🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:51:44 UTC No. 16089621
Wish You Were Here Edition
Previous - >>16087228
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:54:46 UTC No. 16089629
>>16089627
starship will save astronomy
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 16:58:09 UTC No. 16089631
Yuri Borisov: the launch of the Soyuz MS-25 spacecraft has been postponed to March 23
The reasons for the cancellation of the launch of the Soyuz-2.1 a launch vehicle with the Soyuz MS-25 manned transport vehicle have been determined, the launch has been postponed to Saturday, March 23, said Yuri Borisov, Director General of Roscosmos.
"We have scheduled a backup date — March 23, 15:36:10 Moscow time."
He said that on Thursday, an emergency situation occurred at the final stage of pre-launch preparation, as a result of which the launch procedure was interrupted.
"The reason has been identified, we have just revealed at a meeting of the state commission that the reason was a voltage drawdown of the chemical current source."
He said that the crew is currently being evacuated from the ship, after which the launch complex will be returned to its original position, then the state commission will conduct a detailed analysis of the reasons for the cancellation of the launch procedure.
Sergey Krikalev, Executive Director for Manned Space Programs at Roscosmos, said that the automatic systems controlling the launch worked well.
"The automation worked during the launch control and prevented the ship's systems from working incorrectly. The crew is safe, left the rocket and went to remove the spacesuits."
After removing the spacesuits, a medical examination of the crew members will be conducted, and then the astronauts will return to quarantine, and further preparations for the launch will continue.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:01:24 UTC No. 16089635
>>16089631
Crew remained calm. Belarus cosmonaut for example had heart rate 68 after launch abort
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:01:26 UTC No. 16089636
/sfg/, tell me your unpopular opinion on spaceflight
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:15:01 UTC No. 16089644
>>16089636
Cancel Dragonfly (and MSR)
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:17:55 UTC No. 16089647
>>16089631
We have Dragon why are we sending people to a third world country to launch on Russia's sketchy hardware?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:22:33 UTC No. 16089650
>>16089636
russhits will never get shit done.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:26:49 UTC No. 16089657
>>16089650
Go back you /k/ope tranny
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:28:54 UTC No. 16089659
>>16089656
Switching to electric TVC was a mistake
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:40:59 UTC No. 16089665
>>16089636
Chinas making it to moon before Artemis
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:03 UTC No. 16089668
>>16089656
This blows my mind more than the rocket itself.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:17 UTC No. 16089669
>>16089625
Falcon 9 has already drank the milkshake of small launch providers, they can't compete on pricing, additional large reusable rockets will only beat the dirt where the dead horse was.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:43:36 UTC No. 16089670
>>16089636
Planetary colonization > poop cylinders
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:47:11 UTC No. 16089680
>>16089669
People fail to understand that a reused Starship can launch a single cubesat for lower cost than a reused Falcon 9. When people say there's no market for a 100 ton to LEO superheavy lifter, remember this.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:49:08 UTC No. 16089683
>>16089669
RIP PEGASUS
F9 killed that thing so hard
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:54:23 UTC No. 16089688
>>16089657
nta, but TZD
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:54:27 UTC No. 16089689
>>16089627
Didn't we just give those fucks the James Whatever telescope that cost a hundred billion dollars?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 17:58:55 UTC No. 16089699
>>16089636
Soyuz is the best launch vehicle ever made
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:01:27 UTC No. 16089702
>>16089683
Air-launch is based.
It just looks cool. Looks way cooler than roggets.
Hoping Skylon can finally get fucking somewhere.
Love spaceplanes.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:05:38 UTC No. 16089707
>>16089702
would be competitive if it launched for as much as Electron but as we all know, solids aren't cheap, they're actually expensive as fuck!
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:20:23 UTC No. 16089713
>>16089680
People keep saying this. Is it true? Even if Raptor is cheap, there are still, what, 39 engines on a full stack? And then you have to pay for the fuel and oxidizer–a lot of it!
Also the raw material cost of an actual Starship stack. That’s tons of stainless steel. Does the price of a reused rocket eventually become “free” after a number of reuses??
I just don’t see how a super heavy lift vehicle could be cheaper than a FH / Falcon Heavy
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:21:33 UTC No. 16089714
>>16089657
Korelev, Glusko and Cholomey were all Ukranian
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:25:33 UTC No. 16089720
>>16089657
Back to /pol/ troon
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:29:16 UTC No. 16089722
>>16089668
Hydraulics have no limits
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:41:02 UTC No. 16089732
Serious question: Why are all these startups designing their small-lift meme launchers with clustered/octoweb rockets. I feel the easy answer is they’re all imitating SpaceX, but SpaceX didn’t do that with Falcon 1. A big reason Elon & co. were able to pivot and get falcon 9 flying so quickly was they both used Merlin. Why aren’t any of these retards doing that? Why are they all designing these tiny engines that will have no proper application anywhere else?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:49:53 UTC No. 16089740
>>16089689
Which doesn't detect X-rays.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:52:45 UTC No. 16089742
>>16089732
I advocate for smaller simpler engines. Starship should've used something like a methane Merlin equivalent. Then we wouldn't have all these failures fucking up every flight.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:55:04 UTC No. 16089747
NRO confirmed today that pic related is something that Starshield currently does
>NRO has now publicly confirmed that it is actively working together with the U.S. Space Force on space-based GMTI capabilities and that prototype satellites have already been launched.
>“The prototypes went up there. They were delivered in about 36 months from concept to launch, have operated fine, and we have exercised with Space Force and the other services, to prove their capability and that we’re able to move on to production,” NRO's Director Christopher Scolese said yesterday while speaking at the National Security Innovation Base Summit, according to Defense One.
>Scolese does not appear to have explicitly drawn any direct connection between this work and the reported 2021 SpaceX contract, but the three-year timeline he described is certainly in alignment.
>Defense One also highlighted information from the Department of the Air Force's 2025 Fiscal Year budget proposal that further speaks to past and current NRO/Space Force cooperation on GMTI capabilities in space. Budget documents say that the "Moving Target Indicator project," as well as an "Auxiliary Payloads" one, will both "leverage [the] relationship with NRO" relating to work "to develop and field [a] GMTI system."
https://www.twz.com/space/if-spacex
https://www.defenseone.com/technolo
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:56:39 UTC No. 16089749
>>16089747
As I said there should be UN laws forbidding any commercial or military space satellites.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:58:28 UTC No. 16089751
>>16089627
It's not actually SLS but the debt-ceiling agreement.
Chandra is in a bit of a sorry state, it's sensitivity continues to decline year after year. There are literally papers written today which are based on fewer than 10 photons.
It's now 25 years after launch, and NASA has no plans for a successor. If Lynx actually happened it would be in the 2050s.
ESAs x-ray observatory XMM-Newton doesn't have the same degredation. But it's resolution is much worse, and so it's limited for faint objects. But overall XMM has more light collecting area.
ESA is pushing forward with a next gen observatory, Athena, which will be more than a factor of 10 in collecting area over XMM and Chandra. Probably 2038, but it had some program issues.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 18:59:39 UTC No. 16089754
>>16089747
On the bright side, at least one part of the US government is getting excited about cheap access to space and taking opportunities to revisit satellite design trade-offs. Can we try putting JPL in charge of all the spy shit and the spooks in charge of the science?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:00:46 UTC No. 16089756
>>16089689
Boi I sure hope the next big telescope won't be a JWST like scenario
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:02:23 UTC No. 16089757
>>16089747
>SpaceX has been launching relevant prototype satellites since 2020, before its formal contract with NRO, and "a U.S. government database of objects in orbit shows several SpaceX missions having deployed satellites that neither the company nor the government have ever acknowledged," per Reuters.
God this shit is so cool
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:04:45 UTC No. 16089759
>>16089749
>t. Ivan
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:05:00 UTC No. 16089761
>>16089688
What's diabetes got to do with this?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:07:49 UTC No. 16089764
>>16089636
BO is alright
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:09:12 UTC No. 16089767
>>16089751
>>16089627
Another kick in the testicles for x-ray astronomy came in the form of XRISM, a JAXA mission to replace Hitomi. With some NASA support.
Hitomi was going to be the first mission to have a microcalorimeter, a which can measure the energy of individual photons with good resolution. Before x-ray spectroscopy was really shit, with these it would be a huge leap.
Microcalorimeters with JAXA are however cursed.
The first Astro-E mission was destroyed during a launch failure. 2005
Astro-E2 made it to space, but accidentally boiled off all the coolant after weeks. The microcalorimeter was rendered useless.
Then Hitomi died.
Now XRISM took its place, and it continues.
What has happened is that a protective filter over the sensor has not deployed. Essentially the lens cap is stuck on. It is semi-transparent to x-rays, but it completely absorbs low energies. Pic related. Some of the most interesting science is gone. It may still be fixed, but I'm not holding my breath.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.07241
JAXA is 0/4. Hopefully ESA does better with Athena.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:09:25 UTC No. 16089768
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:12:23 UTC No. 16089772
>>16089747
>One major way a large network of GMTI and SAR capable satellites could be a huge help in the strategic sense is for continuously tracking the locations of ground-mobile ballistic missile launchers that remain in wide use amongst America's primary adversaries, Russia and China. Providing persistent tracking of these assets, as well as other strategic movements, is something of a holy grail of strategic surveillance that the Pentagon has been lusting over for decades. With a large constellation, a certain amount of on-orbit resources can be allocated to this mission while other battlefield tracking and tactical intelligence products are produced.
Holy shit. If SpaceX can provide that for them then thats fucking it, they (SpaceX) become untouchable
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:14:50 UTC No. 16089775
>>16089772
>>16089747
I wonder if Elon's business will be kicked out of China in the future as the cold war progresses.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:15:19 UTC No. 16089778
>>16089714
Ukrainian surnames end with "ko". Being born in Ukraine doesn't make you Ukrainian
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:16:09 UTC No. 16089780
China plans to launch a network of quantum communications satellites (second gen Mozi satellite) to provide secure communication for its consulates and embassies around the world, as well as important institutions within China, in 2025-2026.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:16:12 UTC No. 16089782
>>16089775
He's definitely already preparing for that
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:17:48 UTC No. 16089785
>>16089778
>Being born in a country doesn't make you a citizen of that country
You are aware of how retarded that sounds right?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:19:15 UTC No. 16089789
>>16089747
Is there anything that prevents them from doing AMTI as well?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:19:31 UTC No. 16089790
>>16089732
It simplifies dev costs by letting you use the guts of the same engine on both stages.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:19:49 UTC No. 16089792
>>16089625
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/sta
>No kidding, Arianespace. The steamroller has been apparent for more than a decade. You were kind of warned to stop building expendable solid rockets and yet ...
