No. 16081538
kek
https://twitter.com/francescospace_
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:37:15 UTC No. 16081539
>>16081532
>tonight on /sfg/ handwaves: will starship's payload bay door just be some hardware store hinges bolted to a sheet of metal?
>but first: we cover how the shuttle engineers were overpaid for making a payload fairing that closes autonomously and survives reentry
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:37:35 UTC No. 16081541
>>16081509
>an obvious military application of starlink
Looks like a mostly military program where the civilian internet from space application is just a façade.
>>16081448
If the NRO pivoted from big GEO assets to networks of many LEO assets then ULA is done for. Their entire business is big defense birds.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:38:46 UTC No. 16081544
>>16081526
Should have named it KosmosXYZ
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:39:24 UTC No. 16081546
>>16081541
the military constellation is going to be smaller and probably bring in much less revenue overall, so no its not a facade
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:41:02 UTC No. 16081548
>>16081541
>If the NRO pivoted from big GEO assets to networks of many LEO assets then ULA is done for. Their entire business is big defense birds
Doesn't make much sense. You want high resolution. Why would it matter that the satellites are networked?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:42:18 UTC No. 16081552
>>16081179
That one is meant to ignite in flight. Note the bigger nozzle.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:43:09 UTC No. 16081554
it's now legal to say kek on /sfg/
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:45:47 UTC No. 16081557
>>16081539
the engines and untiled side of the ship has to survive, too
feel free to wet your pants about it, but it's not going to be a big deal
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:46:35 UTC No. 16081558
>near future
>SpaceX launches routine Starlink launch
>planet4589 begrudgingly notes down USA 400, 401, 402, 403, 404, 405, 406, 407, etc...
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:48:34 UTC No. 16081562
>>16081554
RIGHT WING DOG WHISTLE
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:49:37 UTC No. 16081564
>>16081539
Payload door surviving reentry shouldn't be a problem, it's the ship surviving during the flight because of the huge door.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:53:21 UTC No. 16081565
>>16081554
cringe
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:54:10 UTC No. 16081569
>>16081554
thats based
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:54:45 UTC No. 16081570
>>16081562
I can hear it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 17:57:14 UTC No. 16081575
>>16081548
for real-time data feeds without the need for ground stations everywhere (so laserlinks), redundancy through a bunch of satellites (helped by laserlinks too, if one gets shot down you can reroute the data) and the closer the satellites are the more granular data you get for the same resolution sensors, be that cameras or whatever
the only reason to continue having GEO sats in this case would be dissimilar redundancy
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:22:14 UTC No. 16081608
kek is just ironic lol for retards
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:24:01 UTC No. 16081612
>>16081175
Lofstrom loop is better. Only costs about $100 billion startup costs and world agreement that the pacific ocean is a giant launching area
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:25:10 UTC No. 16081614
>>16081608
lul
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:25:51 UTC No. 16081616
>>16081612
there is a 0% chance you could build that thing for 100 billion
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:26:04 UTC No. 16081617
>>16081608
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:27:20 UTC No. 16081619
>>16081612
you can fit a 2.5g launch loop across south america IIRC, but of course that requires floating it over a literal jungle
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:27:37 UTC No. 16081621
I miss wew
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:27:54 UTC No. 16081622
>>16081608
lel
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:28:00 UTC No. 16081623
>>16081616
me, when my boss asks me to estimate the cost, timeline, risks and difficulty of a project:
>>16081612
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:28:59 UTC No. 16081624
>>16081616
guy who dreamed it up claimed 20 billion some years ago. Im just eyeballing for inflation
There's no fancy materials in this thing. It's just a giant magnetic baring in space, which maglev trains use for propulsion via eddycurrent breaking. It's all old tech.
Only stumbling block is nobody needs to get that much stuff to space that badly. But the same tech can be used for excellent power storage. Go find his website to get an idea.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:30:00 UTC No. 16081625
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:31:07 UTC No. 16081628
>>16081619
if you plop it in the ocean it's probably easier for logicstics to handle, if it explodes it won't fall on anyone's heads, and when you need to turn it off for maintenance you can gently lower it to the sea and allow it to float.
Go read his paper. Ill make a QRD shortly.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:32:15 UTC No. 16081630
>>16081612
>>16081628
QRD 1/2:
its not a coil or railgun, but somewhat similar. It's linked to somewhere on the server sky website.
It's an active structure, basically a mag-lev train but the train accelerates using eddy current drag by interacting with a hypervelocity iron cable (rotor), confined in a similar way to magnetic bearings.
Every element of such a structure can be made with current technology and materials, and has no requirement for exotic things like superconductors.
The track is constituted of: a casing to provide a vacuum; magnetic coils to levitated and confine the hypervelocity iron rotor; optical sensors to detect the rotor position, and adjust magnetic field strengths to keep it in the right place. This encases the iron rotor that passes through the tube at several km/second.
The track is suspended by the force generated by the rotor as a result of deflecting it's path. Because the rotor is travelling above orbital speed, it wants to fly into space, by using the track to confine it, the track feels a pushing force towards space, against gravity.
To stop the track flying into space as the rotor wants to push it, the track is held down with guy wires, anchored to the earth.
By adjusting the speed of the rotor and the path the track takes, the forces in the system can be kept within tolerances allowed by modern materials easily.
The track goes up in a rough arc shape, rising to about 80km, where it levels off for several thousand kilometres, travelling at a constant 80km from the surface.
On the ground at each end of the arc, the track loops around to allow the rotor inside to constantly circulate. At such vast scales, normally inflexible-at-human-scale iron bends easily. Base stations use additional magnetic fields to constantly keep the iron rotor up to speed, adding energy to it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:33:17 UTC No. 16081632
>>16081612
>>16081630
QRD 2/2:
To actually accelerate things up to orbit, shuttles/trains are used. At first they are stationary relative to the surface of earth, in order to levitate without being in contact with the track, they, like the rest of the track, interact magnetically with the iron rotor inside, resting their weight on it via magnetically deflecting it slightly downwards.
In order to start accelerating, all the shuttles need to do is apply a magnetic field in a direction such that eddy current drag is created in the same direction of the iron rotor.
Usefully, the acceleration the shuttles can be subjected to entirely depends on how eddy current drag force you make. This means gentle, 1-2G accelerations are feasible, letting squishy humans get to space without harm or training. As the shuttle is accelerated from a ground speed of 0km/s to orbital velocity, the force required to levitate them diminishes. Once at orbital speed, they disconnect from the track and climb into space, requiring a small fraction of total mass as maneuvering fuel.
In Keith Lofstrom’s paper (also on his site), he posits that the cost of building such a structure would be around 20 billion dollars. That was some time ago, so lets say about $100 billion today. I’m unsure of how accurate those costs are, but the far greater challenges are the space requirements for such a megastructure, it needs to be built in the ocean. Good luck getting politics sorted for that!
