🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:01:14 UTC No. 16082724
Plasma Blanket Edition
Previous - >>16080207
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:05:22 UTC No. 16082730
>>16082724
First for plasma SEXOOOOO
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:06:59 UTC No. 16082732
Reusability is a meme.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:07:43 UTC No. 16082734
>>16082732
Don't let your memes be dreams.
🗑️ Barkon at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:08:10 UTC No. 16082735
>>16082734
Ebin maymay kyad
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:10:40 UTC No. 16082738
i NEED another launch
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:11:03 UTC No. 16082739
>>16082734
nuh uh starlink isn't REAL upmass
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:35:23 UTC No. 16082770
there's jizz on my plasma blanket
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 09:42:48 UTC No. 16082785
>>16082776
it sure is a rocket-y rocket
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:07:29 UTC No. 16082816
>>16082814
absolute kino first 2 minutes (pic unrelated)
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:18:58 UTC No. 16082821
>>16082814
ill give it to NSF, that shot with the garbage flying away from the tower is Kino
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:40:37 UTC No. 16082843
>>16082776
I've seen cleaner burns on a tire fire. Too bad Elon doesn't have the SACK to run stoichiometric like Relativity and Blue Origin chads
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:40:57 UTC No. 16082844
>>16082734
Don't show this to lightning leg
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:41:10 UTC No. 16082845
>>16082734
>a single Starship launch per month would outpace that
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:51:57 UTC No. 16082851
>>16082843
settle down, Shecky
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 10:58:03 UTC No. 16082858
>>16082844
>Another Musk Boring Company venture fails, circumnavigating only half of mars at the announced deadline of the project
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:01:39 UTC No. 16082861
>>16082851
What's up with those weird gashes cutting through the middle of the areas?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:03:24 UTC No. 16082864
>>16082861
you have read the words too, not just be dazzled by the pretty colors
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:14:39 UTC No. 16082875
reminder that ift3 failed. no mid flight relight which means no orbital flights from here on out until they actually do a mid flight relight, 4 months from now at the earliest. If the booster made it all the way to splashdown or soemthing i would have said it was an overall sucess. but really this flight only made marginal unimportant gains over flight 2.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:14:55 UTC No. 16082877
>>16082864
why is there very low dV areas (blue) right next to very high ones (white)
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:16:00 UTC No. 16082878
>>16082875
its over for Musk
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:16:07 UTC No. 16082880
>>16082864
Top brainlet /sfg/ post of 2024.
Someone give this man an award.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:16:16 UTC No. 16082881
>>16082875
true, I would argue this was a complete failure, not even a partial failure
every single objective starship needs to to be viable for Artemis has failed so far,
starship is basically spaceX's starliner
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:16:17 UTC No. 16082882
>>16082875
You keep repeating this even though no one agrees with you
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:18:58 UTC No. 16082884
>>16082882
easy (you)s
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:20:00 UTC No. 16082885
>>16082875
Remind yourself how many times Falcon 9 landings failed and how reliable it is now. But don't remind yourself of how many years it took to perfect.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:20:16 UTC No. 16082886
>>16082877
Is it the Moon getting in the way?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:29:47 UTC No. 16082895
>>16082882
>>16082884
im not a woman like you, i dont judge the value of my opinions based on popularity.
>>16082885
we arent even talking about recovery, we are talking about the basic objectives of a disposable launch vehicle such as getting to orbit and out of orbit in a controlled way, and maintaining control through flight.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:31:27 UTC No. 16082899
>>16082895
disposable launch vehicles need to get out of orbit in a controlled way? this is news to me
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:32:16 UTC No. 16082901
>>16082895
If we treat Starship as an expendable rocket then IFT-3 was a almost a full success. Controlled deorbit is optional.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:40:03 UTC No. 16082912
>>16082901
how would it deploy the payload optimally if it was spinning out of control?
>>16082899
unless you are chinks then yes, you typically deorbit used stages
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 11:43:10 UTC No. 16082914
So has there been any new footage?
Like the booster coming down?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:01:33 UTC No. 16082935
>>16082912
Deploying a payload was not a goal.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:17:02 UTC No. 16082949
St. Launchpadraig's Day
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:31:22 UTC No. 16082962
Does Estronaut have a gf/wife?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:58:24 UTC No. 16082974
>>16082914
lolno
we wont see the booster coming down, or the starship reentering
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 12:59:53 UTC No. 16082975
>>16082861
Glitch in the simulation
Please upgrade your subscription to Universe+ for full precision interplanetary trajectories
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:03:56 UTC No. 16082977
>>16082962
I believe he is divorced
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:09:21 UTC No. 16082983
>>16082895
Estronaut's improvements to the Starship don't seem to have worked out so well.
https://www.instagram.com/reel/C3PE
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:11:25 UTC No. 16082985
young elon: i want to colonize mars
jaded spacefags: *chortles loudly*
old elon: >>16082776
Barkon at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:13:15 UTC No. 16082986
>>16082985
Ding ding ding. Chortler
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:18:16 UTC No. 16082990
>>16082776
Looks better at full speed.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:20:14 UTC No. 16082991
>Starship will colonize ma-
No.
The real colonization is building modular spacecrafts using on-orbit assembly and the use of the 'Cislunar Highway', a term coined by ULA CEO Tory Bruno, where ACES/Centaur depots are positioned strategically in deep space for refueling operations.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:27:47 UTC No. 16083000
>>16082981
I won't say it's impossible but it does sound ambitious. Pad 1 has been "technically done" for months and it hasn't seen any launches yet.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:28:50 UTC No. 16083003
>>16082983
If they were using a new system instead of a tried and tested approach, that makes it more understandable that they developed problems and less of a problem that it failed.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:32:50 UTC No. 16083005
The main thing IFT3 showed was that hot-staging works just great.
Lots of people thought it wouldn't, and demonstrating that it does work is plenty for one test.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:34:00 UTC No. 16083006
>>16082776
I can't wait to see this launching brilliant pebbles.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:38:11 UTC No. 16083011
>>16083005
We also saw the boostback burn work without exploding the booster and got turbo kino Starlink video of Starship in space.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:47:14 UTC No. 16083018
>>16083000
The CZ-8 production rate that would necessitate pad 1 might not have been achieved yet. CZ-8 can launch from the 2016 pad, and that pad is nowhere near full utilization. The next CZ-8 launch in a few days will be just the third.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 13:53:40 UTC No. 16083025
>>16082991
judeo-herpetological buzzwords
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:05:08 UTC No. 16083039
>>16082935
to prove that they can get to probit and deploy a payload safely they need to demosntrate that, regardless of if they are carrying a payload.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:06:55 UTC No. 16083041
>>16082983
Yeah guess what: he is not an engineer
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:12:40 UTC No. 16083048
>>16083039
Getting to orbit wasn't a problem, only attitude control that will most likely be fixed beforet the next flight.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:15:54 UTC No. 16083053
>>16083025
better?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:20:54 UTC No. 16083058
Starlink sats are now 60% of all satellites in orbit
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:22:58 UTC No. 16083059
>>16082991
The one real issue with Tory's bullshit ACES plans is that he never explains just how he's going to get all of that hydrogen to all of those deep space depots. Vulcan isn't a big rocket. It can't lift that much to high energy trajectories.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:30:55 UTC No. 16083066
>>16083059
Lunar/NEA ice mining was the plan.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:31:25 UTC No. 16083067
https://spacenews.com/peregrine-pay
>Griffin and VIPER were set to launch as soon as this November, but Kearns, speaking at a Planetary Science Advisory Committee meeting March 5, said that will likely slip. “It is extremely unlikely they will fly before the end of this year,” he said, because of not just the Peregrine investigation but also other work to prepare the rover and lander for launch. He said NASA would wait to set a new date until after the Peregrine investigation is complete.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:39:10 UTC No. 16083072
>>16083066
And that's an even bigger job than lifting hundreds of tons of hydrogen to a lunar orbit. This is the problem. The cislunar highway is a nonstarter because the things you need to make it possible also make it completely unnecessary.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:55:42 UTC No. 16083083
rofket
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:57:22 UTC No. 16083085
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 14:58:56 UTC No. 16083087
>>16082843
everybody runs fuel rich combustion chambers for ISP, anon
everybody
I think the brown smoke is from nitrous oxides being formed from entrained nitrogen from the atmosphere
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:00:23 UTC No. 16083088
>>16082861
inclination issues, that's where the perfect ideal hohmann transfer would be if the orbits of Earth and Mars were perfectly aligned
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:01:24 UTC No. 16083090
>>16082886
I thought that at first too, but no it's on the wrong time scale for that
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:19:35 UTC No. 16083101
>>16083088
cool, wasn't aware that mercury had an inclination this extreme (in comparison to actual planets)
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:22:16 UTC No. 16083107
>>16083102
>pluto
YWNBAP
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:23:13 UTC No. 16083108
>>16082814
>8 minute video
>STARSHIP AFTERMATH
>a few seconds of some insulation that was ruffled up
NSF is getting desperate for content.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:34:40 UTC No. 16083116
>>16083101
Actual planets
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:41:31 UTC No. 16083122
>>16082981
>>16083000
>communism
>commercial pad
why do you guys keep falling for this tripe?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 15:49:01 UTC No. 16083133
>>16083122
What are we supposed to be falling for? It's called the "Hainan Commercial Launch Site."
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:08:53 UTC No. 16083151
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNK
Estronaut cams
first few minutes has some real kino
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:11:11 UTC No. 16083153
>>16083151
nice sandstorm
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:12:50 UTC No. 16083154
>>16083151
As devastating as a tornado
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:21:09 UTC No. 16083159
>>16083041
>>16082983
https://www.youtube.com/live/ixZpBO
Estronaut said that when he asked the question that he didn't even like the idea. That's before they scrubbed the relight and we knew they weren't doing a BBQ roll or whatever with the roll.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:38:44 UTC No. 16083171
>>16083122
It's what the Chinese call it. The name of the launch site is 海南商业航天发射场, Hainan Commercial Space Launch Site, often abbreviated as 海商. The word 商业 means commerce/commercial. 海商 is a distinct launch site from 文昌航天发射场, Wenchang Space Launch Site, which is the old launch site just to the north with two pads that were completed in 2016.
The company that runs 海商 is called 海南国际商业航天发射有限公司, Hainan International Commercial Aerospace Launch Limited Company (HICAL), which is a joint venture between Hainan province and three SOEs.
A key difference with 海商 is that HICAL is building a universal pad (no. 2) which is designed to allow any propellant combination and be compatible with any tank diameter between 3.35m and 5m diameter, thus being compatible with 19 different rockets from 10 different companies. This pad will be made available for any launch company to use, unlike the other state-run liquid pads, which are reserved for CASC. HICAL will also have two solid pads.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:41:45 UTC No. 16083175
>>16083083
lunch
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:42:45 UTC No. 16083177
>>16083122
It's what the Chinese call it. The name of the launch site is 海南商业航天发射场, Hainan Commercial Space Launch Site, often abbreviated as 海商. The word 商业 means commerce/commercial. 海商 is a distinct launch site from 文昌航天发射场, Wenchang Space Launch Site, which is the old launch site just to the north.
The company that runs 海商 is called 海南国际商业航天发射有限公司, Hainan International Commercial Aerospace Launch Limited Company (HICAL), which is a joint venture between Hainan province and three SOEs.