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:21:00 UTC No. 16089794
>>16089785
most countries don't have your retarded birthright citizenship law dumb mutt
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:22:03 UTC No. 16089798
>>16089792
While they are trying to make a rocket capable of competing with F9, Starship is coming to buttfuck them from behind.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:24:38 UTC No. 16089802
>>16089798
How would you buttfuck someone from the front?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:25:39 UTC No. 16089804
>>16089802
Very carefully
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:26:03 UTC No. 16089806
>Reuters reported today that Chinese state media and social media accounts linked to the People's Liberation Army have been especially vocal in decrying the news about SpaceX's reported contract with NRO.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:30:30 UTC No. 16089817
>>16089778
it literally does
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:31:30 UTC No. 16089818
>>16089650
>>16089657
zigger falseflag, notice how little effort he puts in making the post he is going to react to seem genuine.
why are ziggers like this, i've seen them do this exact shtick on like 5 different boards now.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:32:08 UTC No. 16089819
>>16089802
anal missionary
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:37:21 UTC No. 16089827
>>16089818
>why are ziggers like this
Slavic mindset that everything is always shit but they're also unique geniuses that can make something out of nothing and nobody else can do that. Not that it's true, but it's what they're raised to believe.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:38:17 UTC No. 16089829
>>16089802
long benis between recievants legs, carefully bended around the taint and inserted by hand.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:40:26 UTC No. 16089833
>>16089827
another thing, notice how it's an exact copy of the thing he did last thread, i'm guessing he wasn't happy that it was in a thread we were about to stage.
anyways, enough off topic >>16089747 this shit is cool as fuck but it also terrifies the hell out of me, what would a fully mature system of this nature look like, what kind of constant resolution would they be able to get worldwide?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:40:36 UTC No. 16089834
>>16089629
from Starlink
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:51:00 UTC No. 16089849
>>16089834
>create problem
>sell solution
business 102
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 19:51:12 UTC No. 16089850
>>16089834
Tranny detected
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:01:44 UTC No. 16089861
https://youtu.be/RN0A4jMJPKQ
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:02:20 UTC No. 16089862
>>16089819
impossible with my pecker.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:10:02 UTC No. 16089869
>>16089794
spaceflight is american
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:12:20 UTC No. 16089873
>>16089806
lol, chinkcells seething
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:15:37 UTC No. 16089879
>>16089747
i wonder if this explains how we've been able to destroy houthi missiles on the ground soon after they've been detected
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:19:21 UTC No. 16089884
>>16089722
>Hydraulics have no limits
The crawler motors are electric.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:21:39 UTC No. 16089887
>>16089879
Space-Based Infrared Early Warning Satellites are probably the primary workhorse here.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:24:15 UTC No. 16089892
>>16089887
no those detect missiles after they've launched, but we're destroying the missiles before they're being launched
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:27:11 UTC No. 16089898
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U88
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:30:46 UTC No. 16089906
>>16089636
almost all cost data on launches, rockets, spacecraft, engines, etc. available on the internet is fake. the only exception is when you have detailed internal nasa or GAO reports which have to be released to the public. if it was as easy to put exact numbers on these things as /sfg/ thinks then space startups would never go bankrupt.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:31:13 UTC No. 16089907
>>16089713
In theory if booster and ship and engines really become muh rapidly reusable and don't need much maintenance like tile checking and rewaterproofing and really launch a lot, you could potentially push the cost of a launch below $10 million or so, which is small launch territory. Of course SpaceX isn't going to charge that little for a while even if it were to become possible since they have billions of development costs to recoup. But like the article says, Transporter-style missions with lots of tugs and stuff would be viable at higher prices, too. If they can find a way to deploy all that shit you could launch a lot of smallsats in one Starship.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:31:15 UTC No. 16089908
>>16089898
FAKE
Orion has never flown, Lockmart coverup
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:32:13 UTC No. 16089912
>>16089898
and this is why starship can survive reentry no matter what
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:36:14 UTC No. 16089923
KINO VIDEO
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:39:31 UTC No. 16089927
>>16089670
Why one or the other... and wouldnt it be cool to have a mini space house, 100ft in diameter, 1000ft^2 of living space to call your own? Itd be like the jetsons... an RV for 1 family in outere space providing a comfy 0.3g
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:44:05 UTC No. 16089933
>>16089927
Didnt make any judgements about it being cool. Economics and practicality will simply prevent them from ever being built
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:45:40 UTC No. 16089936
>>16089907
Yeah that makes sense. I’m not trying to argue against it in bad faith or anything. It’s just a huge step up from a “dinky little Falcon” to a huge metallic Saturn V, so I guess I am simply ‘visually aprehensive’ trying to imagine a behemoth like that as an every-week-launcher
But then again, even in 2016 I was discounting Falcon booster recovery. And in 2020-2021ish I was convinced SpaceX had simply maxed out on number of flights possible in a single year. Then starlink really took off like crazy, and with it, Falcon 9 launches. Starlink generates money as a service yes, but it also demands a LOT of launches in rapid succession in order to work (more than anyone else is capable of doing). So this probably helped to drive down F9 cost and amp up SX’s ability to launch.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:47:17 UTC No. 16089938
So the only way for someone to counter something like starshield is by taking out every satellite in LEO?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:48:03 UTC No. 16089939
>>16089936(me)
And I forgot my whole main point. That starlink will probably do the same for Starship. They will likely be launching so frequently for Starlink that SS costs will go down as SX optimize for more and more rapid launches
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:50:36 UTC No. 16089946
>>16089792
oh my fucking god
https://twitter.com/StormSurgeMedia
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:50:43 UTC No. 16089947
>>16089938
Nope there is no counter, really. In this case, the best defense would be a good offense; i.e. countries would just need to build their own system in similar orbits.
Starlink/shield in general couldn’t ever be permanently crippled
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:52:27 UTC No. 16089951
>>16089946
Holy fucking shit what a salt mine, Lemme go get my popcorn!
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:53:23 UTC No. 16089953
SpaceX twitter stream has more views than NASA's YT stream right now
its over
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:54:26 UTC No. 16089955
>>16089953
Twix doesn't have 4k. Normalfags don't care either way.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:54:57 UTC No. 16089956
>>16089955
oh so thats why the twitter stream looks better
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 20:59:08 UTC No. 16089963
>>16089953
It's fake views. also if you scroll past the video twice it counts as two views
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:01:59 UTC No. 16089970
Europe also will want their own spy network, but the problem is that they don't have a rocket.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:02:10 UTC No. 16089972
>>16089636
unpopular in general or on /sfg/
for the first, developing space tech is more important than feeding africans (for multiple reasons)
for the second, not sure
I would like to see both planetary colonization and spinhabs (eventually), both solar and nuclear, what the chinese are doing is neat at times even if they are mostly copycats as far as I can see
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:03:13 UTC No. 16089975
>>16089972
europe is a retirement home
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:07:44 UTC No. 16089983
whoevers in charge of getting that shot dropped the ball godamn
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:08:37 UTC No. 16089985
>>16089938
Lasers. There's no need to physically destroy satellites, it's enough to make them unusable. Fry antennas, cameras, solar panels and it's a piece of useless scrap in orbit. It might even retain control to safely deorbit so no kessler for ya either. With enough lasers it only takes 24 hours to cripple every sat in orbit and launching new ones is useless when it takes weeks to get them in operational orbit.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:09:43 UTC No. 16089988
>>16089713
its fully and rapidly reused, that is how
you amortize the cost of the engines, steel etc over a lot of flights
the propellant is perhaps something like 1mil, then you add amortized labor and other infrastructure costs
if the cadence becomes high enough and they truly achieve rapid and full reuse then yes it should be possible
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:17:44 UTC No. 16090008
>>16089713
Falcon 9/Heavy uses aerospace grade meme milled stir fraction welded aluminium. Fuel is the smallest cost of a launch.
And steel is cheap as fuck.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:18:54 UTC No. 16090009
>>16089636
Starship will never work.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:19:22 UTC No. 16090010
>>16090008
>meme milled
wrong. falcon uses stringers as could be seen with the recent tipped over booster.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:21:31 UTC No. 16090017
Shit, I missed the crs-30 launch. qrd?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:22:50 UTC No. 16090019
>>16090017
It's all over. It diverted to the FAA headquarters.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:47:44 UTC No. 16090064
>>16089946
That's what happens when someone smaller, younger, and less athletic than you takes your crown AND throne. And then makes you dance for his amusement.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 21:53:02 UTC No. 16090073
do any of these small sat launchers consider what will happen when new sats get designed without the mass autism and they just switch to starship for cheaper development with cheaper cost launch?
who the fuck is going to fly these no re-use flights when the options are (expensive sat+ middling launch price) vs (cheap sat vs cheap launch)?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:01:09 UTC No. 16090083
>>16089747
People are praising this as cool, but it sounds dystopian as fuck to me.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:07:20 UTC No. 16090099
>>16089713
F9 pays for itself after like 2-3 flights. Starship will be similar.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:13:03 UTC No. 16090115
>>16089636
Not only is QI real but the implication of no bent space is that we live in a steady state universe with matter creation happening continuously or periodically from wavefunction collapse of the quantum vacuum.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:14:55 UTC No. 16090122
>>16090115
Also if G varies with theta most models of deep redshifted objects are wrong.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:16:38 UTC No. 16090128
>>16089970
I'm sure they will get round to it in about 50 years like their GPS satellites, difference is they will not hide the fact its primary purpose will be to directly spy on their own citizens.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:19:10 UTC No. 16090136
>>16090115
I used to unironically think it was real, but that confidence has slowly been chipped away to the point where it now seems way more likely that Mike McCulloch is simply a schizo with good intentions but bad math somewhere.
I’m not trying to get you to change your mind or anything, and I still respect QI for being quirky/challenging the norm. That’s an honorable fight.
And the way Mike makes people seethe is respectable in and of itself (plus as dumb as it is, I think “tape outgassing drive” is top 10 /sfg/ shitposts)
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:20:28 UTC No. 16090140
>>16090008
Stir friction welded yes, meme-milled no.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:21:54 UTC No. 16090143
>>16089636
Affection and nostalgia for old programs is holding us back. Hubble should be a deprecated machine relegated to the dustbin of history, not a priceless asset.
Nobody except Stoke is even trying to build a launch vehicle that can survive the Starship era of spaceflight.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:23:57 UTC No. 16090147
>>16090099
youre hilarious if you beleive that.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:24:58 UTC No. 16090151
>>16089713
>Does the price of a reused rocket eventually become “free” after a number of reuses
After an arbitrarily large number of launches the cost becomes equal to the fuel and refurbishment costs (assuming labor for flight control etc. is a fixed cost, which is mostly true). Elon has said refurbishing an F9 booster costs $250k. If Starship costs 20x that for each stage it would only cost $10 mil (though when dealing with logistics, overhead, etc. the actual price would be much higher).