I think that’s it. Pretty cool in my opinion.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:34:51 UTC No. 16081634
>>16081201
>tethers don't require magic materials
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:35:06 UTC No. 16081635
>>16081612 >>16081616 >>16081619 >>16081623 >>16081630 >>16081632
180 IQ rocket engineer says we are light years away from these megastructures
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:36:04 UTC No. 16081638
>>16081628
there's nobody anybody cares about in the amazon jungle in the north of brazil
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:37:51 UTC No. 16081643
>>16081634
They don't if you make it an active structure. E.g. float a magnetic bearing off the centripetal force made by deflecting a hypervelocity rotor off it's ballistic path, like in the loffstrom loop. Think keeping a tennis ball in the air by spraying water at it from a hose. You can make structures vastly bigger than possible with material strengths.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:39:17 UTC No. 16081648
>>16081635
That's mostly a product of no dire need to launch hundreds of kilotonnes into space, and govt regulations arguing over who owns the sea. So basically the same issues spaceflight has always had, nobody needs it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:40:10 UTC No. 16081651
>>16081648
also its susceptibility to bad actors (see Nord Stream 2)
imagine building that thing and then... boom
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:40:14 UTC No. 16081652
>>16081634
I guess it depends what you mean with a tether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyho
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:40:46 UTC No. 16081653
>>16081638
Communists don't care, but will use the opportunity to sabotage mankind by complaining that brown people or tree frogs will be squashed.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:41:15 UTC No. 16081655
>>16081635
space elevator and space tethers are not the same at all
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:43:56 UTC No. 16081663
>>16081651
nahhh it'll be fine...
In any case, this arguement can (and will, until governments cease to exist) be used to justify ever increasing regulations on people as technology advances in capability. E.g. "you can't have guns because 1 man could kill many".
Pretty sure the atmosphere would take it out if it failed, also an advantage of being in the ocean; if a normal failure occurs, you can dump the rotor into the ocean for an earthshattering kaboom.
This is all deteailed on lofstroms site i think.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:46:34 UTC No. 16081666
>>16081624
you should see how much gerrard oneill thought his space colonies were going to cost
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:46:47 UTC No. 16081667
>>16081548
What matters is that there are too many of them to be taken down at once with the current antisat systems.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:47:55 UTC No. 16081670
>>16081194
I wouldn't be in such a situation in the first place, but
>I don't have one, but neither do you. And even if you did have a PhD in rocket science, I would still be more willing to trust a company that is consistently setting new launch records every year and actively advancing the field rather than a guy who makes debunking videos on YouTube. Actions speak louder than words.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:48:53 UTC No. 16081672
>>16081666
guess it's all a matter of supply and demand at the end of the day. Nobody really needs to get more than a few hundred tonnes in to space at most. Lofstrom loop gets 100kT's
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:51:38 UTC No. 16081677
>>16081672
A fleet of reusable Starships that have a cadence of launching everyday gets 100kT's as well
you just need to scale the number of launch towers and sites, and build Starship factories
seems way more feasible and easier to scale than one massive structure that is just 0 or 1
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:53:03 UTC No. 16081682
>>16081677
once starship and starship class competitors are in full swing, we're running out of places to build spaceports, and people still want more shit flung to orbit. that's when building these things starts to make sense
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:55:41 UTC No. 16081689
>>16081680
>buying this when we know for a fact that starship design will change soonish
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:58:55 UTC No. 16081698
I live in a London apartment, will Starlink work for me? I don't have a balcony but I think I can mount it outside my window. It's not 360 degrees unobstructed view of the sky though
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:01:00 UTC No. 16081700
Flight 4 in June or July?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:01:40 UTC No. 16081701
>>16080291
Aerojet-Shekeldyne has ~20 left I think. Lmao should mail em to Pivdenmash.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:02:04 UTC No. 16081702
>>16081698
use the starlink app to test your location dummy
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:02:08 UTC No. 16081703
>>16081700
They want to do 9 launches this year but realistically 4 so probably June.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:05:35 UTC No. 16081709
>>16081688
Gay. I’d buy a Wernher von Braun BLVD SeX sign or something, but not this reddit-tier shit
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:06:05 UTC No. 16081711
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:06:37 UTC No. 16081714
>>16081700
4th of July
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:07:03 UTC No. 16081716
>>16081700
optimistically june pessimistically july
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:08:10 UTC No. 16081718
>>16081700
May.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:08:36 UTC No. 16081719
>>16081700
July 4th. Booster will be getting a special livery.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:08:46 UTC No. 16081721
>>16081701
There was some talk about shipping the AJ-26s back to Russia, but that was around 2016 and I don't think anything came of it
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:09:47 UTC No. 16081722
Really hope they bring the Bomber Jacket back. I missed an opportunity to buy one when I had the chance. Anyone here have one, how is the quality?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:10:51 UTC No. 16081725
>>16081291
Chopsticks won't move vertically during catching. They open and close plenty fast enough to deal with catching a hovering ship or booster. The thing that's actually an issue is going to be getting the flip precise enough to not smack into the tower or leave it too far away to the point that it runs out of fuel while hovering before it can reposition. However I don't think a Starship smacking into the tower would actually do that much damage. It would certainly cause some damage and require repairs, but it's nothing compared to Raptor exhaust or a fully fueled stack exploding right next to it. Remember that SN9 fell against the walls of the bay and the bay was fine. The tower is a hell of a lot tougher than the bays are. I don't think catching the booster will prove to be much of a challenge though. Its profile is something they already have much more experience with, in that it just comes straight down while thrusting, and it has greater ability to hover than Starship.
The payload bay doors I do think are the biggest understated problem though.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:11:08 UTC No. 16081726
>>16081719
July 4th will be the 3th launch of this year
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:12:16 UTC No. 16081727
>>16081726
*3rd
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:12:43 UTC No. 16081729
>>16081727
3nd
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:13:25 UTC No. 16081730
>>16081166
yes, the signal's frequency would have to be shifted during transmission to simulate the "correct" doppler shift and as far as the actual movement of your transmitting probe it would have to counter the telltale movement of a sun-orbiting probe and have to simulate being "static" against the background stars from Earth's vantage point
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:14:09 UTC No. 16081731
>>16081475
Basically "everything is awful and it's never going to get better."
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:22:21 UTC No. 16081744
>>16081612
>covered from end to end in sophisticated electronics
>unsolved stability issues
>always a microsecond away from releasing a megaton-scale explosion if its rotor collides with the sheath
sounds great!
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:26:19 UTC No. 16081747
how are russia/china/iran/nk/etc. supposed to fight against an america backed by starshield and starship?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:27:19 UTC No. 16081753
>>16081698
>I live in a London apartment, will Starlink work for me?
Sorry, I don't speak urdu
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:30:14 UTC No. 16081757
>>16081747
by facing the sky and waiting for impact
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:31:41 UTC No. 16081762
>>16081747
Detonating nuke in space
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:34:57 UTC No. 16081766
>>16081747
as is the case with every weapon system the us fields, they aren't. that's why we have them
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:34:58 UTC No. 16081767
>>16081747
You don't.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:35:02 UTC No. 16081768
>>16081747
They just need to convince the US business community to lobby on their behalf. Greyzone stuff.