A key difference with 海商 is that HICAL is building a universal pad (no. 2) which is designed to allow any propellant combination and be compatible with any tank diameter between 3.35m and 5m diameter, thus being compatible with 19 different rockets from 10 different companies. This pad will be made available for any launch company to use. HICAL will also have two solid pads.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:53:03 UTC No. 16083189
>>16083177
>designed to allow any propellant combination and be compatible with any tank diameter between 3.35m and 5m diameter, thus being compatible with 19 different rockets
This is something I want to see in action. The only other launch complexes I can think of that accommodated multiple kinds of rocket had vehicles from the same specific family; SLC-17 for Delta II and Delta III, LC-39 for Saturns or Falcons, etc.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 16:55:46 UTC No. 16083191
>>16083151
ground tracking shots were so much shittier this time due to the fog
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:02:11 UTC No. 16083199
Barkon at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:03:02 UTC No. 16083200
>>16083199
Ooooooooooooóóô
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:04:58 UTC No. 16083206
>>16083107
it identifies as a planet
let it use the bathroom with your minor planets, bigot
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:05:32 UTC No. 16083208
>>16083191
Repurpose a SHORAD fire control radar for the next one.
🗑️ Barkon at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:06:01 UTC No. 16083209
>>16083206
I know a word like bigot but it begins with fag and you are this
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:06:45 UTC No. 16083211
>>16083199
What is that expression meant to convey? It just looks like random shapes.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:10:25 UTC No. 16083218
>>16083122
kek, China is communist in the same way that Wall Street is
yes, the government demands its cut of anything profitable but that happens in the US, too
the difference is that the profits go to the families of important party members instead of being split between politicians and millions of welfare leeches like in the US
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:15:07 UTC No. 16083223
>>16083218
What you said was kinda true for 00's China. Not anymore. I would know
t. BABA, and HSI index bagholder
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:15:18 UTC No. 16083224
>>16083217
Looks like the Raptors still have a little ways to go in terms of fuel mixture efficiency given the sootiness at the end there. That said, the thrust plume length is crazy and the sonic waves visible through atmospheric moisture at the height we see, are intense.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:19:52 UTC No. 16083225
>>16082877
inclination
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:24:12 UTC No. 16083230
>>16083217
What would happen if you put your hand into the exhaust flame? Would it get burned or are the flames too fast?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:25:00 UTC No. 16083231
>>16083223
genuinely curious what sort of wealth distribution schemes are going on in China that rival the scope and scale of America's nigger enrichment programs
there's no medicare, food stamps, new government house (at least not anywhere I've been) and even free public education is limited in availability
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:26:27 UTC No. 16083234
>>16083231
new government housing*
>>16083230
the flames are actually cold to the touch
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:26:42 UTC No. 16083235
>>16083231
Have fun figuring out their social spending.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:28:39 UTC No. 16083237
>>16083235
so China has massive wealth transfer programs and the evidence is that there's no evidence available?
I'm convinced
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:29:23 UTC No. 16083238
>>16083235
These fuckers only did that much to enter the WTO, and new they're doing a full reverse brake. They should be kicked out.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:33:19 UTC No. 16083243
>>16083211
The feeling of being [spoiler]hungry[/spoiler] inside.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:35:19 UTC No. 16083245
>>16083213
I'd be interested to know if that was max q when the tiles were flying off.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:51:53 UTC No. 16083257
What are the implications of Goedel's incompleteness theorem on Starships control algorithms?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:53:50 UTC No. 16083258
>>16083213
Why's there corntrails coming out of the falps?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 17:56:08 UTC No. 16083262
>>16083258
hyperbolic thrusters embedded in the wings
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:01:28 UTC No. 16083263
>>16083262
Praise Glushko
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:06:54 UTC No. 16083268
>>16083230
>>16083234
this is actually a weird question because the "temperature" of the gas is low but the velocity is very high, so when you touch the gas it collides with your hand and as it slows down it heats up and transfers heat to your hand
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:09:07 UTC No. 16083270
>>16083268
finally someone who understands his Bernoulli
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:10:26 UTC No. 16083271
>>16083230
Considering the shockwaves that thing puts out, we're looking at ground beef territory regardless of any heat.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:11:53 UTC No. 16083274
>>16083270
it's like a miniature reentry in the palm of your hand
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:26:32 UTC No. 16083285
Not a woman? That's strange, I can smell your pussy stinking from here.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:41:28 UTC No. 16083292
>>16082875
Everyone whos not a complete elons cock sucker knows that
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:58:24 UTC No. 16083316
>Shop for groceries last night
>Two employees in the meat department are chatting about the Starship launch
>"But everyone hates Elon"
The reach of the man's tweets is incredible
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:59:47 UTC No. 16083318
TOTAL
EARTHER
DEATH
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:00:34 UTC No. 16083320
>>16083316
>Two employees in the meat department are chatting about the Starship launch
>"But everyone hates Elon"
What?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:00:56 UTC No. 16083323
Lets be honest /sfg/, we all know in the bottom of our heart that the moon landings were kinda... Fake right? I mean how can you explain we did it 6 times 50 years ago and now days we cant cause "space is le difficult". During this time we landed two huge rovers on mars, plobes to jupiter and pluton, James webb, hubble, ISS etc but now NASA cant replicate something they did so many years ago? "Bu but they got a way bigger budget back then" ok I kinda get it but its not supposed to be cheaper and easier now with all technology and experience we got today? And dont forget NASA already spent 30 billions dollars on Artemis and all we had was a uncrew capsule flyby (not even a orbit like apollo 8)
After all I think if we use logic... Apollo missions were a complete fraud and we believed it...
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:01:26 UTC No. 16083324
>>16083320
Read that phrasing. The butchers are on our side, anon.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:05:09 UTC No. 16083330
>>16083323
>we
Germans did it.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:05:26 UTC No. 16083331
>>16083323
Because NASA is no longer filled with spirited young men of dubious national origin in a race against commies. It's a pile of diversity hires whose sole job is to redirect money to the maximum number of congressional districts without normies realizing how badly they're being fleeced.
If you're thinking "so all that money went to waste with nothing to show for it?" consider how many trillions have been spent on aid for Africa.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:06:08 UTC No. 16083334
>>16083330
>>16083331
Why even respond to it?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:07:00 UTC No. 16083336
>>16083333
UV will destroy the fragile Tesla basedboi paint.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:08:55 UTC No. 16083340
>>16083337
Like cuddling up (consensually) with her while watching Starlink launches, right?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:30:12 UTC No. 16083380
>>16083333
So, what kind of memepayload should they test Starship with?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:34:16 UTC No. 16083388
>>16083380
any that would actually be worth it would require creating a new door, so I think the first actual payload will just be starlinks
maybe they could just yeet a starship itself somewhere
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:36:38 UTC No. 16083392
>>16083380
They could send Cybertruck battery module to dump it in the ocean.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:37:11 UTC No. 16083394
>>16083380
Another roadster, crash it into the moon Space Cowboys style
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:40:14 UTC No. 16083398
>>16083380
Starship wont have a meme payload because spacex lost their soul
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:40:39 UTC No. 16083399
>>16083380
Alabama river rocks
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:42:13 UTC No. 16083401
>>16083380
An entire Falcon 9.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:43:37 UTC No. 16083404
>>16083258
There's a cortex shock coming off the trailing edges of the flaps which appear to have supersonic leading edges.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:43:41 UTC No. 16083405
>>16083380
blue whale
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:44:04 UTC No. 16083406
>>16083380
an entire starship
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 19:59:02 UTC No. 16083429
>>16083380
Gaming Journalists.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:05:28 UTC No. 16083446
>>16083398
SpaceX is now oldspace. Big lumbering and held up by bureaucracy.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:05:41 UTC No. 16083447
>>16083401
multiple falcon 9s
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:23:39 UTC No. 16083496
While the Elonite cult was distracted with grand plans for occupying Mars, Starship was revealed as a giant semi-expendable LEO glowsat dispenser.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:32:01 UTC No. 16083504
>>16083496
Will you be saying the same thing when ship-to-ship refueling is performed in two or three years?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:32:21 UTC No. 16083506
>>16083496
Always has been
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:33:02 UTC No. 16083507
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:35:13 UTC No. 16083514
>>16083507
This
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:38:33 UTC No. 16083525
>>16083380
Shame that this won't happen, and will just be starlinks
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:38:41 UTC No. 16083526
>>16083518
This is fucking awful
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:38:57 UTC No. 16083527
>>16083504
Refueling is retarded, except (coincidentally) for servicing spy sats.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:39:48 UTC No. 16083529
>>16083518
If it is Saad then it is only gonna be about the woke mind virus and not very topical
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:40:41 UTC No. 16083530
>>16083529
they are basically shitposting in voice form
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:43:30 UTC No. 16083535
>>16083518
Not gonna be spaceflight kys
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:44:16 UTC No. 16083538
>>16083525
Lol what, didn't mean to post that pic
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:44:32 UTC No. 16083539
>>16083527
Found spacefag5
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:45:40 UTC No. 16083541
>>16083066
Wait so let me get this straight
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:47:05 UTC No. 16083545
>>16083380
mini starship
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:48:08 UTC No. 16083547
>>16083543
Exotic queen of dvach
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:48:34 UTC No. 16083548
>>16083066
sounds prohibitively expensive, no thanks
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:48:37 UTC No. 16083549
>>16083543
I wanna see her nipples
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 20:49:16 UTC No. 16083552
>>16083539
kek
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:03:15 UTC No. 16083573
>>16083543
I want to believe that her necklace is a Clear reference.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:03:48 UTC No. 16083576
>>16083504
Anyone who knows a little bit about space knew this, you must be really retarded to think starship could be use for deep space
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:09:17 UTC No. 16083585
>>16083574
One weird trick to fool the FAA. Launch the next stack under the same name.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:12:00 UTC No. 16083590
>>16083323
massively more funding and less bureaucracy than modern Nasa. Just look at boeing as another example of organizational decay.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:13:51 UTC No. 16083594
>>16083543
armpit slut
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:17:59 UTC No. 16083599
>>16083594
Disgusting pitfag. Get the fuck off my board
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:18:09 UTC No. 16083600
two separate very mentally ill people have come for musk armed with a gun in the last 6 months
one of them thought musk put a chip in his head
I remember seeing a news story about one of them, the dude got arrested before even going to austin I think
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:29:45 UTC No. 16083612
>>16083066
ice is nice
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:34:12 UTC No. 16083618
>>16083600
Honestly fewer than I would have guessed.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:52:57 UTC No. 16083632
>>16083594
Got pic?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 21:56:55 UTC No. 16083638
>>16083632
Yes, it's on our discord.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:02:27 UTC No. 16083641
>>16083323
you are on /sfg/. Go fuck off to /pol/ where you will find more willing followers to your schizo preaching
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:06:59 UTC No. 16083644
>>16083585
the ussr literally did this, if the launch failed they just didn't bump the number up so it looked like every flight was a success, iirc luna 2 was actually the 6th attempt
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:08:31 UTC No. 16083647
feels badman. i start following space shit on x and now it's all normie slop
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:09:30 UTC No. 16083648
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:09:48 UTC No. 16083649
>>16083641
we're gonna have to wait a month until all the tourists clear off unfortunately
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:10:34 UTC No. 16083650
>>16083399
Elon is rich but doesn't have that kind of money.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:12:06 UTC No. 16083654
>>16083648
this is the most obvious ai image ive ever seen. a fucking AR flamethrower? good lord ai is never going to be anything more than a program, agi panicfags need to shut up
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:12:25 UTC No. 16083655
>>16083653
This looks like a 1960s technical mockup of a future system, in the cool way.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:14:18 UTC No. 16083657
>>16083655
it's ksp
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:17:09 UTC No. 16083665
>>16083654
calm down, spazz
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:25:57 UTC No. 16083680
ATTENTION FAGS
Give me your time predictions for IFT-4 and what goals they will try to achieve. Extra info, between IFT-1 and IFT-2 there was a 7 month gap and between IFT-2 and IFT-3 there was a 4 month gap, which is about a decrease of 43% in wait.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:29:45 UTC No. 16083686
>>16083680
May 4, Starship RCS will get fixed, they will try and succeed with in space engine burn and Starship will enter the atmosphere without spinning in the correct attitude, probably still burn up
Superheavy booster will do a water landing of some sort without but it won't go perfectly yet
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:30:58 UTC No. 16083688
>>16083686
Did you go with May 4th for the meme date.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:32:53 UTC No. 16083692
>>16083688
no I used very sophisticated analysis to come up with that
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:34:26 UTC No. 16083693
>>16083688
July 4th
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:34:28 UTC No. 16083694
>>16083230
You turn into jam.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:36:14 UTC No. 16083696
>>16083686
They should be able to fix the booster rolling for the next flight, since that's probably just setting the correct variables in software. Getting the Raptors to relight properly for the landing burn might take a few more tries.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:45:48 UTC No. 16083703
>>16083686
Date: July 4th
Result: will be a worthy contribution to American July 4th traditions
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:48:22 UTC No. 16083708
>>16083680
Date: July 4th
Achievement: worthy contribution to American Independence Day traditions
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:49:28 UTC No. 16083711
>>16083700
can you show us what /k/ope tranny message prompted you to say that?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:50:06 UTC No. 16083712
>>16083653
separation with both stages firing is crazy
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 22:56:56 UTC No. 16083720
>>16083711
No need to mention your tranny fetish here
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:10:31 UTC No. 16083741
>>16083701
why was there a long delay between f9 #2 and #3?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:11:16 UTC No. 16083743
>>16083722
I dont care about those launches, what will be the next exciting thing?