Honestly I think that even now people aren't aware of just how cheap reusable rockets are. SpaceX would be launching F9 at half its current price were the market competitive.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:27:53 UTC No. 16090159
>>16090147
You're living with cope if you don't.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:28:05 UTC No. 16090160
>>16090136
I'm not a religious zealot. If it gets disproven I'll be sad but move on. I'm enjoying the rabbit hole of exotic physics problems like the flyby anomaly, and that LCDM people being forced to formulate better arguments by the presence of an alternate hypothesis.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:28:44 UTC No. 16090162
>>16090143
do you not know about blue origin or are you just a paid shill?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:30:25 UTC No. 16090168
>>16090162
Blue Origin is in the unfortunate position of making a rocket that's too big to be a Falcon 9 clone and too small to properly compete with Starship.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:30:32 UTC No. 16090169
>>16090162
New Glenn is a Falcon competitor not a Starship competitor.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:30:39 UTC No. 16090170
>>16090162
New Glenn is not a serious rocket without a reusable upper stage.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:30:44 UTC No. 16090172
>>16090140
I wonder if that might be a useful upgrade for the Falcon 9. An isogrid structure is an extravagance for an expendable rocket but if you're going to get fifty reflights out of a booster the extra performance might be worth the effort.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:31:23 UTC No. 16090175
>>16089936
Falcon 9 is big though
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:33:02 UTC No. 16090178
>>16090172
The performance gains from orthogrids are marginal and the cost increases are tremendous, but that's not the show stopper. Part of the secret to Falcon 9's success is the commonality of the manufacturing lines between second and first stages, and the associated costs of building new boosters would increase by a considerable margin and complicate the entire process for very little gain.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:33:16 UTC No. 16090179
>>16090170
jarvis.
>>16090169
new glenn beats falcon 9 and falcon 9 Heavy hands down which is the reason musk is rushing so hard. buddy.
>>16090168
? why does it have to be the exact same size as falcon or starshit?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:33:40 UTC No. 16090180
>>16089936
>>16089939
I certainly don't believe it'll happen very soon, F9 is still priced around $60 million after all, but that's the theory. A lot would have to go right for it, but it at least seems possible that it could be achieved.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:34:43 UTC No. 16090181
>>16090179
Stoke has upper stage hardware with hops. Jarvis is a paper rocket.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:35:43 UTC No. 16090184
>>16090179
>? why does it have to be the exact same size as falcon or starshit?
It has to do with the upper stages it can support. With an expendable upper stage, they need to build a relatively large, relatively expensive upper to make good use of the booster. With a reusable upper, they're going to be stuck with much lower payload masses, possibly in the Medium Lift class of launch vehicles. It's just an awkward space all around, and it will probably take a new design altogether to make it work.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:39:03 UTC No. 16090188
>>16090179
Jarvis is vaporware.
In what way does New Glenn beat Falcon besides being an anyone but SpaceX option?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:39:24 UTC No. 16090189
>>16090180
>F9 is still priced around $60 million after all
price≠cost
SpaceX is nearing monopoly levels and has no reason to price their launches competitively, especially when they can make more money doing in-house Starlink launches. And yeah, that will apply to Starship too.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:41:10 UTC No. 16090193
>>16090180
If SpaceX can’t pull it off, then the future of spaceflight will be dire
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:51:40 UTC No. 16090209
https://youtu.be/vUFa-J0Z4Sw
Holy crap! New podcast from Tom Dodd
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:54:48 UTC No. 16090213
spacex should upload videos to youtube with 240p
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 22:59:07 UTC No. 16090223
>>16090172
the stringers design is higher performing than modern isogrid designs
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:03:37 UTC No. 16090229
>>16089636
Multinational cooperation isn't good. We should be seeking to leave the rest behind.
Everyone who isn't going on Starship is going to be entirely irrelevant.
India and China get too much credit for their space programs when their accomplishments are only significant compared to their own previous records.
Non-SpaceX space programs are nothing more than the aerospace equivalent of exhibits at a zoo. They're interesting to gawk at for a time, and that's it.
Just because Buran wasn't as bad as the Shuttle doesn't make it good.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:06:59 UTC No. 16090235
>>16090229
>Multinational cooperation isn't good. We should be seeking to leave the rest behind.
unfathomably based
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:07:43 UTC No. 16090237
>>16090223
bullshit.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:08:55 UTC No. 16090240
other countries should be begging america to allow spacex to create military hardware for them
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:08:58 UTC No. 16090241
>>16090237
isogrid is limited to the thickness of the plate but stringers can be as tall as you want
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:12:08 UTC No. 16090245
>>16089772
So that's why China built theirs underground.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:16:01 UTC No. 16090247
>>16090245
More military shit is probably heading underground now that satellites will be able to have 24/7 watch, but then those underground entrances/exist will be easily identified by GMTI anyways
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:19:30 UTC No. 16090253
ground penetrating radar satellites
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:21:18 UTC No. 16090257
>>16090256
no, not even close
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:22:02 UTC No. 16090258
>>16090256
Q4 2026
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:22:29 UTC No. 16090259
>>16090256
I wonder if they could make a Cygnus can faster and cheaper than Thales Alenia?
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:27:34 UTC No. 16090263
prilliant bebbles.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:29:58 UTC No. 16090265
hear me out: starlinks concentrating their lasers on a target like the death star
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:30:21 UTC No. 16090267
>>16090184
reusable booster expendable upper will be a viable rocket architecture for the next 15 years at least.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:37:11 UTC No. 16090271
Anyone listen to that NASA boomer on the latest episode of the Payload Pathfinder podcast? Holy fuck I was getting migraines listening to that guy
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:38:52 UTC No. 16090272
>>16090256
by august 2025 all space stations will be composed to interconnected expended starships.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:40:53 UTC No. 16090276
inflatable starships
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:54:21 UTC No. 16090281
>>16090189
Yes, exactly, but as long as they do that there will be room for a couple of smallsat launchers.
Anonymous at Thu, 21 Mar 2024 23:56:14 UTC No. 16090283
>>16089740
I guess they should have budgeted that a little better
I'm in favor of a battle royale type scenario in which astronomers kill and eat each other until there's enough funding for the survivors
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:08:24 UTC No. 16090295
>>16089636
certainly my opinion about which races should be allowed off Earth is not popular in the general population
also, no pitbulls
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:11:03 UTC No. 16090297
>>16090295
would a pitbull maul a child in zero g?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:25 UTC No. 16090304
>>16090295
heroic pitbull sneaks onto starship to maul lost child on space station
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:17:47 UTC No. 16090307
brilliant pibbles
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:23:13 UTC No. 16090310
>>16090281
idk what the original argument was, but yeah. And it will also be in SpaceX's interest to keep them around in order to stave off any anti-trust litigation if a truly retarded progressive ever gets elected president. But they'll be competing for a really narrow niche and will have a hard time moving into viable medium launchers.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:37:24 UTC No. 16090320
>>16090267
That sounds rather optimistic. Even if it takes SpaceX five years to make recovery and reuse work on Starship, it only takes five years for the whole of the launch market to pivot.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:38:12 UTC No. 16090322
>>16089636
>in general public:
Manned spaceflight should be pursued for moral reasons even if it didn't have incidental material benefits.
>in this general:
Mars colonization is a very very long way away. Absolute best case scenario for this century is a few dozen research outposts that are close to self-sufficient but still heavily reliant on Earth for complex machinery, consumer goods, etc.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:43:19 UTC No. 16090327
>>16089636
Elon is too late for us to make it. Realistically we need 30-50 years of maximum effort uninterrupted activity to make it. Between USD entering the fiat death spiral imminently, political spite fucking over Elon and demographic collapse of the only group of competent people, the idea of a half century of uninterrupted space frenzy is laughable.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:03:32 UTC No. 16090338
>>16090327
he got some kids tho.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:03:55 UTC No. 16090339
>>16089636
starship can't have big doors and be structurally sound so payload size will be gimped
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:05:13 UTC No. 16090341
>>16090307
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:07:57 UTC No. 16090347
>>16090327
This but unironically, political elites will not tolerate people that they can't control. Large colonies of Humans in space that are independent from Earth is unthinkable nightmare for upper class.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:20:29 UTC No. 16090364
>>16090256
Haven 1 is smol
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:21:19 UTC No. 16090366
genius gravel.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:21:37 UTC No. 16090367
>>16090229
I mostly just don't like how multinational cooperation have become a crutch for oldspace. ISS to keep Shuttle flying, then Gateway to justify SLS.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:26:29 UTC No. 16090376
>>16090367
youre idiotic. i wont explain why.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:30:36 UTC No. 16090381
>>16090364
It's supposed to have 70m3 of internal volume, which is about 2/3rds of Salyut-1's volume. It only looks small because you expect dragon to be a lot smaller than it really is.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:31:57 UTC No. 16090383
>>16090381
are fairings THAT thick?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:33:00 UTC No. 16090384
>>16090376
All you are here is the text in your posts. Do I need to interject to remind you again that capitalization and apostrophes are important?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:36:51 UTC No. 16090386
>>16090381
And how do they expect to do any of this without goverment dosh
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:36:55 UTC No. 16090387
>>16090383
Yes nigger. How do you expect important and fragile payload to be protected on a fucking rocket.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:40:11 UTC No. 16090390
>>16090387
I guess but in my head they were like 2/3rds as thick. It’s weird seeing it in cross-section right next to humans for scale
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:43:24 UTC No. 16090392
>>16090381
Taking a massive vindaloo shit in Haven-1 and forcing everyone else to smell your curry poop for several days
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:46:42 UTC No. 16090394
>>16089636
at this point it’s fucking selfish that SpaceX hasn’t shown so much as simple design concepts for Starship interior, HLS interior, and/or the kino EVA suit
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:47:38 UTC No. 16090396
>>16090307
How many pitbulls would it take to ensure the overall average human life expectancy remains in the single digits?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:48:46 UTC No. 16090397
>>16090396
about tree fiddy
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:49:32 UTC No. 16090399
>>16090396
don't think life expectancy was ever in the single digits. mid double digits maybe?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:49:46 UTC No. 16090400
>>16089636
The speed of light is the Gordian Knot of physics.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:51:16 UTC No. 16090401
>>16090386
Vasts CEO is a crypto billionaire
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:53:43 UTC No. 16090404
>I have a name for lit- name for it. It's called the hyperloop.