Kinetically I agree, no chance. The capabilities im seeing being rolled out is just too isane
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:39:12 UTC No. 16081776
>>16081747
China can counter starlink by building an antisat laser system. Starlinks aren't especially big or well-armored, so the laser equivalent of a high power rifle round should be able to mission kill one. Then the PLA can just plink them as they pass over inner mongolia while telling Washington that it's a bad idea to allow Taiwan to use Starlink during the ongoing hostilities. Starship does good payload numbers in theory, but China's own reuseables are coming online soon so I don't think that gap is as big as people think.
Russia can counter Starlink by lighting off a few nukes in low orbit and frying everyone's satellites, with the only downside being that gives a free casus belli to everyone with LEO infrastructure and another one for being the one to break the nuclear taboo. Russia can't keep up with America in mass to orbit in any scenario, but they also don't have nearly as much military or economic reliance on orbital assets so it's not that big an issue.
Iran can get space fucked, but that's about par for middle eastern players. Us fucking with them via space assets will just lead to them fucking with us by funding jihadis somewhere else.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:39:27 UTC No. 16081777
https://twitter.com/Pockn_CG/status
Ass down its time to reenter
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:40:36 UTC No. 16081779
>>16080580
>girl
based and heteronormative pilled
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:41:26 UTC No. 16081781
>>16081777
Yay finally someone made it. Nice. I knew the cameras were on the moving flaps, but I still found it hard to orient myself. This makes it pretty straightforward
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:41:38 UTC No. 16081782
>>16081374
>Could the SR-71 used them?
No. The SR-71 had custom fuel designed specifically for it, called JP-7. It also had no fuel tank, the fuel would be loaded into the cavity of the body of the plane. The SR-71 also leaked fuel on the runway because the body panels had gaps between them. When flying at Mach 3, the panels heated up and expanded to fit snug while in flight.
The fuel was also used as a way to cool the cockpit, it was circulated around the cabin to draw off the heat from the high speeds. Going cryogenic would destroy the plane and kill the pilots.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:46:07 UTC No. 16081793
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:47:04 UTC No. 16081794
>>16081374
>>16081782
not my design
NASA's
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:47:08 UTC No. 16081795
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:49:07 UTC No. 16081796
>>16081747
by threatening with nukes
surveillance isn't going to remove the threat of spamming nukes, you would need some kind of anti-missile platform on the sats and starshield isn't that (yet)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:50:13 UTC No. 16081799
>>16081776
Would the Polyus laser fit inside a modified Angara/Proton or is it too big?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 19:55:43 UTC No. 16081806
>>16081799
wait no its 88t
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:00:20 UTC No. 16081813
>>16081799
You could miniaturize stuff a lot more now. And you may not need the entire servicing compartment it had, too.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:00:33 UTC No. 16081814
>>16081806
You might be able to launch it in two parts like Zenith Star when Washington was trying to launch that on the Titan IV, but Polyus is big enough that even that would need something like the Angara A5V. That said, Polyus was intended as an anti-ballistic missile laser and that would have a lot higher power requirements that an antisatellite weapon. The Angara A5M is supposed to lift 27 tons and you could probably fit a smaller version of the system into that mass budget.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:07:42 UTC No. 16081824
>>16081777
lmao no control authority at all
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:13:17 UTC No. 16081829
>>16081824
Yes everyone has been telling you the RCS failed during the coast phase.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:13:33 UTC No. 16081830
all this talk of lasers and nukes are depressing... can't we all just get along with each other?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:19:54 UTC No. 16081835
>>16081830
All of human history says no.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:28:22 UTC No. 16081841
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:31:43 UTC No. 16081847
>>16081367
based
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:34:11 UTC No. 16081850
>>16081114
>Czech Academy of Sciences
lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:34:33 UTC No. 16081852
>>16081830
yes but we need to genocide Russians first
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:35:24 UTC No. 16081854
>>16081850
Those academies are legit - national labs of the US basically (Fermilab, Sandia, LANL etc)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:35:24 UTC No. 16081855
>>16081010
Post any pepe image, and you'll quickly get a reply that says "stupid frogposter"
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:37:01 UTC No. 16081858
>>16081856
Did he died?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:37:30 UTC No. 16081860
>>16081612
The death loop
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:38:31 UTC No. 16081861
>>16081856
4ASS' Spirit Animal.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:43:15 UTC No. 16081866
>>16081856
>solids
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:45:55 UTC No. 16081872
>>16081619
a jungle full of hues
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:48:09 UTC No. 16081877
>>16081850
I won't put down the academy or his degree for that matter. Nor will I touch on paper mills and the plague of papers that can't be reproduced. I will however point out that's it's all in chemistry and not rocket science nor rocket engineering for that matter.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:49:55 UTC No. 16081885
>>16081872
is it though, I don't think the actual amazon basin is populated
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:50:03 UTC No. 16081887
>>16081635
>>16081648
The thing nobody seems to talk about is once you've built your spess elelator, how much cargo can it move at one time, and how long does it take to go up? If it can only take one load of a few tons at a time, and it takes a day to crank it up the cable, then another day to crank it back down, was it really worth the effort?
>>16081651
and yeah, this shit too
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:51:07 UTC No. 16081890
>>16081887
2000 km is not LEO, that's MEO at best
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:52:13 UTC No. 16081896
>>16081887
What's next, moon space elevator?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:52:15 UTC No. 16081897
>>16081887
once you've built a space elevator you can use your space elevator to make your space elevator bigger in order to lift more space elevator in a loop until you can lift god or whatever
the scaling on this sucks due to how long the cycle time is but whatever
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:53:03 UTC No. 16081899
skylab_acrobatics.webm
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:56:02 UTC No. 16081903
>>16081698
No, starlink is for low-density (rural) locations. Though I think they will probably allow some commercial urban customers, it is specifically not intended for urban residential customers.
Get offalcom to hook you up with fiber already.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:56:18 UTC No. 16081904
>>16081663
Biggest risk by far to space elevators and megastructures is security. In scifi like 3 body where they have them, Earth is practically under one government and is tightly controlled by esesentially a single military.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:56:30 UTC No. 16081905
>>16081612
it's unstable and no one's shown how to stabilize it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 20:58:38 UTC No. 16081910
>>16081852
>yes but we need to genocide --- ---- first
ftfy
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:00:08 UTC No. 16081914
>>16081897
and when one of the "bigger" parts breaks, they're all fucked?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:01:37 UTC No. 16081918
>>16081914
as seen in hit video game Halo 3, yes
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:02:26 UTC No. 16081920
>>16081877
>>16081854
Yeah that one's on me. I already know that theoretically-respectable academics are generally lunatics outside their area of expertise.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:26:16 UTC No. 16081954
>>16081830
Get along... with Earthers?!