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:19:36 UTC No. 16083753
>>16083743
if you dont care about falcon iss stuff then ift-4.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:19:59 UTC No. 16083754
>>16083711
back to nu/pol/ please, you don't belong.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:22:21 UTC No. 16083758
>>16083722
The timing for Election couldn't be more ass. I might actually have been able to see this one from my house
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:31:00 UTC No. 16083769
>>16083741
no customers.
Back before SpaceX ate the entire US launch market and created starlink they were capped by who was willing to pay them.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:46:06 UTC No. 16083780
>>16083102
This is from the 90s because they went to the trouble of drawing rings around all the gas giants, when that information was new and interesting.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:48:41 UTC No. 16083787
>>16083101
Pallas is really out of pocket.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:49:04 UTC No. 16083788
>>16083700
anon, like 90% of /sfg/ are /k/ regulars
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:50:03 UTC No. 16083789
>>16083218
China is National Socialist.
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:57:29 UTC No. 16083802
>>16083801
let that sink in
Anonymous at Sun, 17 Mar 2024 23:59:20 UTC No. 16083804
>>16083801
Air doesnt weigh anything
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:01:35 UTC No. 16083807
>>16083804
false
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:03:07 UTC No. 16083809
>>16083807
hold your hand out
there you go, you lifted the whole atmosphere
gtfo here retard
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:03:48 UTC No. 16083812
>>16083809
luckily, the entire atmosphere is pressing on the bottom of my hand to help me lift the whole atmosphere
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:04:39 UTC No. 16083813
>>16083812
and with that you jumped the shark
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:05:13 UTC No. 16083814
>>16083788
The 'Weaponize It' and 'Space Warfare' threads are generally pretty stoopid, but they do get a lot of replies
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:06:14 UTC No. 16083815
>>16083814
it was them and /sci/ launch threads for spaceflight discussion for the longest time, any other boards get into it?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:07:33 UTC No. 16083816
>>16083815
old /pol/ space elevator threads put all that to shame
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:09:06 UTC No. 16083817
>>16083815
You can make thread on /int/ for IFT-4
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:09:07 UTC No. 16083818
>>16083815
well I made some 'large launch vehicle' discussion threads on sci briefly pre-sfg
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:11:44 UTC No. 16083821
>>16083818
yeah I was there for those, you could spontaneously start a space discussion on /sci/ at any time if you had an interesting prompt like any news at all
kinda a shame that Starship tankwatching was so busy for so many weeks that it turned into a general, I wish we could go back
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:13:34 UTC No. 16083823
>>16083802
jew detected
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:19:23 UTC No. 16083832
>>16083380
Wheel of cheese.
Accept no substitutes
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:24:32 UTC No. 16083839
>>16083788
>90% of /sfg/ are /k/ope trannies
nope
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:25:05 UTC No. 16083841
>>16083801
if you factor the peak 6G then it becomes more like ~7 tons of air
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:25:22 UTC No. 16083843
>>16083839
you will perish in the coming destruction
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:26:27 UTC No. 16083846
wow. one point two cubic kilograms of air.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:27:03 UTC No. 16083849
>>16083788
fuck off tranny we are not you are dumb nigger tourist who needs to clear off
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:27:14 UTC No. 16083850
>>16083801
Reminder that Starship could launch like nine full-stack Electron rockets, with their payloads, as a payload.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:27:18 UTC No. 16083852
was that 1.2 tons of air at sea level pressure or vacuum ?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:31:12 UTC No. 16083860
>>16083788
Nope. /k/ is glowie pozzed board.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:33:46 UTC No. 16083865
>>16083218
>the profits go to
That's not how economics works in either China or the US you embarrassing retard. Stick to talking about space dildo math and not grown-up shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:35:47 UTC No. 16083866
>>16083862
why dont you take your rotting axe wound back to that board
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:36:19 UTC No. 16083868
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:36:59 UTC No. 16083869
>>16083852
100 square tons
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:38:22 UTC No. 16083871
>>16083809
Dive down to 10m and hold out your hand. There you go, you lifted a water column of 10m height.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:38:46 UTC No. 16083872
>>16083871
amazing
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:39:41 UTC No. 16083873
>>16083815
Y'all niggas don't even know the true /sfg/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:40:47 UTC No. 16083875
>>16083873
this is worse than the dorf butt guy from /dfg/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:42:07 UTC No. 16083876
>>16083871
?? yeah
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:45:07 UTC No. 16083877
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:45:08 UTC No. 16083878
>>16083527
refuelling is retarded? except for LEO cucksheds?? LOL
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:47:20 UTC No. 16083880
fuck gas stations
all my homies drive expendable cars
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 00:47:34 UTC No. 16083881
>>16083877
there she is
who is this?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:00:49 UTC No. 16083886
>>16083881
sbarky :3
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:03:31 UTC No. 16083889
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:16:26 UTC No. 16083902
>>16083886
Kys tranny only clear is allowed here
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:18:00 UTC No. 16083903
vulcan is cheaper than f9 and has 70 launches sold. starlink is fake upmass.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:20:40 UTC No. 16083905
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:22:48 UTC No. 16083910
>>16083903
This is why Amazon Kerberos will replace Starlink (Starlostconnection) immediately. Launch on Blue Gleen and Vulcan will undercut SpaceX monarchy conpletely
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:23:24 UTC No. 16083911
>>16083903
70 launches...that's like 6 months for spacex right? top jej
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:24:21 UTC No. 16083912
>>16083816
The OP of those was a schizo with EDS but he did usually provoke decent discussion.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:24:22 UTC No. 16083913
>>16083905
Not spaceflight related
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:24:35 UTC No. 16083914
>>16083911
and 10 years for vulcan
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:25:52 UTC No. 16083917
>>16083913
Look closely
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:28:24 UTC No. 16083920
>>16083903
What is the official commercial price of a Vulcan Centaur? Because all the estimates I've heard for Vulcan still have the price tag at over $100M.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:34:47 UTC No. 16083924
>>16083258
>corntrails
>falps
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:35:02 UTC No. 16083925
Reusables are still a meme and practically every space agency on Earth recognize that.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:36:28 UTC No. 16083927
Reusables are stupid for the vast majority of circumstances. They're even stupider considering how few heavy payloads are being lifted.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:36:58 UTC No. 16083931
>>16083337
you wouldn't be able to move because there's no missing piece
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:38:02 UTC No. 16083933
>>16083380
every US senator
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:38:15 UTC No. 16083934
>>16083925
>space agency
you are a fucking fossil that cant accept the future isnt with government agency. get back in your coffin gramps
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:38:56 UTC No. 16083935
>>16083934
The whole point of reusability falls apart when you realize that there aren't nearly enough fucking payloads to justify it you dumb smooth brained tard. That's why they came up with Starlink because they would get single digit launches per year with the normal market.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:39:58 UTC No. 16083938
But then your tooling and infrastructure just sits idly by while a single rocket does an entire year's worth of launches. You SpaceX brainlets don't seem to understand that rockets are trucks to deliver payloads. That is their only function. You don't build a fleet of trucks for a handful of payloads.
Get it now? If you don't like there are plenty of circlejerks on Reddit waiting for you.
In fact, there are actually fewer customers for satellites compared to 10 years ago so there's even less incentive for a reusable rocket unless you're doing constellations.
Rocket companies launching their own payloads doesn't mean anything.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:40:36 UTC No. 16083940
>>16083905
post the color version
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:41:03 UTC No. 16083941
There are fewer customers today than there were 10 years ago. Hence why rocket companies have shifted to launching their own payloads. I invite you to point at any payloads that are only in space right now specifically because SpaceX was marginally cheaper in one of the cheapest parts of spaceflight.
Even then, Vulcan, a brand expendable (the horror) already has 70 launches sold and earned ULA more launches from the Space Force than SpaceX while being cheaper than the F9.
You can jerk off to your fantasies all you want, but you can't get around 70+ launches sold. Cope.
Being reusable compromises it's ability to missions outside of LEO.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:41:15 UTC No. 16083942
>>16083938
I also love quoting fucking Europeans, who haven't been relevant in most of a century
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:41:19 UTC No. 16083943
>>16083680
April 20th
Elon loves meme dates
Happy birthday, my leader!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:42:35 UTC No. 16083944
You niggers are always obsessed with proof.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:42:38 UTC No. 16083945
>>16083940
>brownoid lover
as expected of rocketgirl troons.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:43:54 UTC No. 16083946
>>16083945
It's a reference to Neutron (carbon fiber) and Starship (TPS) physically being black.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:45:34 UTC No. 16083949
>>16083941
Hi associate,
As per our previous email, you MUST include "High Energy" when discussing the benefits of our rocket against the competition. Failure to do so may result in marketing points being deducted from your account in future.
Kind regards,
ULA Marketing Leadership
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:45:36 UTC No. 16083950
>>16083935
falcon launched 33 non starlink payloads last year
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:47:12 UTC No. 16083954
>>16083949
anon no stop you'll get in trouble for posting CUI emails
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:47:38 UTC No. 16083956
>>16083865
okay, let's hear your enlightened explanation of why China is communist or how what you perceive to be my error has made my explanation of why it's not incorrect
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:47:55 UTC No. 16083958
>>16083942
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa
Even the ESA is accepting that reusability is the future. They're not doing anything serious about it, but they are past the complete denial stage.
>>16083950
The conventional market is still a bit too small to take advantage of something like Falcon 9. The "If you build it, they will come" principle is still largely correct, but they're not going to show up anywhere near quick enough to match SpaceX's goals or pace.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:49:52 UTC No. 16083961
Stargate
Star Command
Starlink
Starshield
Starship
Starbase
Starfuck
Starpoop
Staranus
StarPOOP
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:50:11 UTC No. 16083963
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:50:17 UTC No. 16083964
>>16083958
cubesat market has seen the 'come' part 100%. Look at the cubesat people saying that Transporter missions are a complete game-changer
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:51:02 UTC No. 16083969
>>16083945
Incel hours on /sfg/ huh?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:52:15 UTC No. 16083971
>>16083963
that explains why he's always wearing shades
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:54:36 UTC No. 16083974
an anon was trolling me on /k/ as one does when he mentioned that Starship (specifically Raptor) was being qualifed on unimproved natural gas
is he taking the shit or what, has anybody else heard about this?