Why did you not wake up to the scam druing that saga musk sisters?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:56:14 UTC No. 16090407
>>16090327
Eh, I think its theoretically possible that before Elon dies, Neuralink advances far enough for him to on his death bed, volunteer for the attempt to upload his consciousness into a robot body or a mainframe to become the first Reynolds style Alpha Simulation. If it doesn't work, nothing lost; if it works, humanity's future is brighter. If Neuralink has advanced to the point of allowing a quadriplegic the ability to play video games using just his thoughts in 2024, then another 20 years of advancements means there's a good chance that cyberization of the human brain is within an achievable lifespan of most people in their fifties like Elon.
All that said, Elon did also say that he wanted to live and die on human terms and not live forever. So, maybe it may be too late to "make it."
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:57:32 UTC No. 16090411
>>16090394
Until they can successfully reenter the Earth's atmosphere with Starship and then land it/catch it with the tower, there's no point in showing anything--as it would just be a false hope.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:59:18 UTC No. 16090415
>>16090409
>September
real ones know this is optimistic
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 01:59:46 UTC No. 16090417
>>16090409
This thing screams oldspace. Breathe on it wrong and it shatters. Shooting star is useless too. Talk about too little too late; just pay for crew or cargo on a Dragon instead!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:01:11 UTC No. 16090423
>>16090415
Others on L2 say testing should be finished this month and testing has been going smoothly
Maybe it’s an issue with Vulcan?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:04:02 UTC No. 16090426
>>16090409
>Reminder that ULA can't start launching NSSL payloads until they have two Vulcan launches under their belt
So what is the plan now? Launch a mass simulator payload to get the second launch out of the way?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:04:18 UTC No. 16090428
>>16090417
Starship cannot maintain a clean room environment so it’s kind of a dead-in-the-water rocket. How could JPL or the DoD integrate delicate payloads at the Boca Chica site? They cannot. That’s why creamdhraser exists
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:04:41 UTC No. 16090429
>>16090426
Maybe some Kuiper satellites?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:05:40 UTC No. 16090431
>>16090401
Is the entire company based on new-money?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:07:56 UTC No. 16090434
>>16090417
>Production
>Status In development
>Built 3
>Launched 0 (4 atmospheric tests)
>Operational 1
Zero atmospheric tests and only 1 operational ship. They had one of the birds on a runway in 2013. It's been over a decade. I agree. I'm not sure I see the point of this system.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:08:19 UTC No. 16090435
>>16090339
You mean a reusable Starship's doors.
A stripped down expendable Starship with a fairing could have an absurdly large amount of volume to go along with its 200+ ton payload mass.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:08:23 UTC No. 16090436
>>16090429
Do those even exist yet?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:08:57 UTC No. 16090438
>>16090434
Zero space tests*, my ability to logic is stuck on the ground like this "space plane".
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:09:06 UTC No. 16090439
>>16090392
oh smeg
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:09:20 UTC No. 16090440
>>16090240
There’s no incentive because america pays the bill for everything and just shares the data with its allies for free. This is true for both pure science (a la curiosity, perseverance, etc.) and with military intelligence. The only reason allies sometimes want their own tech is national pride
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:09:30 UTC No. 16090442
>>16090436
2 of them do
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:11:05 UTC No. 16090443
>>16090442
Pathetic, disappointing, shameful.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:13:07 UTC No. 16090444
>>16090442
You mean the ones that they wasted an entire Atlas V to put in orbit? I thought those were just early prototypes to secure the spectrum allocation.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:14:09 UTC No. 16090445
>>16090444
there'll be a lot more wasted atlases where that came from
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:24:15 UTC No. 16090456
https://twitter.com/The_TrueAnomaly
>We later lost contact with Jackal 1, and we have yet to communicate with or receive telemetry data from Jackal 2.
>Flight Test 1 has progressed as far as possible and we do not anticipate meeting the remainder of the test objectives, including on-orbit RPO demonstrations.
True Anomaly had a true anomaly
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:34:35 UTC No. 16090465
>>16090409
So what is the business case for this thing? Can it carry more payload for less money than a Dragon 2? The only advantage I can see is that it saves on recovery costs since you can land it at an airport.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:35:06 UTC No. 16090469
>>16090381
you need like thirteen of those to make one (1) ISS, it's not that big
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:40:31 UTC No. 16090470
>>16090434
Point is recovery and refurbishment is much easier from a runway than from splashing down in a salty ocean.
It does have some advantages, but is it worth it? Don't know.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 02:52:08 UTC No. 16090476
>>16089792
>believing in free market competition in the aerospace industry.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:03:32 UTC No. 16090483
>>16090409
Keep chasing that dream while everyone else goes to space
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:05:54 UTC No. 16090486
>>16090465
>So what is the business case for this thing?
I'll buy you dinner and we can talk all about it, Mr. Senator.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:07:53 UTC No. 16090489
>Kuiper
>>16090436
>>16090442
>>16090444
>>16090445
Kuiper anon here. Existence is pain and the program continues to be in shambles. I'm sure Amazon will eventually shovel enough cash into the sacrificial dumpster fire to make the program profitable, but hoooooly shit that is that a long way off. You genuinely wouldn't believe how fucked everything is right now.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:12:57 UTC No. 16090494
>>16090339
>>16090435
What would happen if starship ditched its door like like a fairing and flew in with the top off
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:28:05 UTC No. 16090511
>>16090489
I’ve heard a few rumours that it’s not in a good state. Something like mismanagement, teams being told to make it happen without being given the resources and direction needed, and some opinion that it just exists to keep contracts from going to spacex by default
How JEDI is this?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:29:39 UTC No. 16090513
>>16090431
Yeah in terms of funding they basically have him as an angel investor. The only thing they really need to do though is successfully get Haven-1 in to space and be the first to commercial space station and they will get a massive stream of investors who want in. Cash wont be an issue if they stay on schedule.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:37:04 UTC No. 16090521
Who are your underdogs in the spaceflight sector? I've personally had Stoke for launching payload just because theyre basically the only company ACTUALLY going for full reusability and their rocket wouldnt be in direct competition with Starship, but a side market that can offer a probably cheaper cost and better schedule for small payloads.
In the CSS department I've got Vast for Haven. The only real reason I see them becoming the dominant force in that sector is because they can grab the initial wave of investors for the achievement of 'first commercial space station' as well as their plans for this being reasonable i.e. having the first module go up in Falcon instead of 100% banking on Starship to be ready that early. Their plans for after Haven-1 are also good, the utilize Starship and have plans for testing artificial gravity and a reasonable expansion structure and schedule. Theyre basically not doing retarded shit far removed from the ISS with no prior experience like Think Orbitals chrome dome bullshit.
Varda is really the only one doing space drugs so thats not really an underdog option.
Spacetugs is really anyones game at this point.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:39:41 UTC No. 16090524
>>16090521
>and their rocket wouldnt be in direct competition with Starship,
literally every rocket will be in direct competition with starship
reminder that spacex bid on TROPICS using starship
impulse will win the spacetug war
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:52:47 UTC No. 16090533
>>16090524
Did you not understand my point? Starship will gobble up the lionshare of launches yes but this means that not every single buyer is well suited to Starship. There WILL be buyers who either want their own rides but dont want a whole Starship (better cost via Stoke for same service as its reusable) or cant ride Transport missions (size specifications, time schedule, wrong orbit, etc.) or cant ride Starship due to major backlog/time constraints (the only debatable point). These are very clear niches that Stoke would be targetting and has ACTUAL substance to it, the vast majority of launches are not space stations that require 200 tons (though that will almost surely increase in the coming years).
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:57:40 UTC No. 16090535
>>16090533
no one will want their own rides when you can just do a rideshare with a few others
every single starship will become a transport mission
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 03:58:11 UTC No. 16090536
>>16090533
probably rocket lab is my quess. They already kinda do that now.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:03:49 UTC No. 16090540
>>16090533
>not every single buyer is well suited to Starship. There WILL be buyers who either want their own rides but dont want a whole Starship
"hey guys we are sending 13 tons to this orbit, anyone else want to tag along?"
its literally that easy
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:04:11 UTC No. 16090541
>>16090535
Did you not read the parenthesis you fucking subhuman nigger ape?? So sick of you already.
>>16090536
Theyre not fully reusable with Electron and neither will Neutron. Unless Proton or Quark or whatever the fuck they call their next rocket is fully reusable they will be at a significant disadvantage in pricing to Stoke. THAT is Stoke's direct competitor.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:07:05 UTC No. 16090543
>>16090540
Hey faggot. Read the parenthesis. Allot of satellites need specific orbits with how they are designed or cant fit the time schedule the others are on (actually debatable).
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:07:23 UTC No. 16090544
>>16090541
has stoke ever launched something to orbit?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:07:35 UTC No. 16090545
>>16090511
I agree with everything but the last part. I think Amazon has genuinely grand ambitions for Kuiper, and I think they'll get there eventually, but right now the program is a shit show. The biggest issue is that upper management (all of whom were hired after Elon fired them from Starlink) have a much lower tolerance for risk than literally everyone else (mostly former Spacexers who have moved on from Starlink) so literally every solution for every minor development or production issue has to bounce back and forth between JPL-level autism and Spacex-level "fuck it, we ball" until it's resolved in a way that makes everyone equally unhappy.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:08:00 UTC No. 16090546
>>16090541
>Did you not read the parenthesis you fucking subhuman nigger ape?? So sick of you already.
i did
none of them were worth arguing about because they were so clearly wrong
rideshare always wins, deal with it
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:09:06 UTC No. 16090548
>>16090543
impulse space fixes this problem
every mission will be tug heaven
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:09:18 UTC No. 16090549
>>16090544
People said the same thing about Falcon. You know this 'argument' is retarded yet you still typed it.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:10:07 UTC No. 16090550
>>16089636
One brute force solution toward viable manned space travel is a longterm evolution towards a tiny, spiderlike morphology, without sacrificing our brains, and having the ability to hybernate or coccoon
Pygmy power
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:10:37 UTC No. 16090551
>>16089636
starship is for brilliant pebbles
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:11:09 UTC No. 16090552
>>16090550
Forgot pic
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:11:17 UTC No. 16090553
>>16090543
>>16090541
its cheaper to launch on starship with a tug than it will be to launch on stoke
sorry but you lose
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:12:14 UTC No. 16090554
>>16090548
Actual good point which I hadnt thought about. Still leaves room depending on how long it takes them to manufacture tugs. That whole tug industry needs some consolidation though desu, until a major player comes out on top and mass produces them to keep up with Starship demand though I can't really tell how much it would affect that market. Fair point though.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:13:28 UTC No. 16090555
>>16090549
no i was asking because i did not know. Rocket Lab has gotten to orbit so i trust them more. When Stoke gets to orbit i will trust them more. For now its a nice concept.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:16:00 UTC No. 16090559
>>16090554
Read >>16090553 also very obvious you had literally no idea what to say other than dismissing the points even though they are actual points of contention, and then when someone with a triple digit IQ suggested space tugs you piggy backed off him. You are an actual room temp IQ lobotomite brown favella monkey indian halfbreed.