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:27:36 UTC No. 16081958
>>16081856
(stupid frog) poster
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:28:59 UTC No. 16081960
Future rocket scientist here, AMA
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:29:34 UTC No. 16081963
>>16081947
Nice setup but talk about stretching content.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:30:23 UTC No. 16081964
>>16081960
what kind of scientist do you plan to become in the future?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:31:24 UTC No. 16081966
>>16081960
are you a rocket scientist now or will you become one in the future?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:32:27 UTC No. 16081967
>>16081960
Would you describe your current location as "here" or "there"?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:33:22 UTC No. 16081968
>>16081960
What does AMA mean?
🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:33:28 UTC No. 16081970
>>16081960
What does AMA mean?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:34:46 UTC No. 16081974
>>16081960
What's your full name, date of birth, and social security number?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:34:56 UTC No. 16081975
>>16081963
yes the video was so bad I had to delete it so other people don't waste their time
like 3 minutes in he is still explaining how to measure shadows
I thought it would be about explaining the setup itself, like where they have the cameras, how the feed is setup etc
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:35:20 UTC No. 16081976
>>16080656
it wasted 80% of it's capacity to orbit on the fuckin' shuttlel mao
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:35:32 UTC No. 16081977
>>16081960
do your parents know you're gay?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:35:59 UTC No. 16081978
>>16081960
its rocket engineering, not science
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:36:43 UTC No. 16081980
>>16081960
What engines have you designed in the future?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:38:39 UTC No. 16081984
>>16081976
Elon's space shuttle wastes much more.
Do the math and you'll notice the marketed payload figures are *extremely* optimistic.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:39:16 UTC No. 16081987
>>16081960
why are you black?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:44:41 UTC No. 16081996
>>16081984
>do the math
If you talk like this then you surely have done that. Show us the results :)
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:49:48 UTC No. 16082002
it's been like 6 years since F9 1st stage landing was proved out. WHY HAS NO ONE COPIED IT YET
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:55:13 UTC No. 16082006
>>16081318
>or, more specifically, the Raptors going in to the booster
didn't raptor production have to stop because they hade more than they could possibly use for quite a while?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 21:57:22 UTC No. 16082008
>>16082006
how many have they made? they've already dumped 117 of them in the ocean
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:01:37 UTC No. 16082011
>>16081776
>Starlinks aren't especially big or well-armored
But with Starship they'll have plenty of wiggle room to introduce countermeasures.
>China's own reuseables are coming online soon
>I don't think that gap is as big as people think.
All reusable rockets are not created equal. China is in the process of creating a worse Falcon 9 soon™
Elon throws around "order of magnitude" a lot but Starship really is unlike anything else.
Just for the sake of comparison, here's what Starship would look like if it only did 10x what Falcon 9 did. No, the others haven't been erased, they're just that small. China is about 2 pixels and Russia is about 1.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:03:43 UTC No. 16082015
>>16081983
>>16082011
jfc i remember just a few years ago people said reusability wouldn't work
what happened?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:05:08 UTC No. 16082017
>>16082008
first result on google from october last year says they had 400
so they still have like 300 of them to burn through before needing to manufacture more, ignoring test to destruction articles and "not for flight due to modern hardware upgrade" articles
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:09:02 UTC No. 16082019
>>16082015
>what happened?
Reusability worked.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:10:55 UTC No. 16082022
>>16081377
Damn, now I can't remember the name of that porn game with orange butts.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:11:02 UTC No. 16082023
>>16081747
A tiny satellite that places a tin foil (or conductive mesh of relevant mesh size) in close in front of a Starshield satellite and then keeps formation with it, thus blinding it. I think such a satellite would cost a fraction of a Starshield satellite to build, and mass a tiny fraction of a Starshield satellite. With method you could disable Starshield while avoiding the escalation of direct kinetic action.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:13:27 UTC No. 16082026
https://twitter.com/GraviticsInc/st
Methane (CH4) as a propellant for space launch vehicles has gained considerable attention in recent years. The first successful usage of methane to get a launch vehicle to orbit came in July 2023 with the launch of the Chinese Zhuque-2. Previously, methane-powered rockets were undergoing extensive research and development, but none had reached this milestone
Being stable, non-toxic, and efficient—methane-based propellant offers distinct advantages over traditional cryogenic fuel options. Compatibility with existing infrastructure is a key strength, along with safer handling and its abundance on Earth and beyond. It can be synthesized from various sources such as natural gas, biomass, and recycled carbon dioxide, which makes it a good candidate for in-situ production on other worlds
Several space agencies and private aerospace companies have been actively investigating methane-based propulsion systems for a variety of applications, including lunar and Mars exploration missions. SpaceX, for example, has been developing the Raptor engine, which utilizes methane as fuel for its next-generation Starship spacecraft. Starship successfully reached orbit, powered by liquid methane and liquid oxygen, for the first time on March 14th 2024. Other notable examples of methane-powered space launch vehicles include ULA's Vulcan, Rocket Lab's Neutron, and Blue Origin's New Glenn
At Gravitics, we’re leveraging the inherent safety of this readily available propellant for thrusters that will power our modules in low Earth orbit. These are gas-gas thrusters that operate in multiple modes, providing high thrust for extended orbit change maneuvers as well as precision pulsing for attitude control, proximity operations, and docking. Being powered by non-toxic gaseous propellants simplifies the Gravitics thruster operation and greatly extends propellant storage lifespan in space. Read more at http://gravitics.com/components
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:14:25 UTC No. 16082028
>>16082002
because it takes
1. at least several years to develop the right engines - most first stage engines are just not designed to be relit, have a variable thrust ratio of <40% while only having a thrust of 36-85.
2. and another few years for the onboard stuff
and once you have reusable rockets you need an industry that can support flying at that cadence
>>16082023
pretty much yeah, >>16081448
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:17:08 UTC No. 16082032
>>16082028
+
i think India gets reusable rockets before Europe because they're actually growing their doemstic satellite industry a lot and therefore make sense.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:25:03 UTC No. 16082037
>>16082002
>>16082028
I think there was also a lot of initial skepticism about the economics of reuse due to the Shuttle experience, so people didn't start planning F9 clones immediately after F9 recovery was performed
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:48:43 UTC No. 16082072
>>16082037
Even if they could there was no incentive or demand at the time, spacex kinda just dialed up their cadence to 100 in the last few years.