>>16083969
look, I send the rockets up, where they come down is not my problem
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:55:51 UTC No. 16083977
>>16083963
is this real?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:56:53 UTC No. 16083978
>>16083974
KYS /k/ope tranny
>verification not required
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 01:57:06 UTC No. 16083979
>>16083977
no one will ever know
https://twitter.com/torybruno/statu
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:05:25 UTC No. 16083992
>>16083964
Cubesats can move a lot quicker than everyone else because they're built with the cheapest grade of parts and aren't concerned with maximizing satellite lifespan. Most full size satellites are still using buses built by Boeing or Airbus. I'm actually a bit surprised that SpaceX didn't move harder to get into that market segment.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:08:49 UTC No. 16083995
>>16083992
Rocket Lab is jumping on that train and SpaceX decided that their engineering resources would be better spent on internal projects like Starlink instead of trying to make something universally applicable
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:10:12 UTC No. 16083997
>>16083992
Margins are shit unless you do bespoke handholding shit like Hobbitlab or Spaceflight Inc.. They get more profit selling Transporter missions by the ton.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:15:38 UTC No. 16084001
>>16083875
Show some respect for your history
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:17:26 UTC No. 16084003
>>16084001
I will not show respect for /kspg/, I did not respect them when they were alive and I will not respect them now that they are dead
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:24:30 UTC No. 16084013
>>16083337
who's ria?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:27:32 UTC No. 16084017
>>16084013
Clear Usui is also called Ria for reasons that I am simply not Japanese enough to understand
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:35:43 UTC No. 16084030
>>16084017
Clear>Kuria>Ria
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:38:10 UTC No. 16084032
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:41:02 UTC No. 16084035
>>16083151
South tracker guy's shots at the end are quite good, damn
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:43:13 UTC No. 16084038
>>16084035
Estronaut and his team have a killer setup. I used to think he was a fag. Now I think he’s a fag but I respect him lol
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:44:03 UTC No. 16084039
>>16083380
Goy foreskin to please the Israel lobby
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:46:54 UTC No. 16084044
>>16083151
Has ANYONE gotten footage of the booster/booster debris cloud final descent? Were we just completely cucked out of that by the low level clouds/fog? I would have thought that one of the nearby planes or boats might have gotten something.
I really want to see that thing sailing down toward the Gulf at a gorillion miles an hour.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 02:47:14 UTC No. 16084045
>>16084038
he still talks like a fag and he needs to learn some stoicism but yeah he does good work
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:00:30 UTC No. 16084060
that time Haley's comet hit the moon
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:06:41 UTC No. 16084072
>>16084060
Meds now
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:14:36 UTC No. 16084087
>>16084060
haha oh yeah I remember that that was crazy
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:15:29 UTC No. 16084091
>>16084060
I wish. It would have been a great scientific/exploration opportunity.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:23:31 UTC No. 16084105
>>16083543
Is her father a GI?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:24:44 UTC No. 16084108
>>16083380
Starlink mass emulators dispensed in series painted to show an animation of pepe smirking
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:42:28 UTC No. 16084130
>>16083943
yeah, probably, but he'll mean it as dude weed 4-20
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 03:51:32 UTC No. 16084135
>>16083380
inflatable full scale USS Enterprise with navigation lights put in LEO and viewable with backyard telescopes
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:00:37 UTC No. 16084143
>>16084135
it needs to play the Picard song on FM radio
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:00:46 UTC No. 16084144
>>16083935
I think they invented Starlink so that they could print money with it, which is what they are doing
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:01:45 UTC No. 16084145
>>16084143
I like the way you think, anon.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:05:07 UTC No. 16084148
>>16084145
https://picard.ytmnd.com/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:14:59 UTC No. 16084153
>>16084145
what about the way i think >>16084039
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:17:47 UTC No. 16084156
>>16084153
I am going to drop an asteroid on you
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:32:58 UTC No. 16084173
ok, /sfg/ it's time to figure out the basics about a full size inflatable USS Enterprise with blinking navigation lights and a transmitter that when passing overhead allows you to tune in and hear Kirk/Uhura hailing you put in low earth orbit, the how much it weighs, what it's made out of, how is it packed for flight, how long it will be in orbit before it goes poof as it reenters, etc and then we need to get Elon on board the idea. Maybe for the original show's 60th in 2026?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:41:55 UTC No. 16084180
>reading about general relativity
>damn c sure is a hard speed limit
>Eric Weinstein pops up
>watch him deride string theory & modern physics community
>hmm maybe there is hope
>read some more
>he's just a fraud entertainer type that happens to have a good math background so he sounds smart; his unified theory is garbage
damn
we're stuck at c
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:48:22 UTC No. 16084182
>>16084180
Just travel faster than you're moving???
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 04:53:33 UTC No. 16084187
>>16082798
maybe. you have to understand how hard america was coping after luna 1 and the realization that the soviets could throw 360kg payloads to TLI, and that atlas-agena was still years away from matching that. in an environment like that, dead-end stunt missions that can be slapped together in a few months start seeming a lot more rational. if just one of the attempts had succeeded it would've been hailed as a triumph of american come-from-behind gumption (while everyone continued to ignore the political infighting which was hamstringing approval of a more useful rocket like the saturn a-1).
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:05:41 UTC No. 16084207
>>16084180
one way of thinking about general relativity is, c is so constant that it's constant in every reference frame
so yeah
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:06:46 UTC No. 16084209
>>16084180
>we're stuck at c
For better or for worse. Maybe there's some sort of way out if you can create a causal disconnect between what you want to go FTL and the rest of the universe, but without that, there doesn't seem to be any way of doing it. And I don't think there's any path to inducing casual disconnect through quantum electrodynamics.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:07:38 UTC No. 16084210
let's just wait for the Big Crunch. then everything will be close together
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:12:06 UTC No. 16084214
>>16084210
>youtube pop sci buzz word
go back
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:36:15 UTC No. 16084242
/sfg/ ded (good)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:40:26 UTC No. 16084246
There will be a blood bath once starship gets rolling. All the other companies will drop like flies.
Also SpaceX confirmed comitting genocidal bloodbath
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:42:29 UTC No. 16084249
>>16084246
ULA's advocates remain convinced that reusability isn't all it's cracked up to be and Vulcan will have a strong long term outlook on its own merits. It's going to be interesting to see how it shakes out.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:52:54 UTC No. 16084256
>>16084246
Any company (aside from whoever the DoD allows to be Spacex's Designated Competitor) that's currently dedicated to launch services has its days numbered. Starship will lay waste to the launch market.
Existing companies should be pivoting to payloads if they want to live.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 05:58:40 UTC No. 16084264
>>16084256
good. That's how it should be. Launch services should simply be a solved problem and everyone should be focusing on infrastructure, science, and destinations.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:02:04 UTC No. 16084269
>>16084256
Actually I think Stoke has a good chance at living, there will still definetly be space for other fully reusable launch vehicles. They plan to take the small launch sector I think so if some companies just want to pay to launch up one smaller thing and not have to wait for a Transport rideshare mission OR instead pay for a full Starship then there is that method. And its not like thats a tiny share of the market, cubesats can be a good business especially since there will be more private companies looking to send them up once launch prices are significantly reduced. Other than that though, yeah basically everything that isnt fully reusable is dead in the water unless they manage to get something bigger than Sea Dragon for expendable launches to send up entire fucking space stations in one go to Jupiter or Mars. Only then would I see some extremely niche use case for expendable rockets.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:11:17 UTC No. 16084280
>>16084269
Also on the idea of fully reusable being cheaper in some ways, for non US-based companies there is still the matter of transport between countries, continents, etc. that SpaceX can't do anything about. Coupled with the fact that these are delicate payloads they would probably need to pay a premium to these other shipping methods. This leaves space for competitors native to other countries or continents to take up that 'reusable rocket' spot in the economy that would be cheaper than shipping if half way across the globe. Now this is all thinking that SpaceX doesn't somehow expand to other countries but considering they work with the DoD and USSF on some top secret shit that they would probably not want other countries outside of their jurisdiction getting ahold of its fairly possible for this to happen.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:11:25 UTC No. 16084281
>A future Starship, much larger and more advanced, will travel to other star systems.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:16:09 UTC No. 16084288
>>16084281
Somewhat retarded, this is saying a colony ship would be a Starship based model. Equivalent to saying in the early 1900s that modern semi-trucks crossing the country would be based off of the Ford Model T. Like they're the same type of transport vehicle but theyre just not built for that.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:23:29 UTC No. 16084296
>>16084209
if for you, the traveler, only 10 hours pass while you travel 10 light years, isn't that, effectively, traveling faster than light? Even if to an outside observer it took you 100 years to travel that 10 light years. If time can be slowed for the traveler then faster than light travel will be possible (for the traveler).
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:24:31 UTC No. 16084297
>>16084288
don't be so pedantic
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:33:06 UTC No. 16084321
>>16084296
In this hypothetical case, it's like traveling through another dimension, where the intermediate space does not exist.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:37:33 UTC No. 16084327
>>16084297
It's not pedantic it's just logical. I fucking adore Starship and I think it's going to do exactly what the Model T did to the auto industry but I don't think it's going to be a colony ship.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 06:42:19 UTC No. 16084335
>>16084321
Making the journey at 10% the speed of light rather than 99% saves you from being zapped by everything upshifting at you, and allows a drastic reduction in the energy need to start/stop (not to mention the extreme dangers inherent to the destination from accidental relativistic traveler impacts).Therefore efforts should be made to slow the passage of time for the traveler rather than to increase the speed of the traveler. A traveler who experiences 10 hours pass while making his uneventful 10 light year trip (in 100 years) is a happy traveler.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:07:31 UTC No. 16084364
>>16084296
>If time can be slowed for the traveler
>>>/lit/sfg/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:17:08 UTC No. 16084382
>>16084364
you're not a good conversationalist, are you? are you the pedantic spazz too?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:26:35 UTC No. 16084395
>>16084382
no hes not me.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:29:24 UTC No. 16084398
>>16084364
Slowing down relative time is actually one of the only things an Alcubierre Drive would actually do by concentrating mass-energy in space.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:31:22 UTC No. 16084399
>>16084395
ok then, here have a gift as I go hit up other boards, adios
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:33:56 UTC No. 16084400
>>16084399
mercury has some really finnicky hohmann transfers but you can get them for 6500 m/s or less, including earth escape. the number on that's way too high.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:35:07 UTC No. 16084401
>>16084398
wait what? Are you talking good old "relativistic time dilation due to the near-c speed it achieves" or do you mean this Albuquerie drive thing would actually "slow down" time somehow for the occupants as one of its effects, even if they weren't actually travelling at near-c speed?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:38:48 UTC No. 16084409
>>16084401
Gravitational time dilation.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:46:56 UTC No. 16084420
https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/stat
Interesting thread about misconceptions of space radiation and what the doses actually are ( death rates from additional statistically measurable leukemia cases needs to be on the level of how often steel workers die)
I mean I didn't think the radiation was such a problem that alarmists say anyeay (just add more shielding), but this kind of seems to inply its absolutely irrelevantly small and the panic is just the result of NASAs extreme conservatism
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:48:27 UTC No. 16084423
>>16084409
oooohh, are you sure? cus I didn't think there was actually a way to achieve what I postulated was the "best" way to handle interstellar travel, pretty cool to know there is possibly a (very) theoretical way to achieve it
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 07:53:09 UTC No. 16084428
>>16084400
>Mercury
the Phoenix Arizona real estate of the solar system
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:08:10 UTC No. 16084442
>>16084438
If we go by the 43% decrease between IFT-1 to IFT-2 and IFT-2 to IFT-3 then it could be as early as late May.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:10:30 UTC No. 16084444
>>16084389
Is this just perspective distortion, or has NASA really been buckbroken into sending astronauts to space from a launch site where the US flag flies fourth place to the Russian one?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:13:31 UTC No. 16084447
>>16084438
f9 had 9 launches in its first 4 years. it's had 228 launches in the last 4 years.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:18:52 UTC No. 16084452
>>16084438
Mid to late May.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:20:04 UTC No. 16084455
>>16084438
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
April hopefully (but its going to slip into May)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:20:23 UTC No. 16084456
>>16084444
quad quads, and for a shitty fucking bait post that completely ignores falcon. gfys
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:21:57 UTC No. 16084457
>>16084455
>hopefully april
>from elon
>not definetly
ok so he thinks its may, multiply that by 4 for elon timeand we're back to 8 months. its fucking ogre
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:23:20 UTC No. 16084461
sup /sfg/, i haven't kept up much for the past couple of years. did we ever figure out what starship uses for RCS? did they end up using autogenous pressurization?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:24:26 UTC No. 16084463
>>16084461
Time for you to go back to wherever the fuck you've been
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:25:37 UTC No. 16084464
>>16084444
did this post get hung up for 10 years?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:27:43 UTC No. 16084469
>>16083323
>I mean how can you explain we did it 6 times 50 years ago and now days we cant
Because congress is full of faggots and NASA is currently full of incompetent affirmative action hires.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:31:06 UTC No. 16084473
>>16084457
don't worry, he's gonna try his best for 4-20, weed bros, but not everybody in the gov is as cool as him so don't hold your breath
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:31:48 UTC No. 16084474
>>16084442
Unlikely based on past trends, and Starship is already hitting an impressive cadence for its scale and novelty. It's probable that cadence will increase briefly and then decrease or plateau, bottlenecked by manufacturing until Starship reuse matures.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:32:18 UTC No. 16084475
>>16084456
>quad quads
Nice.