>>16090551
How long will you shill this for
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:19:23 UTC No. 16090560
>>16090559
Sorry >>16090553 read >>16090554
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:25:58 UTC No. 16090565
>>16090559
Until the heat death of the universe. (Where by universe, I mean Moscow; by heat, I mean nuclear hellfire; and by death, I mean death.)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:26:02 UTC No. 16090566
>>16090559
go back to /pol/ already
you probably don't even know who tom mueller is
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:28:58 UTC No. 16090567
the Boeing 747 will put literally every business jet out of business. how can they expect to compete on price when you can fit 400 people in one plane. don't talk to me about flying directly to your destination on your own schedule. price is the only thing that matters. nobody is willing to pay a premium for a premium service.
want to fly directly to your destination on your own schedule anyway? just charter a 747 and sell the other 399 seats to someone else. this is a real thing that will really happen
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:30:21 UTC No. 16090568
>>16090567
that literally does happen
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:30:33 UTC No. 16090569
>>16090566
I accept your concession. Maybe try not to so transparently go for ad hominem. You couldve just discussed why I might've been wrong like a normal person instead of plugging your ears and going
>NOPE IM RIGHT YOURE WRONG SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP LALALALALALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LALALALALALA
>>16090567
Kek
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:30:56 UTC No. 16090570
>>16090567
if the current commercial airliner market consisted entirely of expendable aircraft this wouldn't be an absurd thing to say
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:31:22 UTC No. 16090571
>>16090567
>just charter a 747 and sell the other 399 seats to someone else. this is a real thing that will really happen
anon.......
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:31:35 UTC No. 16090572
>>16090568
Correct, it doesnt!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:33:24 UTC No. 16090575
>>16090381
High Impact Sex
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:35:37 UTC No. 16090577
>>16090572
but it does happen
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:42:34 UTC No. 16090584
>>16090579
KEEEEEEEEEK AMERILARDS REALLY SAY THIS
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 04:48:33 UTC No. 16090587
>>16090579
>>16090584
LMFAOOOOOOOO AMERISHARTS ARE WELL AND TRULY EXEMPLIFIED BY THIS !
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:03:27 UTC No. 16090592
>>16090591
>heat shield is on backwards
uh oh...
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:09:10 UTC No. 16090602
>>16090545
That’s hilarious tbqh
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:18:30 UTC No. 16090612
>>16090489
Yes I would. We heard horror stories about retail side of house all the time and so I expected Kuiper to go about this bad. I bailed to a startup rather than apply for internal transfer.
t. former AWS SDE
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:33:45 UTC No. 16090625
>>16090567
You think you are mocking Starship but you are ignoring that in your analogy the planes that the 747 is competing with all crash into the ocean after one flight.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:35:16 UTC No. 16090627
>>16090625
So they're 737 MAX?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 05:49:56 UTC No. 16090638
>>16090567
The relevant economic scaling factor for the threat Starship poses to other launchers is marginal cost, not overall payload capacity.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:24:33 UTC No. 16090720
https://twitter.com/isro/status/177
ISRO
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:31:41 UTC No. 16090730
https://twitter.com/GoingBallistic5
>Holy Mackerel! No wonder the heat tiles are falling off.
>SpaceX is using bobby-pins to hold the tiles in place.
>Vibrational load will undo that in a jiffy.
>Paging Sandy Munro @teardowntitan
>I sure hope this image is an old design, otherwise they need a better fastener.
Image
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:34:07 UTC No. 16090736
>>16089749
and how exactly is the UN going to enforce these laws?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:38:50 UTC No. 16090741
>>16089927
>1 family in outere space providing a comfy 0.3g
I hope you like deformed babies
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:39:36 UTC No. 16090744
>>16090720
I was gonna be mean but the genuine excitement when it landed and deployed the lil shoot got to me. Good for them
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:51:44 UTC No. 16090769
>>16090511
>until it's resolved in a way that makes everyone equally unhappy.
Yeah that tracks
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:53:51 UTC No. 16090771
>>16089688
>>16089714
>>16089720
>>16089818
No russophobia, thank you
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:54:08 UTC No. 16090773
>>16090730
Split pins are a common fastener and you should kill yourself for reposting this reddit fag
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 07:55:56 UTC No. 16090775
i just want a girl who'll read me the ula depot pdf sweetly at night and not leave me for her ex
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 08:34:41 UTC No. 16090805
>>16090775
hey bro it's me yor ex
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:15:11 UTC No. 16090828
>>16090771
>russophobia
no such thing
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:44:49 UTC No. 16090841
>>16089946
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:45:51 UTC No. 16090842
>>16089946
>they are not supermen, whatever they can do, we can do
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:47:42 UTC No. 16090844
>>16090775
I had an engineering girl that loved spacex and got really excited about mars colonization and we watched Eager Space videos together and would trade book and movie and TV recs it was awesome
I think she left me because her autism power levels were high enough that she was uncomfortable that I had to learn where she lived when she got injured and needed help. Now whenever I hear a woman from her country speak in that same accent I get a Pavlovian boner, she had the sexiest body I’ve ever been with.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:55:22 UTC No. 16090849
You guys keep posting this thread, but I don't think you know how it's meant to be.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 09:59:08 UTC No. 16090850
>>16090771
yes russophobia, TZD
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:18:07 UTC No. 16090864
>>16089636
You can be smart, but also retarded. Musk is a fine example of this. Smart as hell, no doubt. I do not have EDS; I give Elon 100% credit for SpaceX’s success. But he is obsessed with the “woke mind virus” and trannies ruining civilization while applauding gay people adopting? It’s the same thing. Gay families ruin civilization. He doesn’t realize this because he is fucking retarded and trying to compromise, whether he realizes it or not
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:23:07 UTC No. 16090866
>>16090489
>>16090511
>>16090612
lol damn, thanks for the tea. This is interesting
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 10:51:53 UTC No. 16090876
>>16089636
Human spaceflight, especially to the moon or mars, is mostly pointless. Industry will largely be automated in space if we ever get to the point of resource extraction/ fuel production
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:25:17 UTC No. 16090890
>>16090073
nobody and that would be the case even without cheap satellites I think
with smallsat launchers most of them are going to have worse reliablity too, so they are basically going to be worse in every way possible
its like taking a extremely expensive sailship trip over the ocean instead of just flying
there might be some non-economic (some economic case that is built on the very long term) reasons like internal markets (europe, china) or mandatory redundancy (NSSL contracts), spite/long term investment (Amazons Kuiper)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:33:41 UTC No. 16090897
>>16090271
what did he say?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:35:24 UTC No. 16090899
>>16090322
what do you mean by close to self-sufficient? and if they are at that point, why wouldn't the research posts expand into small colonies?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:50:23 UTC No. 16090911
>>16090489
lmao
some tidbits?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:54:46 UTC No. 16090914
>>16090533
>size specification
starship is fucking massive man
>time schedule
starship cadence will be higher than anything else, granted that transporter missions might not be as frequent but I think even now transporter on F9 is on par or better than smallsat launch cadence?
>wrong orbit
spacetugs nigga
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:56:21 UTC No. 16090917
>>16090849
then why do you keep coming back?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 11:59:20 UTC No. 16090920
>>16090550
>longterm evolution towards a tiny, spiderlike morphology, without sacrificing our brains, and having the ability to hybernate or coccoon
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:06:26 UTC No. 16090924
>>16090915
imagine if they didnt stop using carbon composite lmao. that would be the death of the starship program.
Even if they could manufacture a single ship by today (which i doubt) it would crack easily and weaken over timelike that gay ass submarine.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:06:29 UTC No. 16090925
>>16090567
now imagine that the 747 is 50 times cheaper per flight than a small passenger jet (and hundreds or thousands of times cheaper per passenger)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:08:43 UTC No. 16090928
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
Small Rockets
>Starship could threaten small launch providers.
>Rocket Lab launches again from Virginia.
>Night flight for Astrobotic's Xodiac.
>US military taps Firefly to study cislunar missions.
Medium Rockets
>SLC-40 is ready for astronauts.
>Europe turns to SpaceX for more launches.
>A rare countdown abort for Soyuz.
>Chinese launch is a milestone for Moon program.
>Ariane 6 is coming together in Kourou.
Heavy Rockets
>SpaceX eyes quick turnaround for next Starship flight
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:08:49 UTC No. 16090929
>>16090567
kek. the comment that deestroyed the cognitive dissonance in muskratic brains.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:08:57 UTC No. 16090930
>>16090924
Nah, we would already be on mars if they went with the carbon route.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:13:28 UTC No. 16090934
>>16090930
no way. the tank in the picture exploded and failed pressure testing.
They scaled down the size of the vehicle over time due to the impossibility of manufacture. The vehcile design became too small and underpowerd for Mars colonization, and Musks biggest mistake in the long run will be the fact that he did not radically grow the design to ITS 2016 scale as soon as the switch to stainless took place.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:14:44 UTC No. 16090935
>>16090925
and flies 10-100x as often and is safer
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:15:36 UTC No. 16090936
>>16090934
Yeah, especially that with every new Starship iteration we are getting closer to ITS size.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:18:52 UTC No. 16090938
>>16090929
What copium are you huffing?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:20:07 UTC No. 16090939
>>16090938
dont feed the troll.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 12:53:05 UTC No. 16090967
>>16090876
>bro just spend 5 trillion dollars on robots for digging up scientific samples or commercial minerals instead of sending a guy with a shovel
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:12:56 UTC No. 16090993
>>16090935
And does your taxes and gives you a hand job.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:14:39 UTC No. 16090998
>>16090936
the vehicle has been getting taller not wider. taller booster means you will need to spend more propellant slowing down, and may even need to do an entry burn which they currently dont want to do. taller ship is obviously bad because it makes it impossible to land anywhere thats slightly uneven. i dont see how present hls will actually land on the moon and stay upright.