Also they get a lot of help from NASA and the Air Force on important engineering stuff (trajectories, how to make it crew capable just to name a few) that outside of maybe Russia no one else really has.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:55:29 UTC No. 16082086
>>16081987
giga based
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 22:58:53 UTC No. 16082091
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:12:57 UTC No. 16082120
the fact that they didnt fire the engine on orbit during the test is an absolute disaster which noone seems to have noticed. it means they arent allowed to reach orbit on the next flight. so IFT3 was absically useless.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:17:04 UTC No. 16082126
>>16082120
and reaching orbit gives them what data? They still need to try re-entry.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:17:34 UTC No. 16082127
>>16081176
Faking doppler shift is as easy as sweeping your frequency. It's so easy a woman could do it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:17:54 UTC No. 16082129
>>16081279
We could have gigawebb and push it into L2 with a booster starship
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:18:20 UTC No. 16082130
>>16082120
Wrong conclusion. The purpose of the flights is to learn where the shortcomings are, not to make sure they got absolutely everything right or "God help them it's all going wrong." IFT-3 revealed that their fixes for IFT-2 worked and highlighted ongoing deficiencies in the ship and booster, but both did much better than before. I expect Flight 4 to be a similar case.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:20:13 UTC No. 16082132
>>16082120
Yes every test is an absolute disaster everytime, somehow the still get further each time
Curious
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:24:43 UTC No. 16082135
>>16081352
>bilibili
What happens if I turn on brainwashing?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:26:03 UTC No. 16082136
>>16082126
they need to deploy starlink v3 and actually fill a depot starship and test that whole thing. They have 3 years.
>>16082130
the ideal number of test flights is zero. the promary problem with many test fligths it its taken ages, and they will probably miss the 2027 deadline if it takes more than 2 more tests to get it perfect.
>>16082132
sorry buddy but the job of ift3 was to do a mid flight relight. that was the most important test objective. what else were they doing?
opening a door is not big and nasa doesnt even care. transfering fuel from the header to the main tank is kind of fulfilling an artemis milestone but nothing like actually transfering from ship to ship. all you need to do is open a valve and fuel will flow because the header is higher pressure than the main. the only important objective failed because the ship was uncontrollable.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:27:21 UTC No. 16082137
>>16082130
Holy shit imagine how kino HLS Moonship launches might look. I hope Artemis Superheavies get custom liveries, even if it’s just a simple NASA worm or UNITED STATES down the side
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:28:08 UTC No. 16082139
>>16082032
They have a clearer plan and a better history of executing on their plans. Stepping away from evolving the LVM3 was a hard call after all the work they've done on improving it, but it didn't have any more of a future than the Ariane 6 does. India also has a more agile bureaucratic setup, and given how regulation-happy some parts of the Indian government can be that's really saying something.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:30:32 UTC No. 16082144
>>16081554
top fef
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:32:21 UTC No. 16082146
>>16082136
You don't seem to understand the purpose of the test.
It is to find the failure modes they don't see in simulation so they can fix them.
>deadline
no such thing
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:33:19 UTC No. 16082147
>>16082011
I don't think it's likely that China's future upmass will be *that* tiny in comparison to America's. Consider some of the leaders in Chinese launch and their stated plans.
Space Pioneer is supposedly building a future production capacity of 30 rockets and 500 engines per year, as was mentioned previously in this thread. Their stated aim is that each booster should be 10 times reusable, so 500 engines per year should support an annual cadence of 500/(1+9/10) = 263. That would be 4,471t to LEO. Their TL-3 rocket is a straight Falcon 9 copy, so suppose they can eventually reuse each booster 20 times like SpaceX aims to. Then 500 engines per year should support an annual cadence of 500/(1+9/20) = 345. That would be 5,862t to LEO. They have an ambitious ramp-up plan: 3 in 2024, 12 in 2025, 30 in 2027. Then reusability will enable even higher cadence. That pace might not be so realistic, though we'll see soon enough.
https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202
Landspace's intends to build 30 rockets and 300 engines per year. The ZQ-2 uses only 4 engines for the first stage and 2 for the upper stage, so I assume this number is mixed with planned production of the future ZQ-3, a methalox Falcon 9 equivalent which uses 9 engines for a first stage that's intended to be 20 times reusable. Supposing they eventually allocate 250 engines per year for ZQ-3, that's 250/(1+9/20) = 172 launches per year, 3,147t to LEO.
https://weibo.com/7299821485/NqR7Qp
AALPT is building a production line for 300 engines per year of type YF-102 and YF-209. Some YF-102s will be sold for Space Pioneer TL-2 and CAS Space's LJ-2, though most of this capacity will probably be used to power SAST's methalox F9 clone which is NET 2025. Assuming 200 YF-209 per year, 1.5 engines/launch, 10t to LEO, that's 1,330t to LEO per year.
https://spacenews.com/chinese-state
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:34:18 UTC No. 16082149
>>16081367
This sounds like the sort of leak you could be executed for leaking.
Like I totally support Snowden and Assange, they leaked crimes of the government and I think that should be protected. But this kind of shit. I see a distinction between loyalty to your country and loyalty to the government that's in power, and there is considerable overlap. But what possible good can come from leaking things like this. Like are the spy satellites intended to target some subsection of unpopular Americans I mean really leaking proof of government crimes and leaking top secret military intelligence of this nature really are not in the same moral ballpark to me.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:35:33 UTC No. 16082151
>>16082147
AALPT will probably build a production capacity for at least 350 YF-100X per year to support CASC's new lineup of expendable launch vehicles (50 CZ-8 per year, 5+ CZ-5, numerous CZ-12, etc). Supposing that they then eventually transition to the reusable CZ-10A. Supposing 50 YF-100 allocated on CZ-10 for lunar missions each year, and the other 300 on CZ-10A, and CZ-10A can be reused 10 times, that's 300/(1+7/10) = 176 launches per year, 2,464t to LEO.
CASIC is developing a reusable methalox rocket. They're a big well-funded SOE, so they're inevitably going to make a notable splash. Suppose this gives another 800t to LEO per year.
Summing these, 5,862t + 3,147t + 1,330t + 2,464t + 800t = 13.6mt to LEO.
There are also some other potentially significant Chinese launch actors, such as Orienspace, iSpace, CAS Space, Galactic Energy, and DBA.
Of course, Starship can probably eventually enable an upmass of far more than 16mt to LEO per year. And I would absolutely agree with the obvious objection that, apart from the big delays that of course always happen, some of these Chinese plans are very bold and will likely not be realized the stated extent. My point is just that China's annual upmass might still be a nontrivial fraction of America's, even in the future. Even without considering that CASC is supposed to have a Raptor clone (YF-215) operational by 2033.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:35:47 UTC No. 16082152
>>16082136
>the ideal number of test flights is zero.
The minimum necessary number is one, because they need to make sure they got everything right. Launching when they don't know what they don't know doesn't cost any more than analyzing the thing to death before flying it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:36:08 UTC No. 16082153
>>16082136
>the ideal number of test flights is zero.
Oldspace garbage mindset.