>and for a shitty fucking bait post
It was, ultimately, a genuine question about the flags.
>that completely ignores falcon.
I'm well aware of Falcon 9 and Crew Dragon, but to the best of my knowledge the seat-swapping agreement remains.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:33:16 UTC No. 16084476
>>16084457
elon wasnt responding to the part of the tweet about the launch date. he was saying that hopefully they can increase cadence throughout the year :) it's not a given
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:34:21 UTC No. 16084480
>>16084461
ask chatgpt
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:51:28 UTC No. 16084499
>>16084438
Help a retard out what does Cadence refer to?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:53:31 UTC No. 16084502
bros can you shoot a bullet on the Moon and have it orbit once and hit you in the back of your head? to me it doesn't seem possible without an extra maneuver but I'm also an orbital mechanics brainlet so I came for wise advice
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 08:58:01 UTC No. 16084507
>>16084499
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dic
>c: a regular and repeated pattern of activity
you could just google it
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:01:04 UTC No. 16084513
>>16084507
A pattern of what exactly?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:02:51 UTC No. 16084517
>>16084499
it's not really cadence, but the number of days between each flight. cadence would be # of flights per period
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:10:48 UTC No. 16084525
>>16084517
Thanks
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:45:18 UTC No. 16084555
>>16084502
yes if fired fast enough along the equator. it would take an hour and 15 minutes to come back around and hit you
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:48:30 UTC No. 16084559
>>16084555
but can you insert it into a circular orbit in one impulse?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:50:02 UTC No. 16084560
>>16084502
>extra maneuver
you're over thinking it and it's a theoretical possibility not like you're actually going to aim precisely enough to achieve it, just fucking accept it as something that can happen on a low gravity sphere with no atmosphere and get over it already
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:51:10 UTC No. 16084561
>>16084502
no conventional gun can achieve lunar orbital velocity
>>16084555
stop lying
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:51:37 UTC No. 16084563
>>16084559
are you a fucking retard? of course you can achieve a circular orbit by firing a projectile horizontally on a sphere with no atmosphere as long as terrain doesn't get in the way at any point along its path
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:54:51 UTC No. 16084569
>>16084561
>no conventional gun can achieve lunar orbital velocity
OK, it's a magic space gun that can achieve exactly the right velocity for an orbit around the moon, why have you retards carried this over from the "I'm writing a moon war book!" thread?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:55:15 UTC No. 16084570
>>16084563
>on a sphere
I asked for the Moon, as a practical example, not ideal example. is it REALLY possible to do it on the Moon? not on a fucking perfect sphere.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:58:06 UTC No. 16084574
>>16084569
>it's a magic space gun
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 09:59:41 UTC No. 16084578
>>16084570
YES IT'S THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE! AT SPEEDS LOW ENOUGH FOR A CONVENTIONAL SIDEARM TO (THEORETICALLY) ACHIEVE IT! YES YOUR APOGEE CAN BE ABOVE ANY RISES IN THE WAY AS LONG AS YOUR PEROGEE IS ABOUT 6 FEET OFF THE GROUND IF YOU'RE 6 FEET TALL. NO THIS WON'T WORK ON THE EARTH.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:00:29 UTC No. 16084580
>>16084569
I just pooped my pants. I'm eating the poop!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:01:11 UTC No. 16084581
>>16084578
thank
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:01:34 UTC No. 16084582
>>16084574
oh, it's the pedantic green texter, I thought it was a real anon
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:01:38 UTC No. 16084583
>>16084570
No, it's not possible
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:03:20 UTC No. 16084585
>>16084582
>needs magic gun
>only works on neutron star.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:03:55 UTC No. 16084586
>>16084578
Wrong. No conventional sidearm fired from anywhere on the moon is capable of orbital velocity, and even if the moon was perfect sphere with no obstacles. it would follow a ballistic trajectory
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:05:08 UTC No. 16084588
>>16084583
it is, there's even a slight danger for the Artemis landers that their exhaust doesn't kick up any rocks into an orbital velocity, it's not like the Earth, boys
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:06:10 UTC No. 16084590
>>16084585
>talks like a douche
>gets ignored
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:07:12 UTC No. 16084592
>>16084588
when your bullets are grains of sand and your gun is a raptor engine, sure. but even that is mostly just zubrin FUD
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:07:15 UTC No. 16084593
>>16084586
Do your own reading on the subject, the velocity needed is nothing like the earth's.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:07:17 UTC No. 16084594
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:08:35 UTC No. 16084597
good night passive-aggressive ladies, see you next time I can't sleep
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:09:43 UTC No. 16084599
>>16084593
name a gun that can do it (you can't)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:11:48 UTC No. 16084601
>>16083839
>>16083849
>>16083860
newfags lol
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:14:11 UTC No. 16084602
>>16084599
What now?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:17:45 UTC No. 16084604
>>16083680
>IFT-4
Successful launch, stage sep
Booster is successful in flyback, and fails landing and another hard splashdown, but the oscillation is fixed
Starship RCS fixed, and it reenters fine and survives to hard splashdown (possible flip and soft landing)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:18:46 UTC No. 16084605
>>16084604
no payload?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:21:17 UTC No. 16084607
>>16084605
Maybe, idk if they want to risk dumping shit in orbit after the last launch, but I wouldn't be surprised if they put a few starlinks or small cubesats on it :3
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:30:26 UTC No. 16084612
>>16084389
Pizza hut bros??? We're back!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:32:03 UTC No. 16084613
>>16084602
Oh, I looked all over that jpeg for a conventional sidearm. didnt find one!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:32:21 UTC No. 16084614
>>16084601
>/tv/ less than /mlp/
owari da
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:34:29 UTC No. 16084615
>>16084586
>it would follow a ballistic trajectory
yes, that's what an orbit is, an object free falling in vacuum, always missing the ground.
orbital velocity around the moon is 1.68 km/s
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:36:18 UTC No. 16084618
>>16084605
they arent able to carry a payload to orbit because they havent demonstrated relight capability after a coast in space. that whe whole reason why all these flights have been suborbital and will continue to be until they do that
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:37:37 UTC No. 16084619
>>16084615
Sorry dude, not an orbit. Bad information you're spreading
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:48:43 UTC No. 16084630
https://youtu.be/HdYR6CxhXko
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:49:48 UTC No. 16084631
>>16084604
no way. you are way too optimistic. the booster will explode before stage sep and starship will peform an uncontrolled landing in the atlantic
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:52:27 UTC No. 16084634
one of these flights is for sure gonna kill astronauts: no abort
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:56:18 UTC No. 16084636
>>16084601
You made this up.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 10:59:25 UTC No. 16084639
>>16084335
unfortunately the only known method of slowing time involves going really really really pissing fast
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:00:53 UTC No. 16084641
>>16084461
they've tried like three different systems but right now whatever they're using didn't fucking work
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:02:59 UTC No. 16084642
>>16084502
if you're:
A. on a mountain
and
B. shooting at just above orbital speed
you can absolutely hit in your own vicinity with a bullet
fortunately B is not true for most firearms, I think you can hit that speed with saboted smoothbore tank cannons though
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:03:12 UTC No. 16084644
>>16084634
You can't kill astronauts when you don't launch with any, concern troll-kun.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:06:27 UTC No. 16084646
>>16084461
I think that's the best guess. They haven't exactly told us.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:09:00 UTC No. 16084647
>>16084602
that's a full power battle rifle shooting a fucking varmint bullet and it's only 2/3s of the way there
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:10:08 UTC No. 16084649
>>16084647
I know. I was hoping no one recognized my mistake.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:12:22 UTC No. 16084650
>>16084649
luckily pic related (5500 fps is 1.68 km/s) so it's definitely possible, but you need to use a saboted smoothbore round, which will be difficult to stabilize without an atmosphere
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:16:00 UTC No. 16084653
>>16084650
in vacuum it doesn't matter if it's tumbling
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:16:51 UTC No. 16084654
>>16084653
long rod penetrators absolutely depend on orientation for their work
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:28:20 UTC No. 16084661
>>16083743
Next Thursday the final Delta IV Heavy will launch
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:30:47 UTC No. 16084662
>>16084661
>Next Thursday the final Delta IV Heavy will scrub at t-5
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:34:09 UTC No. 16084666
>>16084661
final time we see that crazy hydrogen fireball
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:37:21 UTC No. 16084670
>>16084634
yes, and that would happen with abort as well
people will die, people die in cruises and cargo ships, they die in aeroplanes, they die in trains and cars
its impossible to make it perfectly safe, we just need to find some level of acceptable safety
every time you take a ride with a car, bus or plane you have a chance to die
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:40:26 UTC No. 16084674
>>16084634
shuttle 2.0
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:51:02 UTC No. 16084678
>>16084638
>one thing kinda looks sorta like this unrelated thing
>this can't be coincidence.
I thought this was /sci/ not /schi/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 11:51:21 UTC No. 16084679
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:09:27 UTC No. 16084693
>>16084666
there was something magical and special about that stupid fireball
we lost some wimsy in this new age of rockets that just work
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:14:41 UTC No. 16084699
>>16083380
new shepherd
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:21:36 UTC No. 16084703
>>16084661
good riddance
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:30:37 UTC No. 16084705
clip about the roadster
https://twitter.com/TeslaHype/statu
Don Lemon interview with Musk, seems to be mostly about politics and democrat talking points, a very small section about the new roadster and how it is going to be a collaboration between SpaceX and Tesla
full interview (haven't watched it and not sure if I even want to, listening to these pundits whine about this or that gets tiring)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhs
https://twitter.com/donlemon/status
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:33:14 UTC No. 16084707
>>16084705
Look buddy I know you threw the word spacex in there, and I get that it’s some sort of collaboration
But I don’t give a single FUCK about Tesla okay
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:41:18 UTC No. 16084712
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this: Engine reliabilitychads are back in the game.
Both stages were clearly lost doe to engine explosions. After shutdown there is a big poof followed by continuous outgassing until both stages had virtually no LOX left. The Starship lost control because of that, and the Superheavy failed to relight due to a combo of working with a residual amount of LOX and also having engine damage due to the explosion.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:42:10 UTC No. 16084713
>>16084705
>political brainrot
No, thanks.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 12:51:00 UTC No. 16084718
>I recreated the Starship launch in KSP!!
>I recorded the launch on my cell phone from South Padre Island!!
>I copied and re-uploaded the SpaceX livestream!!
I want all of these fuckers to die and stop clogging up my youtube recommends feed.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:11:09 UTC No. 16084731
>>16084718
the cell phone videos of IFT-1 were pretty cool
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:14:23 UTC No. 16084733
is anything happening today?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:19:27 UTC No. 16084738
>Elon's Twitter account
>Followed by multiple furry porn accounts I follow
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:36:20 UTC No. 16084753
>>16084738
>I follow
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:43:12 UTC No. 16084759
>>16084296
>isn't that, effectively, traveling faster than light?