he should have increased the diameter from day 1. now there is so much sunk cost its impossible.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:26:57 UTC No. 16091017
>>16090930
I miss the sexy blended landing gear fairings so much
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:30:21 UTC No. 16091024
>>16090998
>i dont see how present hls will actually land on the moon and stay upright
Very long legs extending from the middle
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:42:02 UTC No. 16091031
>>16090993
with the cost delta it pretty much does
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:45:03 UTC No. 16091034
>>16090935
isn't this pretty much already true of the jumbo jet / private jet dichotomy?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:47:43 UTC No. 16091037
>>16089656
They should pack one on to a lunar starship once they figure out how to get stuff down from the cargo bay
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:52:29 UTC No. 16091044
>>16089665
And that's a good thing. Heads need to roll at NASA and in Congress if our national space program is ever going to snap out of its lethargy. Nothing like a red scare to get that done
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 13:53:40 UTC No. 16091046
>>16089756
it's a lunar telescope
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:11:06 UTC No. 16091057
>>16090930
Daily reminder ITS has greater payload capacity than Sea Dragon
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:26:24 UTC No. 16091063
>>16090998
Starship currently has like ±15° tilt tolerance, I don’t think it’s going to be an issue. It’s not gonna try and land on the side of a mountain
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:43:36 UTC No. 16091079
>>16091057
The animators putting in the section views signs in that scene because they didnt understand why they where on the blueprints still is one of the most hilarious things out of that entire show.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 14:44:44 UTC No. 16091082
>>16091079
that engine would break apart as soon as its lit
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:06:23 UTC No. 16091113
>>16090383
Yes because the're carbon fiber. It's a shitty material and only used for its weight.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:19:36 UTC No. 16091136
>>16091016
Sounds like Boeing is going to build 6 Starliners one for each NASA mission.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:21:45 UTC No. 16091139
>>16091133
>>16091137
who could have seen this one coming
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:25:06 UTC No. 16091147
Are we sure Starliner actually exists?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:26:25 UTC No. 16091149
>>16091147
They have flight hardware but I don't think they have crew flight hardware.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:27:33 UTC No. 16091152
>>16091082
>bob truax will never launch the seabee
>bob truax will never launch the seahorse
>volumes 1 and 3 of the sea dragon study will never be declassified
>hazegrayart will never make a sea dragon video
>for all mankind will never make a sea dragon video that's somehow worse than some random youtuber working all by himself
>volume 2 of the sea dragon study will never be declassified with a high-quality color scan of the cover page
>the sea dragon engines will never get RSS/RO configs
YOU ARE HERE
>sea dragon will never get approved, quickly resolve all development issues, and launch within a year for a price of $100k, and also accidentally reach warp 10 in the process
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:27:36 UTC No. 16091153
>first manned flight of starliner will come after the first manned flight of starship
OOF
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:32:35 UTC No. 16091158
The People's Congress of the Chinese government has for the first time used the term "commercial spaceflight" and has added the 'launch of its 4 and 5m diameter reusable rockets' to the list of top priorities, along side nuclear reactors, artificial intelligence and quantum computing!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:36:49 UTC No. 16091163
>>16091153
boeing would've been dissolved as a company and relevant employees unemployable in the industry if that scenario comes to even months off from happening
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:40:02 UTC No. 16091165
which mission had a higher chance of success: soyuz 1 or Boe CFT?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:42:44 UTC No. 16091169
>starliner has a pretty spectacular orbital manuevering system
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:46:28 UTC No. 16091177
>>16091137
It’s going to skip to “Q4 2024” so quickly lol
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:48:20 UTC No. 16091179
>>16091158
Great! Now America needs to do all of this first so Chyna can copy it, adulterate it, and deliver chink-tier half ass products
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:54:17 UTC No. 16091186
>>16091179
rer
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 15:58:07 UTC No. 16091190
>>16090272
I can't wait for 0g vacuum welding to become an AWS welding cert. Imagine being able to retrofit an expended Starship in orbit to utilize the empty tanks has habitable space.
>soon there will be guys rocking Pit Viper helmet shades and Redwing space suit boots while they rip cigs in the hab
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:05:27 UTC No. 16091196
crew dragon has eaten up over 2x the original flight contract of starliner correct
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:10:01 UTC No. 16091201
>>16090998
>i dont see how present hls will actually land on the moon and stay upright.
Reaction wheels, of course. They will allow it to stay upright even if a landing leg fails to deploy -- for a little while.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:15:25 UTC No. 16091206
>>16090998
Falcon 9 boosters are pencils and have no problem staying upright.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:21:08 UTC No. 16091215
>>16091190
Imagine the cheap ebeam welds when your entire workspace is hard vacuum.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:21:12 UTC No. 16091216
>>16090428
Lol and what is stopping SpaceX from simply building a clean room rated hanger bay to integrate payloads in?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:21:46 UTC No. 16091217
>nasa flight ops runs starliner, as opposed to dragon which is run by spx people in hawthorn
huh never knew that.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:22:03 UTC No. 16091218
>>16089636
Space elevators make no sense economically. You need a robust and thriving space economy to build one. If you have that, what's the point of a space elevator?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:22:34 UTC No. 16091219
>>16091216
it's not that easy in cleanroomery
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:22:58 UTC No. 16091220
>>16091190
everything will be automated and anyone going to space is going to simply be a paying customer. There will probably be like 20-30 actual SX employees in space max. You will likely not be one of them, statistically speaking. Either will your kid. It’s probably going to take three more generations before general blue collar space work is a thing
Sorry for the blackpill, just being realistic!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:24:00 UTC No. 16091223
>>16091217
What why
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:24:10 UTC No. 16091224
>an Cise says for CFT, there is not a capability for live video downlink. There is a camera running for free flight phasing, but it will be recorded and played back once it's docked to the ISS.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:24:25 UTC No. 16091225
>>16090347
>Large colonies of Humans in space that are independent from Earth is unthinkable nightmare for upper class.
The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress and 95% of Gundam applies here.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:25:01 UTC No. 16091226
>>16091223
it was "up to the contractor" and boeing chose to not run it themselves
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:26:26 UTC No. 16091228
>>16090272
SpaceX is already planning to make a space station Starship variant.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:26:39 UTC No. 16091229
>>16091225
well if we're just pulling out sci-fi references elysium says the upper class are going to love space colonies
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:27:11 UTC No. 16091231
>>16090575
EHHH???
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:28:52 UTC No. 16091232
>>16091216
that is impossible
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:29:11 UTC No. 16091233
>>16091158
Funny how the commies end up depending on capitalism.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:32:15 UTC No. 16091236
>>16091231
Fuck off already fag you only come here during IFT launches then linger.
>inb4 anime website
Spaceflight general. The anime isnt the issue anyways, its (You).
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:32:22 UTC No. 16091237
>>16091233
it’s almost as if communism was designed by some mentally ill fat man who wanted free shit from those who were harder-working and richer than he was!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:33:23 UTC No. 16091238
>>16091236
When will you realize YOU’RE the problem, bonehead? You cry about it every time an image is posted. Try growing up?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:35:50 UTC No. 16091241
>>16091236
Woosh, u have small penor.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:38:42 UTC No. 16091243
>>16091236
lmao seething
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:51:52 UTC No. 16091252
>>16090730
Why did the ceramic fiber insulation that went floating off look yellow on the views from starship when it was getting close to reentry? Was that just the lighting, or do they use adhesive?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 16:57:41 UTC No. 16091256
>>16091252
That just wasn't what went floating by.
This is a fabric what we saw was some crumbly foam stuff.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:04:16 UTC No. 16091264
>>16091236
Relax
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:11:42 UTC No. 16091270
>>16091218
yeah, this is why railroads will never catch on too
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:13:32 UTC No. 16091272
>>16091229
yeah but elysium is terrible scifi
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:14:44 UTC No. 16091273
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pG
>The Rise of The Everyday Astronaut
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 17:47:47 UTC No. 16091307
>>16091215
Not needing shield gas or flux is pretty cool, but there are so many other things that need to get figured out. How does your HAZ/pre and post heat treatment change if you can't radiate heat into an atmosphere? Is it better to weld in sunlight or shade? The list goes on and on, but if we really want to become space faring we'll have to figure it out
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:02:02 UTC No. 16091320
>>16091229
That's because elysium wasn't a colony, it was just rich people living in space.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:03:27 UTC No. 16091321
>>16091296
>Chief on site
He calls himself Chief?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:08:23 UTC No. 16091327
>>16091220
Manufacturing and construction are two different things. You see lots of automation in manufacturing already but that's because it's easy to do in a controlled factory environment. Field conditions are are much more chaotic and harder to automate. See ISS spacewalks for example
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:09:54 UTC No. 16091329
>>16091215
Why? It produces a to of xrays and arcs work just fine in vacuum.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:10:56 UTC No. 16091333
>>16091256
Well where did that come from?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:11:13 UTC No. 16091334
>>16091024
seems like a lot of dead weight compared to having a shorter fatter vehicle.
>>16091063
>Starship currently has like ±15° tilt tolerance
maybe when carefully placed and completely stationary. but its easy to exceed that tolerance with a small amount of lateral motion on touchdown and an uneven surface.
>>16091206
Are you dumb? They land on a flat manmade pad. I'm talking about the ship landing opn the moon under lunar gravity. The forces pulling your legs to the ground are 1/6th but the forces tipping your vehicle over are the same as they are on earth.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:11:37 UTC No. 16091335
>>16091321
maybe its someones nickname
I have no idea
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:21:06 UTC No. 16091347
HLS Moonship tilting and falling over is simply not a problem - and any vocal concern means you’re either a paid shill or a retard who bought into Blue Who Crew propaganda
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:21:42 UTC No. 16091349
>>16091334
>seems like a lot of dead weight compared to having a shorter fatter vehicle
It was just a joke, but they can add more weight to HLS as it's not going to be reusable and won't need tiles.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:22:28 UTC No. 16091350
>>16091345
her voice is so annoying those videos are unwatchable
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:24:51 UTC No. 16091352
>>16091345
>massive jew nose
>weak chin
>plastic face
>caked on makeup
jew detected
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:25:09 UTC No. 16091355
>>16091334
The ladder is so far off the ground as well! It’s a dangerous rocket. We should redesign it from scratch or just cancel it altogether
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:29:43 UTC No. 16091358
>>16090256
>milled
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:29:44 UTC No. 16091359
>>16089636
Sea Dragon was a retarded idea.
The Saturn V F1 is only a cool engine because it actually worked. But it took thousands of man hours just to get it to stabilize for 40 seconds without dying an hero
Scaling to even further would have been a retarded disaster and the only reason of this shit was proposed in the first place is because the USA unfortunately can’t into domestic ORSC kerolox engines
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:30:56 UTC No. 16091360
>>16091359
thoughts on fully reusable sea dragon?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:32:07 UTC No. 16091362
>>16090864
you can really see this shine through with his opinions on Russia, he's trying to adopt appeasement policy circa 1930s as a compromise between the Ukrainian position of Fuck You No and the Russian position of Ukrainian Genocide
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:33:40 UTC No. 16091364
>>16090545
>after Elon fired them from Starlink
what happened? Did I miss something?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:34:58 UTC No. 16091365
>>16091364
news story from like 2019. elon fired starlink management after he was mad at slow progress. Kuiper picked some of them up
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:35:26 UTC No. 16091366
>>16091364
this was before the first two prototype starlinks were launched
Musk thought things were going too slowly, so he fired the initial people in charge
in retrospect that seemed like a very good idea
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:36:57 UTC No. 16091369
>>16090930
ITS had so much fucking sovl.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:39:10 UTC No. 16091372
>>16091364
>>16091366
a few news stories about this in 2018, apparently 5 execs were fired in June of 2018
https://arstechnica.com/information
>But Musk apparently concluded that keeping the Starlink project on schedule required a management shakeup. In June, Musk flew to the Seattle area for meetings with engineers who were leading the satellite project, Reuters reported:
> Within hours of landing, Musk had fired at least seven members of the program's senior management team at the Redmond, Washington, office, the culmination of disagreements over the pace at which the team was developing and testing its Starlink satellites, according to the two SpaceX employees with direct knowledge of the situation.