Enjoy never landing a first stage because you're too afraid to test it.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:36:19 UTC No. 16082154
>>16082015
them people all were fools
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:37:39 UTC No. 16082156
>>16082146
Not being able to control the attitude of your rocket should not be a failure mode this late in the game
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:38:38 UTC No. 16082157
>>16082153
>>16082152
falcon 9 flew perfectly the first time.
the failure modes found on starship so far are not the kind of thing you should have to fly to deal with. why did the ship spin uncontrollably in ift3? imagine if dragon did that even once.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:40:20 UTC No. 16082161
>>16082136
What else were they doing? Testing
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:40:24 UTC No. 16082162
>>16082157
Falcon 9 had an anomaly with the gas generator exhaust causing roll right out the gate that the flight computer was fortunately able to compensate for. Falcon 9 was also much less ambitious in its initial configuration than its target and ultimate development destination, and it reused hardware and avionics from Falcon 1, which failed repeatedly in development and flight testing.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:41:10 UTC No. 16082166
>>16081367
Good
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:41:12 UTC No. 16082167
>>16082156
That's like your opinion man.
Maybe people will start taking you seriously once a company who doesnt do flight testing catches up to even Falcon 9.
>late in the game
LMAO. the goal is launching ever day. it's very early.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:41:16 UTC No. 16082168
>>16081524
There were 6 million star links launched and it's a crime to suggest otherwise.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:41:58 UTC No. 16082170
>>16082157
F9 is basically a normal rocket up until stage sep, Starship is pushing the envelope on every front in rocketry. We have to keep in mind just how insane it really is.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:43:11 UTC No. 16082171
>>16082156
They try to make everything as simple as possible, test it and if it doesnt work, either modify it or add something back that was removed
I would say F9 shows their method is superior compared to the oldspace way to do things, both in cost and time and even performance
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:44:22 UTC No. 16082173
>>16082120
>no one noticed
kill yourself twice, retard
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:44:54 UTC No. 16082176
>>16082162
Yep f1 had three failures
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:46:58 UTC No. 16082179
>>16081967
Do you know where you isn't?
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:47:04 UTC No. 16082180
>>16082136
>the ideal number of test flights is zero.
The ideal number of test flights is the number that minimizes development time and/or cost, depending on which of these you are optimizing for. What that number is depends on how much a test flight costs in comparison to additional engineering man-hours and ground tests. The cost of a test flight might be relatively low if you have an excess engine and rocket production capacity because your production lines are ready before development has finished.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:47:14 UTC No. 16082181
>>16081016
blue board
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:47:40 UTC No. 16082182
>nooo do it my inferior way
oldspace cucks will never learn. go do your own rapidly fully reusable heavy lift vehicle.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:47:43 UTC No. 16082183
>>16082135
>洗脑循环就是重复播放同一个视频,一般是在听歌用的
It's a humorous name for the "repeat one" or "loop" feature.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:47:59 UTC No. 16082184
https://twitter.com/A_J_Higgins/sta
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:48:19 UTC No. 16082185
>>16082151
I think the CZ-10A is a pipe dream. The CZ-10 is a decently designed Falcon Heavy class rocket for China's initial lunar program, but cutting it down into a Falcon 9 clone produces a vehicle that's a lot less capable then TL-3 or ZQ-3. It's just proposed as a reusable option because everyone needs to be talking about developing reuse these days.
Each Mengzhou/Lanyue mission is going to need 46 YF-100 engines all on its own. They could launch more than one crewed expedition per year, but putting that on top of their normal slate of CZ-5/6/7/8/12 launches will eat up that production quick.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:56:45 UTC No. 16082190
>>16082149
>five sources familiar with the program
It's an intentional leak. There wouldn't be that many people with the balls to blow the whistle independently at the exact same time; 100% chance it's coming from congressmen or the Biden administration.
Anonymous at Sat, 16 Mar 2024 23:59:33 UTC No. 16082194
>>16082179
I know where I am at all times. I know this because I know where I'm not. By subtracting where I am from where I am not, or where I am not from where I am (whichever is greater), I obtain a difference, or deviation. My guidance subsystem uses deviations to generate corrective commands to drive me from a position where I am to a position where I'm not, and arriving at a position where I wasn't, I now am. Consequently, the position where I am, is now the position that I wasn't, and it follows that the position that I was, is now the position that I am not.
In the event that the position that I am in is not the position that I wasn't, the system has acquired a variation, the variation being the difference between where I am, and where I wasn't. If variation is considered to be a significant factor, it too may be corrected by the GEA. However, I must also know where I was.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:01:05 UTC No. 16082197
>>16082185
>I think the CZ-10A is a pipe dream.
I think you're probably right. The CZ-10A payload mass fraction is horrible compared to F9, so it's clearly a quite suboptimal design. It's probably just intended to let CALT gain experience with recovery and reuse, for a small initial investment, before they freeze the CZ-9 design. Not to be mass produced. Though maybe they'll decide to redesign and optimize the CZ-10A if there are major delays to CZ-9 or YF-215.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:05:12 UTC No. 16082199
>>16082185
>because everyone needs to be talking about developing reuse these days
I wish it wasn't just talk. it's just another situation where spacex shines and rocketlab gets to soak up second place with the feeblest attempt you've ever seen because no one else has even tried
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:09:43 UTC No. 16082205
>>16082199
>rocketlab still hasn't reflown a booster
what a pitiful company.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:15:18 UTC No. 16082211
>>16082185
>I think the CZ-10A is a pipe dream.
I think you're probably right. The CZ-10A payload mass fraction is horrible compared to F9, so it's clearly a quite suboptimal design.
>It's just proposed as a reusable option because everyone needs to be talking about developing reuse these days.
I think the reusability option is meaningful and will be pursued, because it will let CALT gain experience with recovery and reuse, for a small initial investment, before they freeze the CZ-9 design.
Though maybe they'll decide to redesign and optimize the CZ-10A to be suitable for mass production, if there are major delays to CZ-9 or YF-215.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:16:12 UTC No. 16082212
>>16082135
You start thinking that real communism has never been tried. I do not recommend it.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:17:51 UTC No. 16082215
>>16082135
Try it and then report back to us if you can. Your potential self-sacrifice will not be in vain.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:17:57 UTC No. 16082216
>>16082136
>the ideal number of test flights is zero
But with zero test flights you get anemic shit running on 60 year old hardware.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:19:04 UTC No. 16082217
>>16082205
Previous Electron was not recovered either.
I think they just do not care enough with Neutron coming up.
Shows you how much of a dead end small launch is despite Peter Beck constantly shilling muh dedicated orbits.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:27:19 UTC No. 16082224
>>16080767
source?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:28:58 UTC No. 16082227
>>16082185
>I think the CZ-10A is a pipe dream.
I think you're probably right to some extent. The CZ-10A payload mass fraction is horrible compared to F9, so it's clearly a quite suboptimal design. So it probably won't be mass produced.