Effectively, perhaps, in the same sense that a time stasis chamber would enable FTL.
Physically, no, because of Lorentz contraction
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:44:17 UTC No. 16084760
>>16084759
lol sleeping in a plane = FTL travel
based
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:44:27 UTC No. 16084761
>>16084455
He's desperate to launch on 4/20
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:45:56 UTC No. 16084763
>>16084760
Don't forget the existing real-life teleportation technology, getting blackout drunk.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:46:49 UTC No. 16084764
>>16084502
You don't need to go to the moon to shoot yourself in the head.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:48:51 UTC No. 16084766
>>16084455
Ever since Twitter became X the order of the tweets isn't in chronological order anymore. And zitter has been nuked so can't use that either. Fuck this site I'll watch IFT4 on NSF
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:49:09 UTC No. 16084767
>>16084364
>>16084364
Time does slow down for the traveler, due to relativistic time dilation
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:52:28 UTC No. 16084769
>>16084766
hahaha faggot
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:52:37 UTC No. 16084770
>>16084760
It just depends on whether you care how the outside world changes between the start and end of your "FTL" journey
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:54:49 UTC No. 16084773
>>16084644
>not "what color is it?"
disappointing
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:55:23 UTC No. 16084774
>>16084760
When you sleep, your body still ages, even if you do not experience the time. With time dilation due to traveling fast, your body would not age
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:56:29 UTC No. 16084776
>>16084775
though some grating got damaged somehow
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 13:57:20 UTC No. 16084777
>>16084586
>he doesn't CC a light gas gun with him everywhere
ISHYGDDT
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:03:44 UTC No. 16084781
when will spacex invent a reusable launch tower?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:07:15 UTC No. 16084783
>>16084781
It's really funny that if the first IFT had had engine failures on the other side, the rocket would have crashed into it.
That explosion would have been, to put it mildy, impressive.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:18:11 UTC No. 16084789
>>16084738
BASED
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:18:20 UTC No. 16084790
>>16084778
Those cable trays are weak as fuck.
t. installed them for the north sea.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:24:12 UTC No. 16084796
>>16084705
Oh, I've listened to a Liberal Hivemind video about this while outside today. What a bitch that Don Lemon guy is.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:28:15 UTC No. 16084799
Remember when people were saying it would be YEARS before another flight after OFT-1?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:28:52 UTC No. 16084800
>>16084796
Don Lemon is living proof that being on TV as a "news presenter" has nothing to do with your talents or knowledge. News anchors should be obsessed ugly weirdos like we have in spaceflight news presentation, I only want to get information from the people who most give a shit about it.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:31:01 UTC No. 16084801
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:32:16 UTC No. 16084802
>>16084799
I remember saying that, yeah
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:54:09 UTC No. 16084822
Tory Bruno essentially admitted in this article that Starship/Starlink KILLS his company.
MUST READ: https://medium.com/@ToryBrunoULA/nu
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 14:58:30 UTC No. 16084825
>>16084822
gb2r nig nog
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:14:17 UTC No. 16084843
>>16084800
https://x.com/timcast/status/176973
Literally the breakfast meme.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:19:45 UTC No. 16084852
>>16084843
Damn, Tim Dodd has a better rapport with Elon than Don ever will. You know you're not cut out for media work when Tim fucking Dodd is better at interviewing than you are.
Also kek at the conditional hypothetical being too complex for Lemon to hold in his head, the meme is real.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:44:33 UTC No. 16084884
>>16084852
Tim is actually chill af. i met him in the patrons meetup and had a good chat with him about the RS-25
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:50:50 UTC No. 16084890
>>16083941
>I invite you to point at any payloads that are only in space right now specifically because SpaceX was marginally cheaper in one of the cheapest parts of spaceflight.
Discovr
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:52:19 UTC No. 16084894
>>16083963
tory is such a slimy man
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:55:21 UTC No. 16084898
>>16083974
>is he taking the shit or what, has anybody else heard about this?
Starship is using regular natural gas (over 90% methane, less than 1% propane) with the caveat that there's absolutely NO thiols (sulfur atoms in hydrocarbon structures), because thiols tar up like nothing else and would fuck the engine.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:56:18 UTC No. 16084900
>>16084438
It's going to be 4/20
the FAA blueballed Elon for so long on launching B4+SN20 that they became completely obsolete; but now he will have his meme number launch
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 15:59:35 UTC No. 16084905
Is there any new activity in the starbase?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:00:30 UTC No. 16084906
>>16084420
It is irrelevantly small, yes.
t. trained to be a radiation safety tech and ended up being a radiological work planner
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:00:34 UTC No. 16084907
>>16084884
He's a weirdo obsessed with a specific thing enough to learn a ton about it, which is exactly what qualifies him to talk about it imo. Lemon would lose on kids week Jeopardy against a bunch of 10 year olds, not even prodigies just regular kids. If you don't have obsessive knowledge about the thing you're talking about then I don't want to hear you talk about it, simple as.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:01:48 UTC No. 16084909
>>16084461
>RCS
main tank ullage gas, didn't work so well
>autogenous pressurization
yes
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:05:25 UTC No. 16084916
>>16084571
>space shuttle launch plume looked disgusting, aluminum oxide & chlorine gasses billowing, very very disrespectful
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:06:29 UTC No. 16084917
>>16084586
an orbit that encircles the globe and returns to the point of origin is a ballistic trajectory
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:09:31 UTC No. 16084922
>>16084654
if it's hitting the back of your head at 1.68 km/s it doesn't matter if it's tumbling or not.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:10:40 UTC No. 16084923
>>16084661
I don't give a shit. Fuck that orange waste of money.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:12:13 UTC No. 16084925
>>16084586
commit suicide immediately
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:14:34 UTC No. 16084928
>>16084712
booster failed because of sloshing as it was cranked around the vertical axis by suboptimal grid fin PID tuning.
starship failed because of the RCS losing attitude control and starting entry while rolling.
no engine reliability issues.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:16:05 UTC No. 16084929
>>16084799
yes lol but they minimize it now
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:19:10 UTC No. 16084930
>>16084900
They already launched starship on 4/20 once
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:22:25 UTC No. 16084935
>>16084928
>booster failed because of sloshing as it was cranked around the vertical axis by suboptimal grid fin PID tuning.
well its true that it was rotating a lot, but it had basically no oxygen left and like i said there was some extraordinary puff followed by continuous and large outgassing from the engine area. that doesnt seem normal to me.
>starship failed because of the RCS losing attitude control and starting entry while rolling
yes, but why did the rcs stop working?
the engine explosion on starship was even more noticeable than on superheavy becuase it was forecful enough to change the orientation of the camera slightly. then it outgassed a lot and the rcs stoopped working. it also basically ran out of LOX. i think those two are related.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:23:59 UTC No. 16084940
>>16084935
>>16084928
the starship started its uncontrolled rotation as soon as the engine exploded too. then the angle of rotation slightly changed and accelerated over the course of the coast as it uncontrollably outgassed.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:29:02 UTC No. 16084947
>>16084935
It had plenty of oxygen. The "puffing" is normal, engine purge gasses and liquids vaporizing into gasses after shutdown. At sea level it's much more tame because the atmosphere tampens everything.
We show the rotation was the problem because of how most, but not all, of the engines ignited. no way for 3 out of 13 engines to get enough oxygen to burn for several seconds without also being enough to at least ignite the other 10.
The RCS on Starship seems to have failed because of either a stuck-closed valve or some other blockage preventing the vehicle from cancelling out its roll. It had RCS gas emissions right up until entry started, and likely during entry as well, though it was invisible at that point due to being blasted away by hot plasma. Why would a lack of liquid O2 affect the RCS when the RCS only uses ullage gasses anyway?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:31:08 UTC No. 16084949
>>16084940
The booster was rotating as it entered the atmosphere long before the engines fired.
None of the engines on Starship blew up. The roll was started intentionally, but while Starship was doing its prop transfer test and door test the thruster that would cancel that roll stopped working.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:33:24 UTC No. 16084953
>>16084940
Starship held the correct attitude during the entire flight, even with the uncontrolled roll. That's why it was still pointing prograde by reentry despite having gone roughly 180 degrees around the planet.
Also it did not lose any engines lol.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:34:08 UTC No. 16084954
>>16084947
>The RCS on Starship seems to have failed because of either a stuck-closed valve or some other blockage
Venting hot gasses straight from the fuel tanks is just a shitty way of controlling a spacecraft. They are basically as shit as dedicated helium or nitrogen cold thrusters, except with who knows what pressure.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:36:07 UTC No. 16084957
>>16084935
Do you believe SpaceX lied in their official statement when they said they did not perform the mid flight burn test because of the roll rate, and not because they lost an engine and vented all their oxygen?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:36:11 UTC No. 16084958
>>16084953
>Starship held the correct attitude during the entire flight,
Wrong, it tumbled in 3D. Go watch the stabilized video.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:36:14 UTC No. 16084959
>>16084940
>the starship started its uncontrolled rotation as soon as the engine exploded
none of the engines exploded
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:37:32 UTC No. 16084961
>>16084958
Starship had the correct attitude until after reentry began.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:37:40 UTC No. 16084962
>>16084954
>who knows what pressure
Roughly 7 bar, and over 1000 m^3 of it per main tank, idk seems fine. I think they'll change it tho.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:41:46 UTC No. 16084965
>>16084958
Only tumbled once aerodynamics kicked in. Until then it had zero pitch or yaw momentum and was at ~60 degrees AoA, just like they planned. Actually impressive it managed to do that while in an uncontrolled spin.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:28 UTC No. 16084967
>>16084962
If the issue was ice in the lines, couldn't they add heat trace to everything to at least unclog the lines as needed? Or they could keep them running during all active phases of flight idk
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:43:51 UTC No. 16084968
MY DIAPER MY DIAPER FULL
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:44:14 UTC No. 16084969
>>16084965
it's crazy how stable this thing is at 134km up.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:54:39 UTC No. 16084977
https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:55:23 UTC No. 16084979
>>16084977
cute fox girl
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 16:57:05 UTC No. 16084980
>>16084935
>the engine explosion on starship
what there was an explosion?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:03:10 UTC No. 16084982
>>16084979
not spaceflight related. kys
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:07:20 UTC No. 16084984
>>16084979
how could you lie to me like this
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:15:31 UTC No. 16084988
so did the door jam or not?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:22:28 UTC No. 16084991
>>16083323
>BANNED
kek, how dramatic
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:24:46 UTC No. 16084994
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03
>The Air Force Research Laboratory’s Rocket Cargo Vanguard program gets “real boy” status as a Space Force prototype effort — and a new name, Point-to-Point Delivery (P2PD) — in the service’s fiscal 2025 budget request.
>While the dollar amount is small at only $4 million in research, development, test & evaluation (RDT&E), the funding request marks the up-to-now experimental effort to literally rocket military supplies around the planet as a formal “new start” for the service. The request doesn’t show any planned out-year spending, presumably because the FY25 monies are aimed at simply transitioning the tech.
>The Space Force budget request notes that the FY25 effort “will build on AFRL’s previous analysis of the angle-of-attack, door locations, ejection speeds, container sizes, reaction forces and expected actuation authority required to counter those forces, and the aerodynamics of the ejected payload in flight. AFRL has also completed the first phase of wind tunnel testing, analysis, and operational planning.”
You were born in time to see drop pods.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:27:58 UTC No. 16084999
>>16084991
Should be perma from all boards, baiters are fags and can get fucked.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:32:41 UTC No. 16085004
>>16084957
You're a retard.
What they said wouldn't be a lie if that was the case.