> Known for pushing aggressive deadlines, Musk quickly brought in new managers from SpaceX headquarters in California to replace a number of the managers he fired. Their mandate: Launch SpaceX's first batch of US-made satellites by the middle of next year, the sources said.
>A SpaceX spokesperson told Ars that the employees left the company over the course of nearly two weeks as part of a re-organization, and that at least two of the people left of their own accord. Assuming the rest of Reuter's reporting is correct, that would mean about five senior managers were fired from the satellite broadband project in a span of less than two weeks.
so this was after Tintin 1 and 2 were launched, which happened in February 2018
the first batch of 60 actual satellites happened in May 2019
how long has Kuiper been fucking around now?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:42:37 UTC No. 16091375
>>16091349
it's hard to tell who's joking because there are a lot of actual retards here who will make a "they can just do x" justification for any spacex design mistake
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:42:53 UTC No. 16091376
>>16091372
i mean to be fair it worked really fucking well didnt it.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:43:33 UTC No. 16091377
>>16091372
They were actively hiring for Kuiper in 2019.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:43:39 UTC No. 16091378
>>16091369
the shape of its was king, but how the fuck was it meant to control itself with no control surfaces?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:45:33 UTC No. 16091380
>>16091378
Shuttle style with RCS.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:49:09 UTC No. 16091383
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:49:49 UTC No. 16091385
>>16089636
>trying to land on mars/establish a colony within the next decade or two is a waste of time, money, and resources
>japan's space program is irrelevant
>musk isn't a perfect human and sometimes has retarded ideas that shouldn't be pursued
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:51:57 UTC No. 16091388
>>16091378
it would flip much higher in the atmosphere using RCS as >>16091380 said
Also keep in mind mar's atmosphere is less than a percent of earth's pressure, so doing that maneuver on mars wouldnt be that crazy.
on the return leg however is a different question
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:54:50 UTC No. 16091391
>>16091385
first one is retarded and what people said during the apollo era. second one isnt controversial. third is reality with one example being boring company.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:58:28 UTC No. 16091394
>>16091374
The EDS must flow.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:00:50 UTC No. 16091396
>>16091381
what am I looking at?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:05:31 UTC No. 16091401
>>16091374
They doubled down, because the writer focuses on "evils of Musk" story
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:08:01 UTC No. 16091404
>>16091396
saggy balls
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:39 UTC No. 16091405
>>16091396
Mass stress test
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:10:23 UTC No. 16091406
>>16091402
isn't that the fake starship HLS render with the deployable solar panels?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:13:30 UTC No. 16091410
>>16091380
>>16091388
even shittle used control surfaces for pitch and roll control.
How would they maintain pitch control with rcs? they would burn through it all before landing
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:16:30 UTC No. 16091413
>>16089747
SpaceX keeps moving downstream. Earth observation providers will get BTFO along with communications providers. Navigation is obviously next. If this isn't stopped, it's eventually going to permanently kill off all competition in American space sector
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:17:15 UTC No. 16091415
>>16090381
>2/3rds of Salyut-1's volume
That's tiny
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:17:44 UTC No. 16091416
>>16091413
maybe the competition should stop sucking dick?
ever thought of that
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:18:19 UTC No. 16091417
hey /sfg/ rate my landing legs for HLS. lays flat when undeployed, could use same movement equipment as the flaps, nice wide base and maybe use same steel or something as satrship for extra cheapness. Give it to me straight
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:18:42 UTC No. 16091418
>>16089747
SpaceX keeps moving downstream. Earth observation providers will get BTFO along with communications providers. Navigation is obviously next. If this isn't stopped, it's eventually going to permanently kill off all competition in the American space sector except tiny amounts that will be kept on life support on Bezos' and Amazon's dime
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:19:33 UTC No. 16091419
>>16091417
bretty cool anon
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:20:32 UTC No. 16091420
>>16090381
hopefully these vastfags arent just working on the surface level meme of building a pressure vessel. they need to figure out how to filter the air in a large volume or people will asphyxiate in airflow dead zones. in the iss its relatively eassy because its a series of tubes, but in a large volume like that its hard
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:20:39 UTC No. 16091421
>>16090381
>>16091415
how big is that in comparison to something like an RV?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:22:44 UTC No. 16091422
>>16091417
How does it cope with slopes though
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:24:03 UTC No. 16091424
>>16091416
Payload providers and operators can't compete with SpaceX's internal launch prices, no matter how good they are.
As for launch providers; ever heard of the concept of "first mover advantage"? SpaceX only had to compete with oldspace, and could fund its R&D with fat margins on operations even when they only had products of intermediate quality. Newcomers can't, they have to compete with SpaceX.
Save for Congressional intervention, basically the only way American space industry structure might be saved from a permanent and incredibly-hard-to-reverse monopolization that inevitably leads to long-term stagnation, is thanks to Bezos paying out of his own pocket to keep BO going, or maybe if Stoke pulls off a massive hat trick.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:27:48 UTC No. 16091428
>>16091424
Either build new business on a paved road
or try to create a company that wants to pave the roads
The smarter is to just create business on a paved roads, this benefits all. No one's competing in the US to build highway tracks. They compete in building businessess around those highways laid out.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:30:44 UTC No. 16091430
>>16091410
not claiming to know all the answers, but im sure the engineers at spacex thought through all of this and still came to the conclusion that it was feasible, however they obviously did change the design to have control surfaces.
Thinking of some rationale behind ITS im sure it has much more RCS fuel than the shuttle did. Like probably an order of magnitude more. Additionally, ITS would have a much steeper descent profile than the shuttle, and after the initial reentry breaking and heating it could flip onto its ass and drop straight to the ground minimizing the time needed for RCS. I need to do some more research i guess.
Your questioning is probably one of the major reasons why they switched over to the current starship design, but its interesting to note how long they kept fixed wings on the aft of starship. BFR was a fugly design.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:32:13 UTC No. 16091431
>>16091422
adding some kind of vertical adjustment mechanism to the legs kinda defeat the point maybe. Three legged stools dont wobble so maybe the legs can just open to varying amounts to get mostly flat land. Or little foots that are just hydraulic jacks on the very tips with maybe a couple ft travel?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:32:15 UTC No. 16091432
>>16091406
there is no official render of HLS Starship, just concept or fanarts
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:33:18 UTC No. 16091434
>>16091428
Let me see if I understand your analogy correctly.
SpaceX owns the the road. It can charge road users whatever. SpaceX is building its own businesses along the road, and SpaceX's own businesses pay less for transportation services than non-SpaceX businesses do. In that environment, how are non-SpaceX businesses supposed to compete? They will eventually go out of business, and only SpaceX-owned businesses will remain.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:34:31 UTC No. 16091436
>>16091434
SpaceX doesn't "own" the road. They make the roads. People are free to make their own roads, but its stupid if a large paved road already exists.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:36:08 UTC No. 16091439
>>16091434
By providing better services than SpaceX? SpaceX has very limited budget in man power and finances. They cant do everything all at once because 9 billion people dont work for SpaceX and SpaceX doesn't have 100 trillion yearly budget.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:39:56 UTC No. 16091445
>>16091434
SpaceX doesn't own the road, they own the most ecomical transportation traveling on the road.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:40:47 UTC No. 16091446
>>16091436
SpaceX owns its own launchers, so for your road analogy to make sense, SpaceX owns the road too.
>People are free to make their own roads
How would they pay for that? Do current market conditions allow anyone to bring in the very large amount of money they would need to field their own launcher that is cost-competitive with the incumbent, unless they have Jeff Bezos' selling Amazon shares to bridge funding gaps?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:42:27 UTC No. 16091451
>>16091445
It doesn't really matter if they own the road or the vehicles in this analogy. The consequence is the same. What matters is that they own a means of transportation that is uniquely cost-efficient by a wide margin.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:44:28 UTC No. 16091453
>>16091446
Why would anyone want to build a 2nd highway when the first one isn't saturated? Why allocate money to build a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc etc tiny tiny 1/10th to 1/100th of the road that SpaceX had built? Especially when the road you want to build is 1/10th the size but cost the same as SpaceX and cant build it fast enough. The smart money isn't in building roads, the smart money is building companies using the road. The goal is to maximize money for the companies, not to compete with SpaceX on building roads. Thats stupid money. You're just chasing FOMO instead of actual value creation.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:46:41 UTC No. 16091455
How long could an orion battleship maintain 1g constant acceleration? I don’t know how to calculate this. I guess it would depend on mass and yield of bombs?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:48:20 UTC No. 16091457
>>16091418
>Earth observation providers will get BTFO
spacex doesnt make the EO sensors on starshield, so even if the EO satellite companies end up having to fold their satellite operations, they could still survive by making sensors for starshield
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:48:47 UTC No. 16091459
>>16091439
How can they provide superior services than SpaceX - as in, greater quality for the same price, or cheaper for the same quality - when a major input costs more for them than it does SpaceX? By waving their magic wand?
>SpaceX has very limited budget in man power and finances.
Thanks to lower costs for the same product, SpaceX will have margins that their competitors will not. Gradually, over time, this will give them more money to do things with. This doesn't even count the option of raising money through the issuance of new equity or bonds.
As for manpower, they can gradually cannibalize their competitors by offering slightly higher pay. They will have the ability to do that thanks to their lower costs for the same product.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:51:52 UTC No. 16091464
>>16091459
SpaceX has tight resources and are stretched to only handful of things they do. So just copy work ethics of SpaceX and build companies around SpaceX. SpaceX doesn't do everything in the world. They only do launch and internet atm. There are billion other opportunities.
If SpaceX is able to cut cost by going to raw materials, copy that. If they're able to cut cost by engineering superior products, copy that. The opportunity vector is endless
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:53:23 UTC No. 16091467
>>16091453
>The smart money isn't in building roads, the smart money is building companies using the road.