I still think CZ-10A will be built and reuse will be attempted, because it will let CALT gain experience with recovery and reuse, for a small initial investment, before they freeze the CZ-9 design. Even if it isn't mass produced. Though maybe they'll decide to redesign and optimize the CZ-10A to be suitable for mass production, if there are major delays to CZ-9 or YF-215. It's also supposed to launch Mengzhou LEO version
Several failures at expressing myself, it's probably time I stop posting for tonight lol
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:35:16 UTC No. 16082231
>>16082227
The one job I can see the CZ-10A doing well is working as an in-house launcher for a LEO version of Mengzhou. The Shenzhou isn't going to be flying forever and I can see CNSA having some issues with putting their crewed spacecraft on top of a semi-independent commercial rocket.
Trying for reuse probably does make sense, even if China's already got other reusable options in operation.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:37:12 UTC No. 16082232
>>16082217
Pete Beck is a paedophile. It's obvious to anyone who fucks kids.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:37:28 UTC No. 16082233
>>16082224
like CRS 12 news conference or something
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:43:53 UTC No. 16082241
>>16082217
I think Electron is just a bit too small for reuse. You'd think they'd be trying to recover every booster, but they're not even trying to land half of the launches they've got planned for this year. Parachutes might not weigh that much but even than small amount must cut into Electron's performance enough to disqualify it for a lot of missions.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 00:51:46 UTC No. 16082250
>>16080651
>basically they were rendered unconscious very very quickly
Wasn't there some claim of some action being recorded (activating some suit system or something) that implied someone was conscious for a while?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:01:53 UTC No. 16082267
>>16082250
you're thinking about challenger
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:08:25 UTC No. 16082274
>>16082267
yeah challenger was the one where at least a couple of them were alive all the way to impact with the water
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:08:36 UTC No. 16082275
Yes the reentry plasma was gorgeous (jaw dropping!) but I’m almost equally impressed with the plume of a “healthy” Super Heavy. It was stunning.
Imagine a dark sunset Starship launch with a huge purple flame
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:11:31 UTC No. 16082280
>>16082275
I wonder what will happen if scorch marks are on the stainless, if the SS/SH has seen a bunch of flights.
I assume they will have to carefully clean the SS if it is used to resupply some space station somewhere due to offgassing from the dirt and gunk on it.
Remember the very early CRS missions, and how the Russians complained that dragon was off gassing too much?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:12:31 UTC No. 16082281
>>16081367
LAPIS time-series video?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:15:38 UTC No. 16082282
>>16082280
If memory serves, the Russians were just making an excuse. Weren’t they also arguing Dragon could spontaneously combust and was a threat to the Station?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:16:33 UTC No. 16082283
>>16082275
raptors are still not burning clean enough compared to be4
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:26:19 UTC No. 16082290
>>16082282
Stupid drunk Ivan thought it was an actual dragon.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:29:16 UTC No. 16082294
>>16082282
to be fair to them Dragon 2 did indeed blow up
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:48:24 UTC No. 16082317
one of these days a F9 will blow up on a routine starlink flight. what happens next?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:51:16 UTC No. 16082319
>>16082317
The Falcons stand down for three or four days while SpaceX figures out what went wrong. After that it's back to normal operation.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 01:58:16 UTC No. 16082324
>>16082317
F9 has blown up during flight once before you know, remarkable not since Jun 2015 during CRS-7. Was a pretty big deal since it was a NASA cargo mission for the ISS. Return-to-flight was about 6 months later with the redesigned FT. The delay might have been to do with the new design more than the previous failure.
So basically a failure would just be a minor disappointment, wouldn't impact the contracts.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:00:52 UTC No. 16082327
I believe in stainless rocket supremacy. is it still Outokumpu?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:01:24 UTC No. 16082328
>>16082280
>Russians
how can you tell a Russian is lying? he is breathing, and other such classics
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:21:19 UTC No. 16082343
>the post-starship launch depression begins to kick in again
I just ate 3 microwave burritos
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:28:30 UTC No. 16082351
>>16082147
>I don't think it's likely that China's future upmass will be *that* tiny in comparison to America's.
Probably not, but the point is that even if they get Falcon 9 performance they'll at best be in the same relative position they are now. Just put China where SpaceX is on the graph now and that's what the future will look like if things go well for them.
But if we're comparing paper promises then that only makes things much worse. Just a single Starship is supposed to be able to launch daily, perhaps as much as five times per day. So from one Starship that's 54,750 tons to orbit annually, assuming only 150t payload and daily launches. And they're aiming to build a hundred per year. If we say that they can only launch each Starship once every three days and that they only have twenty of them that's 360,000 tons to orbit per year.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:28:43 UTC No. 16082352
>>16082280
In the colonial era of spaceflight, we will simply not care so much about offgassing
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:29:37 UTC No. 16082354
>>16082343
Thanks for reminding me that I'm out of those
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:41:32 UTC No. 16082364
>>16081652
yeah "tether" is used to refer to like 3 different concepts right now in internet-space-discussion circles
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 02:42:05 UTC No. 16082365
>>16082364
four if you count the cryptobro overlap
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:13:13 UTC No. 16082398
>>16081541
Retarded five who doesn’t realize that the internet providing prints money and that it has existed for years before the spy shit
I thought /sfg/ was better than this
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:19:01 UTC No. 16082402
>>16080573
What the fuck are you talking about
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:20:23 UTC No. 16082403
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:23:01 UTC No. 16082407
>>16081634
momentum exchange tethers can be built from fishing line. No seriously, actual fishing line a tackle shop would sell.
>>16081201
There are two problems with tethers: deploying them and the fact that they're huge navigation hazards. At best, a tether's a satellite eating disk hundreds of kilometers in diameter. At worst, it's a sphere hundreds of kilometers in diameter. And I do mean satellite eating. Tethers can be made to tank collisions with satellites. You just use multiple tethers arranged wider than the satellites you expect to collide with. The satellite gets FUCKED, but enough tether strands survive that it can be remade.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:23:51 UTC No. 16082409
>>16082402
The pic of an "egyptian guy" with the post about interpreting his dreams is like the story of Joseph interpreting the pharoahs dreams. not a schizo, it just reminded me of the musical.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:25:02 UTC No. 16082412
>>16082136
>test flights take longer than simulations
Lol. Lmao.