They didn't say they knew the root cause.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:32:43 UTC No. 16085005
>>16085002
Looks like a little chunk of iron embedded in that rock, the one to the immediate right of the meteorite I mean. What's that white kintsugi formation running through the rocks? It looks pretty.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:35:05 UTC No. 16085006
>>16084994
how is iran supposed to fight against ODSTs and orbital bombardment?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:35:55 UTC No. 16085007
>>16084731
i dont know if there's any surviving footage of beachgoers who watched apollo 4
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:38:21 UTC No. 16085008
>>16084969
Time to invest a bit in RCS and gridfin R&D.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:38:22 UTC No. 16085009
>>16085005
>What's that white kintsugi formation
I don't recall
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:39:22 UTC No. 16085011
>>16085005
its fungus.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:39:54 UTC No. 16085012
>>16084843
i think he takes it personally since he was an unqualified DEI hire himself
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:42:57 UTC No. 16085018
>>16084935
bait or retard?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:43:38 UTC No. 16085020
>>16085002
>sensible arguments
is this a joke? if they ever made an argument that couldnt be disproven instantly by simple observation then we'd humour them a bit.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:49:23 UTC No. 16085025
>>16084980
Probably not, just some retard thinks there was because he's a "raptor reliability" troll.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:50:26 UTC No. 16085027
>>16085025
spaceguy5?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:51:20 UTC No. 16085029
>>16084991
How the fuck do you even use the scope on that thing?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:52:07 UTC No. 16085033
>>16085020
disprove the Earth is flat by simple obvervation (protip: you can't just look out the window and see the curvature)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:53:07 UTC No. 16085035
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:53:18 UTC No. 16085036
>>16084712
On a side note - how the FUCK do these drunk retards make such reliable engines?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:56:46 UTC No. 16085040
>>16085010
When Starliner kills astronauts, will Boeing blame the astronauts?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 17:58:44 UTC No. 16085043
>>16085040
I assume NASA is keeping a close eye on them.
FAA for instance don't have the expertise to keep an eye on their aircraft business.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:00:43 UTC No. 16085044
>>16083193
It's just that most normies dont really think much about space exploration, they think about getting drunk and watching sports.
We are the wierd ones to them.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:00:59 UTC No. 16085045
>>16085040
all starliner astronauts are potential whistleblowers. the ULA sniper has his instructions.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:02:39 UTC No. 16085047
>>16085033
I've been through the desert, I saw the mountains rise out of the horizon from many miles away as I rounded the curve towards them. I know the shape of the world, I have walked it.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:03:03 UTC No. 16085048
>>16085010
im actually really looking forward to this, it's suppose to be a comfy ride to orbit (Centaur is like 5x less powerful than F9 second stage)
(just don't look at the cost)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:07:51 UTC No. 16085051
>>16084800
>News anchors should be obsessed ugly weirdos like we have in spaceflight news presentation
yeah
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:11:20 UTC No. 16085058
>>16084800
>dunning-kruegered faggot thinks TV presenters are just lucky retards that got the job
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:17:52 UTC No. 16085064
>>16085058
it's a humiliation ritual
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:18:10 UTC No. 16085065
>>16084923
Well crack open a cold one to celebrate its end then
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:20:56 UTC No. 16085070
>>16085064
>it's a humiliation ritual
what is
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:21:06 UTC No. 16085071
>>16085058
they are though. give one compelling argument that anchors aren't universally slightly retarded. protip: you can't
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:21:24 UTC No. 16085072
>>16084959
If you go back and watch the stream, there did seem to be "kick" right at SECO, followed by a lot of venting and what looked like some debris.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:22:28 UTC No. 16085074
>>16085058
They objectively are and the fact you don't realize it marks you as a midwit. You probably watch those tools, lol.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:22:51 UTC No. 16085077
>>16084982
You should leave
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:24:30 UTC No. 16085082
>>16085075
https://twitter.com/Gedmark/status/
CEO of Astranis
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:24:37 UTC No. 16085083
>>16085072
it did the LOX vent after SECO instead of before
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:26:40 UTC No. 16085086
>>16085004
No, faggot. Telemetry would tell them if an engine fucking died. You're just mad because I irrefutably torpedoed your concern trolling argument before you had your fun.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:27:31 UTC No. 16085088
>>16085075
><3-months from procurement to spacecraft readiness, using production line style builds
><$15M cost per satellite
>Broad supply chain of commercial parts
I want to see these guys destroy another one of boeing's divisions
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:27:41 UTC No. 16085090
>>16085005
mineral deposits from water leeching back when this rock was still buried and Mars had liquid surface water
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:29:23 UTC No. 16085093
>>16083323
>janny left a message
jej
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:30:21 UTC No. 16085094
>>16085051
still can't believe she let him set up THAT camera angle to interview her
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:32:04 UTC No. 16085097
>>16085072
Not an engine explosion. Totally normal for shutdown.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:33:10 UTC No. 16085100
>>16085090
Neat, I wonder what minerals are in there. Imagine prospecting gold on Mars.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:34:20 UTC No. 16085102
>>16085100
Most likely salts, carbonates, sulphates, other more hydraulically mobile stuff
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:36:54 UTC No. 16085106
>>16085085
That's the view from Mexico, right?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:37:42 UTC No. 16085109
>>16085106
Yeah. That was the view for IFT-2
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:38:01 UTC No. 16085111
>>16085051
>>16085094
where is the screencap from? is there a longer video toehr than the short she posted?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:39:14 UTC No. 16085114
>>16085047
It's shorter to just say you're gay
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:40:05 UTC No. 16085118
>>16085029
You dont. Its literally that simple. If there were ever to be guns in space you would need the aiming system to be on the glass of your helmet because theres no way youre accurately aiming through that dome. That or youre point firing with a laser sight
>>16085085
>visible brap exhaust trail
What is that orange shit anyways?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:40:53 UTC No. 16085119
>>16085118
That's the plume lighting up the smoke.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:41:36 UTC No. 16085120
>>16085118
dust
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:41:55 UTC No. 16085121
>>16085071
>>16085074
It takes good speaking skills to be a TV presenter. Far above your average person
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:42:36 UTC No. 16085123
>>16085065
cheers
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:45:12 UTC No. 16085131
>>16085123
orange waste of money!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:45:52 UTC No. 16085132
>>16085127
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crZ
dedicated microgeo satellite, I guess they are competing on price with the legacy providers?
Astranis doesn't seem to have a "gimmick" like K2 has
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:45:59 UTC No. 16085133
>>16085125
>Expendible starship
No, just put dragon+service module inside the payload door of regular starship
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:48:03 UTC No. 16085134
>>16085118
>What is that orange shit anyways?
It's not dust, it's oxides of nitrogen formed due to the extremely hot gasses mixing with air. Think a very diluted version of the red fumes that come out of nitrogen tetroxide tanks crashed into chinese peasants.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:48:47 UTC No. 16085135
I thought of a new type of Krystalpost, I can't wait to do it later today.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:49:23 UTC No. 16085137
>>16085125
its a programme specifically made to shovel money into congressional districts and a jobs programme
without it artemis would not have been funded, basically nasa has to do some programmatic congress (retard) wrangling to fund these things so they don't get cancelled, but SLS has ballooned in cost perhaps even more than they expected
so partly is retard wrangling, partly congressional corruption pretty much and then partly incompetence from both NASA and the contractors
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:50:05 UTC No. 16085138
>>16085125
Because the goal is not really a moon mission, it is good paying jobs for Americans across several States.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:50:08 UTC No. 16085139
>>16085111
"Starman141 Ellie in Space Interview" on youtube
you didn't hear it from me
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:50:55 UTC No. 16085140
>>16085138
i should've said several *key* states and many smaller contractors across the entire country
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:53:12 UTC No. 16085141
>>16085139
theres no way! Omg
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:56:06 UTC No. 16085142
>>16085114
YOU'RE gay
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:58:51 UTC No. 16085145
>>16085133
In my KSP expertise, I was hoping to do at least a bit of the TLI work with the 2nd stage
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 18:59:44 UTC No. 16085146
>>16085143
>letting hot plasma go straight up her skirt
Is SN28 a pervert?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:00:58 UTC No. 16085148
>>16085133
>>16085145
>>16085125
this design does not have enough delta-v for TLI
you need a third stage
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:01:03 UTC No. 16085149
>>16085146
Youre a disgusting coomer
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:01:11 UTC No. 16085150
>>16085143
I feel like Starship would benefit greatly if it had a vertical fin for yaw stability. Even my own experience at building shuttles in KSP concurs.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:03:13 UTC No. 16085152
>>16085148
literally just stick an unmodified falcon 9 second stage on there. it is that easy in spaceflight and you're welcome
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:04:33 UTC No. 16085156
>>16085148
It depends on the weight of the capsule+service module, but the idea is to expend all the fuel in the 2nd stage to at least get into a higher elliptical orbit, the finish off with the service module
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:09:02 UTC No. 16085166
>>16085163
didn't they send a filmmaker last time, ISS is a playground this point
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:11:12 UTC No. 16085168
>>16085072
You really need to watch more SECO videos, there are dozens of them.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:15:47 UTC No. 16085173
>>16085166
ISS filmmaker and actress weren't career astronauts, space tourism has been a thing since the 90s.
Vasilevskaya is a trained astronaut of the Belarus Space Agency, of course it's for show, but then most of the first astronauts of various countries were propaganda stunts
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:17:21 UTC No. 16085175
>>16085152
The problem is that the F9 2nd stage + Dragon with its existing service module (which you'd want to stretch for a trip to the moon) is already nearly 50m tall, and SS cargo bay is only 17m. That's not a problem if you just delete the cargobay and bolt on with an aerodynamic payload adapter, but then that changes the entire aerodynamic profile of SS for reentry. My idea was to make these single use, without tiles or flaps, maybe thinner gauge steel or even isogrid aluminum alloy autism if they're about it.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:22:16 UTC No. 16085181
>Arianespace CCO Steven Rutgers says at a Satellite 2024 panel today that the company expects to perform its first Ariane 6 launch in 90-100 days (or mid to late June; the first part of a target launch period that runs through July.)
https://x.com/jeff_foust/status/176
Eurobros, are we back?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:23:33 UTC No. 16085182
>>16085181
Which will happen first? IFT-4, or Ariane 6 flight 1?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:24:35 UTC No. 16085186
>>16085175
>2nd stage + Dragon with its existing service module is already nearly 50m tall
Oh no it's retarded.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:24:47 UTC No. 16085187
>>16085181
>Eurobros, are we back?
No. Ariane 6 is 15 years too late.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:25:07 UTC No. 16085189
>>16085175
not sure where you got that 50m figure. f9 stage 2 is 13.8m and dragon + trunk is 8.1m yeah 22m is still too long for the payload bay, but that's not what you're doing. you're moving the header tanks and deleting the fairing in its entirety. this actually makes starship more aerodynamically stable
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:25:12 UTC No. 16085190
>>16085181
>Eurobros, are we back?
It's has long since been over.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:26:22 UTC No. 16085193
>>16084180
c is just a Gordian Knot.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:27:01 UTC No. 16085194
>>16085181
What's the difference between H3 and Ariane 6?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:30:21 UTC No. 16085199
>>16085194
Ariane 6 has slightly better performance but that's really it. Both expensive hydrologgs using solid rocket shitters
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:33:18 UTC No. 16085203
>>16085199
this part's cute
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:39:29 UTC No. 16085212
>>16085199
H3 is fairly inexpensive at $50 million.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:40:33 UTC No. 16085214
>>16085181
I forgot they are still alive
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:41:21 UTC No. 16085215
>>16085182
I'd say IFT 4 Mid-Late June, Ariane 6 will have issues and will be NET end of the launch window, so second half of July
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:41:25 UTC No. 16085216
>>16085181
ariane 6 is DOA
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:42:42 UTC No. 16085221
>>16085194
H3 is actually operational. H3 can also improve it's capabilities significantly by developing a H3 Heavy configuration, while the Ariane 64 is mostly maxed out as is. The P160 and ICARUS upper stage only improve the A64's performance by a few tons. The H3 Heavy can probably life around 30 tons.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:43:37 UTC No. 16085223
>>16085186
>>16085189
I may be retarded, but so is doing an entire development and testing campaign to get a reusable (re: can survive reentry and land) starship variant with a completely different geometry, that won't get used very often. The basis of this whole idea is to utilize the existing SH/SS infrastructure in a way that allows high energy mission profiles. The way I see that being done is to develop an expendable starship variant that is pretty much identical from the neck down with a normal one, sans flaps and tiles, and then deletes the cargobay in favor of a payload adapter for a bespoke upper stage.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:47:27 UTC No. 16085228
>>16085223
They don't even want to sell falcon heavy expendable i doubt they're going for it on the much bigger starship.
They locked in the two stage fully reusable design long ago. There is zero talk of an expendable variant.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:48:20 UTC No. 16085229
So now that raptor 3 is in production, what are the specs for raptor 4?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:49:50 UTC No. 16085232
>>16085229
6 gorillion newtons of thrust
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:50:04 UTC No. 16085233
>>16085228
True, anyone who wants could just develop their 100 ton payload to ride in the cargo variant. Still waiting to see how they work out the doors though.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:50:43 UTC No. 16085235
>>16085216
Ariane 6 will survive as long as Europe has national security launches.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:50:52 UTC No. 16085236
>>16085229
pad destroying specs
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:51:37 UTC No. 16085238
>>16085229
hopefully not explode is on the spec list.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:52:11 UTC No. 16085239
>>16085229
>raptor 3
WTF happened to LEET-1337 engine project?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:52:18 UTC No. 16085240
>>16085212
H3 is built by Mitsubishi and not by 300 subcontractors from 26 different countries, each looking for a big slice of that P.G.I certified pork
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:55:20 UTC No. 16085247
>>16085228
SpaceX is happy to expend FH, it rarely happens because there are so few payloads that fit FH's niche of a high energy medium lift rocket.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:55:38 UTC No. 16085249
>>16083323
MOD ARE GODS
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:57:00 UTC No. 16085250
>>16083380
gigantic PEZ candies, shaped like starlinks
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:57:08 UTC No. 16085251
>>16085242
>FLAWLESSLY
>During the Orbit Insertion Burn, two OMAC thrusters out of the twelve thrusters in the service module failed shortly after ignition, but Boeing says it does not pose a threat as on-board flight control system took over the situation and switched to backup thrusters to complete the burn successfully, and Starliner reached a good orbit. The spacecraft also encountered problems with a thermal control loop early in the mission.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:57:34 UTC No. 16085254
>>16085241
yeah, it's never been demonstrated to work on an orbital rocket, let alone suborbital
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 19:58:39 UTC No. 16085257
>>16085242
He's right. I'm skeptical of Dragon, considering I watched it fucking explode before my eyes for no reason at all. Those astronauts are toast
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:04:35 UTC No. 16085273
>We can't make life multiplanetary with Raptor, as it is way too expensive, but Raptor is needed to tide us over until 1337 is ready.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:12:33 UTC No. 16085289
To the best of my knowledge, amateurs have only sent rockets to space 3 times. CSXT GoFast 2004, CSXT GoFast 2014, and USCRPL traveler iv in 2019. also to my knowledge, all 3 used a single stage motor that the teams cast themselves.
What's the reason they chose to go single stage and not use (at least in part) commercially available rocket motors? Amateurs fly multi stage high powered rockets all the time and being able to use a ready made motor for the booster or the sustainer (or both) would take a huge load off the requirements of their own propellant.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:13:06 UTC No. 16085290
>>16085279
The face of that one guy on the right says it all.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:14:37 UTC No. 16085292
>>16085279
>>16085290
humiliation ritual
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:17:44 UTC No. 16085303
>>16085242
If it's Boeing, we ain't fucking going.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:21:31 UTC No. 16085308
Do you really believe in Musk's plans for Mars? I wish it was true, but on the other hand, Falcon Heavy has been operational for 6 years and it can deliver 17 tons to Mars. You could say the building a lander could be an opportunity cost, but as far as we know, they've been doing nothing since Red Dragon was cancelled.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:22:00 UTC No. 16085311
>>16085212
They have pretty similar cost per kg to GTO iirc
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:23:57 UTC No. 16085315
>>16085308
17 tons is nothing compared to Elon's goals. Red Dragon was a nice idea when NASA was going to pay for it, but they weren't interested.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:26:37 UTC No. 16085321
>>16085290
>>16085279
the "why did we get into a war with Russia so now we can't source their engines" face
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:28:15 UTC No. 16085324
>>16085321
Buying soviet stuff and being forced to ride on Soyuz was one of the lowest points in the history of NASA.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:28:36 UTC No. 16085325
>>16085321
Imagine thinking we actually want to use Russian engines.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:29:38 UTC No. 16085327
>>16085311
I think this is only true when doing combined rideshares in the same manner as Ariane 5?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:31:29 UTC No. 16085330
>>16085324
Thanks Obama
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:36:25 UTC No. 16085342
>>16085181
>Eurobros, are we back?
As a euro no, ariana 6 is oldspace bullshit that eats a shitload of ESA's budget.
SpaceX is going to put massive spacestations in LEO in the next 5 years while ESA still is dicking around with non reusable rockets.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:36:31 UTC No. 16085343
>>16085315
The thing is that Red Dragon was already a great opportunity for NASA and they rejected it for political reasons. FH heavy is still here, they could revive the project whenever they wanted. Instead, they prefer to do those expensive missions once in a decade. Will their minds really change when Starship comes around?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:37:33 UTC No. 16085347
https://twitter.com/CopSub/status/1
>In honor of @SpaceX's recent beautiful test launch, we have created this comparison between the Lesser Known Rocket and our Spica
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:38:50 UTC No. 16085351
>>16085343
NASA is already incredibly underfunded as is, they don't really have the money to do all these missions (telescopes, MSR, Europa clipper, lander, Dragonfly, Neptue Triton etc)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:41:39 UTC No. 16085357
>>16085327
I'm not sure how updated the numbers are but from what I can tell H3 will actually be equally expensive/more expensive for pretty much for every mission unless you want to send a >4000kg payload to LEO. The $51 million price tag is for the base configuration which is even less capable than a soyuz.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:42:41 UTC No. 16085361
>>16085357
<4000kg*
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:46:01 UTC No. 16085366
>>16085357
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2
There were a bunch of sources quoting the base H3 at $33M after the last launch.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:47:18 UTC No. 16085372
>>16085241
tbd. They've lit all 33 on the boosters for two flights, but failed the relight. The survivability is the most important part for starship to be successful. If it turns out that it isn't great for reuse, we still have a cool super heavy lift rocket that can fly maybe 15 times a year. Not great but better than anything previously built
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:48:43 UTC No. 16085375
>>16085289
>What's the reason they chose to go single stage and not use (at least in part) commercially available rocket motors?
Cost, complexity and availability?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:49:41 UTC No. 16085377
>>16085118
>What is that orange shit anyways?
the souls of earthers weighed down by gravity
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:50:39 UTC No. 16085379
>>16085366
>Can the H3 — which cost some ¥220 billion ($33.3 billion) to develop
Uhh, I wouldn't trust an article that get such blatant things wrong wew. I used Berger's claim from last year.
https://arstechnica.com/science/202
I think the ariane 6 prices are what really needs to be updated. It had like a 3 times bigger development cost than H3
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:51:01 UTC No. 16085380
>>16085372
That would be great for some payloads. In terms of upmass not a revolution compared to 100 Falcon 9 launches.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:51:13 UTC No. 16085381
>>16084469
Pork barrel that strangled innovation, hiked costs and muh shuttle.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:51:32 UTC No. 16085383
>>16085085
>>16085124
starship is kino, we're going to get so many good movies out of it
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:52:11 UTC No. 16085384
>>16085212
>>16085366
If true that's not a terrible number. A huge part of the high cost of launch vehicles in the oldspace era was just contract bloat
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 20:52:17 UTC No. 16085385
>>16085341
Just bake it at 500 for an hour and weigh it again and you'll have your answer
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:03:08 UTC No. 16085399
>Boeing has an alien spacecraft and can't beat SpaceX
Seriously what's their problem?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:07:34 UTC No. 16085402
>>16083122
China is Marxist, not Communist.
There's a significant distinction because Marxists believe capitalism is a necessary step to accumulate the capital required for socialism. So what you see in China is actually a largely capitalist economy which is directed/guided by Marxist/Communist officials with the ultimate goal of Communism in mind but capitalist enterprise is a perfectly legitimate tool to accumulate wealth and build infrastructure.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:07:50 UTC No. 16085403
>>16085150
Shuttle's vertical stabilizer did nothing on entry, it was occluded from the plasma flow entirely.
What Starship needs is to not be rolling when it hits the atmosphere.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:08:28 UTC No. 16085404
>>16085125
Nooo you can't save billions of dollars by using common sense!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:10:46 UTC No. 16085407
>>16085125
You don't need to do this. Launch Starship lunar lander/ orbiter unmanned. Launch Falcon 9 with an ungraded dragon to LEO and transfer the astronauts there
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:11:02 UTC No. 16085408
>>16085404
Forgot your soijak and meme arrow
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:13:49 UTC No. 16085412
>>16085372
They relit fine for the boostback burn.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:16:52 UTC No. 16085413
>>16085407
Certainly feasible. I used dragon as an example of a high mass/high energy pay load, but you could extend this to other things like deep space probes so they don't have spend the better half of a decade doing gravity assists to get to the outer solar system.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:21:25 UTC No. 16085417
>>16085308
IMO you need to have a resource operation that's able to collect resources in a low gravity environment so that launches can take place starting from there which means mining the moon for fuel.
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:25:17 UTC No. 16085421
>>16085399
>why hasn't the roman empire reverse engineerd the F22 yet!!!
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:30:08 UTC No. 16085429
>>16085357
>>16085366
This is the same number before and after the yen depreciated
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:30:10 UTC No. 16085430
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:42:38 UTC No. 16085467
I'm back, what I miss?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:52:03 UTC No. 16085489
>>16085308
doing nothing? ever heard of starship?
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:53:42 UTC No. 16085491
>674 replies
you nerds like talking about your rockets don't you
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 21:58:01 UTC No. 16085503
>>16085343
SpaceX doesn't need NASA to do Mars missions
they didn't do grey dragon or red dragon so mad congressmen would not cancel their other contracts and block them from future contracts
JPL decreasing their workforce massively shows the fear from JPL was warranted, if red dragon happened in 2018 or something but for like 100mil instead of 10bil or whatever JPL decade long taking projects take, the budget cut would have happened even earlier
soon or perhaps even now SpaceX is in a position where they don't really need NASAs money anymore (though doing a private crewed Mars mission might not be politically possible, so in that sense they might need NASA)
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 22:36:10 UTC No. 16085576
>>16085163
If you get paid to go to space, you’re an astronaut
If you pay to go to space, you’re a tourist
>b-b-but actors like tom cruise get paid and they’re obviously not astronauts!!!
Who gives a shit. This is an easy definition. Also, this still cucks Bezos and every other blue crew fag out of “astronaut wings” (even though they don’t deserve them anyways) because they all paid to go suborbital
Anonymous at Mon, 18 Mar 2024 23:10:03 UTC No. 16085651
>>16085036
Soviet design strongk!
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:14:03 UTC No. 16085740
so a tank gun would do
since DM53 is fired at 1750m/s that'd be orbital velocity
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:30:15 UTC No. 16085760
>>16085142
Thanks for taking the time to read my post and taking corrective action
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 00:52:35 UTC No. 16085785
>>16085143
how can they fix this
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:05:56 UTC No. 16085920
>>16084766
lol NSF had the audio cut out during launch
Anonymous at Tue, 19 Mar 2024 03:07:57 UTC No. 16085922
>>16085785
Don't be rolling uncontrollably during the start of reentry. To do this, don't have the roll control thruster jam up during coasting through low orbit.