SLS called
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:25:11 UTC No. 16082413
>>16082403
only 8% so 92% get jobs? thats unbelievably high.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:31:40 UTC No. 16082418
Chinese new space is currently going through a bubble burst and it’s not totally clear who will survive. Mostly it’ll be the many obvious investor scams as Chinese investors become risk adverse in their declining market (and try to move investments to stable foreign markets like Australian and Canadian real estate) but by the end of the year a lot of the ambitious planners might be ambitiously planning bankruptcy.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:33:10 UTC No. 16082419
>>16080517
SpaceX girls will be trained to only accept creampies because of the need to immediately start increasing the population.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:35:04 UTC No. 16082421
>>16082418
Which ones would you say are the obvious scams?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:41:49 UTC No. 16082431
>>16082421
any that aren't directly interlinked with CAS
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:45:33 UTC No. 16082435
>>16082431
Can you be more specific?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:49:13 UTC No. 16082441
>>16082435
Chinese academy of sciences. it's generally agreed they have their hands deep in various "private" Chinese space startups . Unless that has changed
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:52:37 UTC No. 16082447
>>16082418
>by the end of the year a lot of the ambitious planners might be ambitiously planning bankruptcy
Unlikely. Being a conventionally successful business by western standards has never really been the goal. They're being used by Beijing as incubators for space launch-experienced personnel, liquid fuel propulsion systems, and reusablity tech. It'd be a lot harder for those to grow quickly in the ossified oldspace guildhalls of CASC/CASIC. A lot of these groups have already survived the failure of an ICBM-derived launch vehicle with little ill effects. Beijing is willing to keep supporting them for their non-launch dividends, the local multiplicities are willing to keep funneling funds into them for prestige's sake, and there's enough payloads desperate for any launch that you could see several reusable launchers operating simultaneously without crowding each other out of the market.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:53:29 UTC No. 16082449
>>16082441
I know that, I was just wondering if you knew of specific companies that seemed like frauds
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:57:46 UTC No. 16082455
>>16082449
oh no clue lol
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 03:59:30 UTC No. 16082459
>>16082449
You can't use western standards to judge them as frauds or not. The political and economic circumstances inside China are completely differnt
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:02:55 UTC No. 16082465
Always remember that the phrase "private Chinese space company" is an oxymoron by default
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:07:45 UTC No. 16082474
>>16080725
Why are you crawling on the hydroponics and experiments?
Why is there only one place you can stand up, and then you get bashed in the head with the door?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:08:54 UTC No. 16082482
>>16081092
>ecological disaster
lmao the beach in the photo is the same material as that tile
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:14:45 UTC No. 16082494
>>16080967
Meanwhile, all serious motion control IRL uses servomotors. We're no longer in an era where "can be controlled with relays" is a selling point.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:20:58 UTC No. 16082508
>>16082494
how about being controlled by clockwork?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:34:25 UTC No. 16082527
>>16081367
>spy satellites
Sure, that's what they are. Definitely nice, passive spy satellites. They're very, very stupid, and they're not even minerals.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:45:14 UTC No. 16082535
>>16082474
It's zero g dipshit
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:47:55 UTC No. 16082538
>>16081092
>the X on the tile
subtle advertising
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 04:59:51 UTC No. 16082546
>>16081776
I had a dream last night that I was present for a starlink deployment. The chinese space laser blew it up right after leaving the starship and I became sad because I wanted to see it work. But then a new starlink came out of a pez dispenser right then no more than a minute later. It too deployed, got lasered and exploded. Then another and another and another. Then Elon said to me "we're mass producing these, I can do this all day"
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:04:50 UTC No. 16082553
>>16082413
Burgers ain't gonna flip themselves. At least not until robots get cheaper than art history majors.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:19:33 UTC No. 16082565
>>16082162
The first flight of the Falcon 9 also had one of the engines rupture its powerhead during ascent. The remaining 8 engines did their job and the Dragon made it to the station, but the secondary payload could not be released because of that failure.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:54:19 UTC No. 16082583
til the shuttle ejection seats could also be used below 100k feet on re-entry. wowzers
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 05:56:23 UTC No. 16082586
>>16082474
its a cross section. each deck is about 2.2 meters high so you can stand up fully just "the other way"
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:31:06 UTC No. 16082605
>>16082120
Its so funnt how many spx faggots seethe when you say truth
>YEAHHH IT BLEW UP AGAIN BU BUT THEY GET DATA OKK!!!
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:33:28 UTC No. 16082606
>>16082605
it took like 20 blown up f9 first stages to nail landing it. Now, landing f9 is more itself reliable than the launching of any other rocket.
do you not realize that this is part of the development process? Why do rockets have some weird exemption for not being allowed to fail during development?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:36:47 UTC No. 16082607
>>16082605
Reminder that they only had data up to when they lost contact. Any meaningful data on the flight recorders are at the bottom of the Indian Ocean, and no efforts are being made to recover it.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:37:50 UTC No. 16082608
>>16082606
F9 could deliver payload in the first launch. we already had 3 starship launches and we only get a sub orbital flight and ship spinning without control
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 06:40:28 UTC No. 16082610
>>16082608
and? who cares? Would you prefer they not launch anything and take 2 more years to develop with simulations instead of just launching and fixing the mistakes after?
use your head, dude. The end result is what matters - a working starship. The process to get there is not like other rockets, but that doesn't mean its wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:03:38 UTC No. 16082630
>>16082607
>flight recorders
>rocket
lol
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:08:42 UTC No. 16082633
>>16082608
F1 failed three times vefore reaching orbit, they did t start with F9 from scratch
F9 was also a much more conservative and gradual development programme, reuse being tacked on later than actually being designed from the start, which again made it more similar to conventional rockets and thus easier to develop
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:43:49 UTC No. 16082654
All the shitty Twitteresque spacex bad posts are because of that one faggot who advertises on /pol/ and /k/ btw. I miss when we didn’t have to have constant 101 talk and could actually discuss interesting things
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:45:55 UTC No. 16082658
spacex bad
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 07:51:51 UTC No. 16082664
happy st paddy's day
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:03:47 UTC No. 16082674
>>16082149
>This sounds like the sort of leak you could be executed for leaking.
jej, this isn't the 50s anymore, big guy, you forget the Clinton admin and the rocket/missile tech Bill sold to China as Hill was packing up the contents of the White House in the middle of the night, not to mention all the insane stuff that went on under Obama, get real
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 08:11:09 UTC No. 16082678
>>16082421
the Australian and Canadian real estate markets
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:02:50 UTC No. 16082726
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:08:25 UTC No. 16082982
>>16081499
No, you are gay
Go back to California
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:22:17 UTC No. 16082995
>>16081175
>mass of an aircraft carrier
>uses solar power + earths magnetic field to reboost itself
doubt
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:26:53 UTC No. 16082997
>>16081378
It would be cool if they work out a deal where PEZ sells starship shaped pez candy dispensers and SpaceX gets to use the PEZ trademark
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:28:47 UTC No. 16083002
>>16082343
Probably better for you than most of the average American's diet. You could probably live on microwave burritos with vitamin supplementation.
In fact, TVP, beans, vegetable oil, wheat and salt should all be available on Mars once the farming starts, so microwave burritos may be a staple in the early years of the colony.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:42:50 UTC No. 16083013
>>16082459
说得好,兄弟!
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:50:47 UTC No. 16083021
>>16082508
>venusian midday
>suddenly 12 bongs ring across the barren, burning hellscape
>a small door opens on the rover and a tiny metal figure holding a trumpet emerges
>he raises the horn to his lips
>"toot toot"
>minutes later on Earth
>"the upper atmosphere drone is reporting successful acquisition of acoustic signal"
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:55:10 UTC No. 16083027
>>16082654
I just report troll posts as such even if they're nominally on-topic
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:54:03 UTC No. 16083137
>>16081747
By trying to get drinkable tap water first