That'll see you get outcompeted when SpaceX launches a similar product. SpaceX's product can be identical in every respect in terms of how it is manufactured, and they'll still be able to offer it at lower price due to paying less for launch.
>The goal is to maximize money for the companies, not to compete with SpaceX on building roads. Thats stupid money.
It might be stupid for the entrepreneur, but it isn't stupid for society. Picrel.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:54:08 UTC No. 16091468
>>16091467
SpaceX doesnt have billion hands. Holy fuck. are you a retarded disabled person?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:56:32 UTC No. 16091470
>>16091464
SpaceX has "tight resources" only because they keep expanding at a fast rate. They don't have slack because they keep putting resources to use. The company has grown enormously since the start
>They only do launch and internet atm
They are preparing to expand into earth observation now. They will continue to expand, and sooner or later, they'll expand into everything.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:56:44 UTC No. 16091471
>>16091381
nice sack
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:58:15 UTC No. 16091475
https://satelliteobservation.net/20
https://satelliteobservation.net/20
>With the news about mysterious Russian nuclear plans in space, let's review the country's progress on nuclear-powered satellites.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:59:14 UTC No. 16091480
>>16091468
Is there some law of nature that says SpaceX can't hire more people or get more facilities? In fact, they have been doing so at a rapid pace.
>are you a retarded disabled person?
Have you ever touched an economics textbook at any point in your entire life?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:02:21 UTC No. 16091485
>>16091475
Didn’t the US and Japan just sign a treaty saying that if either of our satellites are fucked with, it’s considered a direct act of war and that we are mutually obligated to declare war as allies?
Yeah I don’t think russia is going to try shit. Oh and the general public needs to grow up and stop shitting its britches at the thought of the “N-word”
(“nuclear”, in this case lol)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:04:38 UTC No. 16091488
>>16091470
Thats 3 things in the future. Meanwhile there are billions of different things that can be done today.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:04:42 UTC No. 16091489
>>16091432
Lol
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:10:57 UTC No. 16091499
>>16091457
Even if they only build in-house the bus for the EO satellites, that's still the same problem. Just like they have been launching other people's payloads, but have been moving downstream, so they will continue marching downstream from launch+bus to providing the whole launch+bus+sensor.
What will the sensor provider do if SpaceX decides they're going to make the sensors in-house? Or if SpaceX decides to abuse monopsony status to negotiate prices down to the level that SpaceX captures the entirety of the profit?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:11:14 UTC No. 16091501
>>16091470
what you are basically saying is that the railroad company is going to build all industry
that just doesn't seem feasible
you think SpaceX is going to start manufacturing drugs in space for instance? Why would they?
they don't need to do much else besides starlink and then perhaps do stuff that is easily expandable from that like putting some sensors on the same platform
but then you might have all kinds of other industries we don't really know about yet and some that might maybe come up like in space manufacturing
SpaceX hasn't even been running their own astronaut missions and have let axiom and NASA do that for instance
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:12:04 UTC No. 16091504
>>16091475
thanks, i was waiting for this
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:13:11 UTC No. 16091505
>>16091499
if they do abuse their monopoly, then they will get punished for it
what is your point here exactly? you want to break spacex down before just because there is potential for them to do something in the future? lol
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:13:39 UTC No. 16091506
>>16091488
You don't start up shop instantaneously. It can take years to develop these kinds of products.
Also, a company in a capital-intensive industry like this generally needs to continue selling over a long period to recoup costs and make profit.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:13:48 UTC No. 16091507
>>16091499
SpaceX only negotiates on things they want or need and they can't build it themselves.
if supplier charges $1000 and SpaceX believes they can build it for $100, SpaceX will build it if supplier doesn't lower the price to ~$300 or so. Thats not monopoly abuse, thats just market inefficiencies being addressed. SpaceX doesn't benefit from building a $100 when its only $300 because they have to expend a lot of capital to build the machine that builds the $100 parts. That overhead costs a lot. However if the supplier refuses to go below $1000 and SpaceX sees a path forward where their capital investment to build the machine to produce $100 parts is cheaper, they will do so.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:16:27 UTC No. 16091510
>>16091501
Yeah its nonsense argument. SpaceX doesn't have time/resources/manpower to efficiently do everything all at once. That just adds to overheads and complexity of the company as it navigates through all the laws and regulations, for which any one of the regulations for any of the billion different things people claim SpaceX will do to compete with everyone and everything in the universe is just retarded.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:19:39 UTC No. 16091517
>>16091501
>what you are basically saying is that the railroad company is going to build all industry
>that just doesn't seem feasible
It isn't feasible in your analogy because there is generally no requirement that you place your operations along that particular railroad; you have the alternative to do it elsewhere if you don't trust that the local railroad monopoly won't try to expand downstream and compete with you. In the space industry, you need your payloads to be in space, there is no alternative.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:20:06 UTC No. 16091519
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:21:09 UTC No. 16091521
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:22:37 UTC No. 16091524
>>16091513
based we gaan
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:04 UTC No. 16091526
>>16091505
How would you even define and prove such "abuse"? I'm no lawyer, but as far as I know, vertical integration isn't banned per se.
Do you think that SpaceX, today, charges launch customers the same price as its internal launch prices are?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:26:28 UTC No. 16091527
>>16091517
>railroad company will build everything and compete with everyone at the same time in doing everything
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:28:17 UTC No. 16091529
>>16091507
So you're saying Musk is a retard who doesn't use leverage available to him? He has said his aim is accumulating assets that he wants to use for Mars colonization. Why would he leave money on the table? He hasn't exactly shied dirty tactics with Tesla.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:29:06 UTC No. 16091531
SpaceX doesn't care about local economy and dont want to compete in anything they dont need for their primary mission. Local economies will compete with each other. SpaceX doesn't care about local colonies. They just want to build and run the road.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:30:08 UTC No. 16091533
>>16091529
>Musk is a retard because he wont expand to do everything in the universe
>Tesla is dirty because uhh Musk is a retard
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:33:15 UTC No. 16091534
>>16091527
I don't see your point.
There is no fundamental limit on the eventual size of a company, except the resources available to the economy as a whole. A company can hire more employees and buy/build more facilities. If desired, it can issue new equity or bonds to fund expansion. In 2005, SpaceX had 160 employees. In 2023, it had over 13,000
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:34:02 UTC No. 16091535
>>16091534
>spacex will compete against everyone and everything in year 3000
>therefore we cant compete against spacex today
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:34:08 UTC No. 16091536
>>16091526
abuse would be refusing to launch payloads for possible competitors
having a better cost structure due to vertical integration is not monopoly abuse
if there is a lot of margin there then eventually there will be a competing launch company that comes in and takes that away, in the mean time SpaceX is still making it cheaper for everyone to launch payloads evne if they can launch their own payloads even cheaper due to not having to pay for that margin
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:34:49 UTC No. 16091537
One of the more niche ‘residential anons,’ but shout out to EM dash anon—I use this little guy every single day now.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:38:25 UTC No. 16091541
>>16091529
expanding into every small niche is just not possible in a short time
its not so much leaving money on the table as it is pursuing something they think will have a bigger payout for the engineering etc time they use and doing something entirely new to them makes managements job much more complicated
then when you do 10 things at the same time, it is much more probable that you fail at all of them
spacex understands that they need to focus on a small number of things at a time
this will naturally give time for other companies to pursue things that spacex isn't pursuing right now and to a even larger point, if they can buy something relatively cheap from some other company it allows them to pursue their actual mission with their limited engineering resources
they just simply can't do everything at once, for some reason you just don't believe this
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:40:05 UTC No. 16091543
>>16091531
spacex mission is to make life multiplanetary, the road is an instrumental goal
they will start building the colony too and do the stuff that is necessary there if some other company doesn't step up to the plate
all of musks companies are mission driven
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:41:21 UTC No. 16091545
>>16091533
Musk expands his business empire as fast as he can, he overpromises and underdelivers, he manipulates stock and crypto prices.
I'm not trying to shit on Musk here. He's just a shrewd and able entrepreneur. I'm shitting on the government, which should act. Regulators should (at least temporarily) partially restrict vertical integration between launcher and payload, and the government should do more to subsidize competitors such as through a huge expansion to NSSL Lane 1
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:41:42 UTC No. 16091546
>>16091534
yes there is, you get bureucratic bloat and decay as the size of the organization grows as it takes more and more resources to communicate
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:43:37 UTC No. 16091547
>>16091536
>having a better cost structure due to vertical integration is not monopoly abuse
Not from a legal standpoint anyway, which is why nothing can be expected be done about it
In any case, in the context of sensor providers, I was talking about monopsony abuse, not monopoly abuse
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:43:43 UTC No. 16091548
>>16091545
commie
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:45:48 UTC No. 16091552
>>16091541
Of course they cannot instantaneously expand across the entire industry. But I wasn't talking about just the immediate future. I was talking about the long term trend of the industry
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:46:10 UTC No. 16091553
>>16091547
what is spacex buying in this case if they have a monopsony? payload launches?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:46:21 UTC No. 16091554
>>16091545
>he overpromises and underdelivers
Those grapes are incredibly sour huh?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:47:39 UTC No. 16091559
>>16091545
>he overpromises and underdelivers
as opposed to his competitors, who under-promise and still manage to under-deliver
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:47:56 UTC No. 16091562
>>16091552
so because spacex might do something in 50 years, you want to break them up now
retard
eventually you will have another launch provider with a fully reusable vehicle, it is inevitable
maybe SpaceX is the only one for 10-15 years
so what? as long as they don't start abusing the monopoly (and it won't be an absolute monopoly anyway for multiple reasons)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:48:09 UTC No. 16091565
>>16091548
The reason SpaceX got off the ground in the first place was due to sensible government industrial policy
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:49:33 UTC No. 16091567
>>16091553
Components for satellites. In this particular case, sensors to go on their buses that they launch in-house.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:49:54 UTC No. 16091569
I'm not reading this whole conversation but 2bh I'd be impressed if the us government nationalized spacex. The US could really fucking own outer space in only the way that a monopolar global superpower can.
>>16091554
nta but he's constantly overpromising and underdelivering—just with more ambition than anybody else so he still ends up overperforming compared to the rest of the industry
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:50:10 UTC No. 16091570
>>16091565
salty commie
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:50:10 UTC No. 16091571
>>16091546
I would not be shocked if the Mueller spacetug startup was because Elon didn't have time to oversee yet another line of business, and so invited him to make a company out of it if he was so great. Same with other startups, maybe even Stoke
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:52:12 UTC No. 16091577
>>16091554
I'm just saying that his mouth consistently writes even bigger checks than his companies can cash. Which is quite a feat, considering how much his companies deliver
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:53:50 UTC No. 16091582
>>16091571
i don't know about stoke, but you have a bit similar story perhaps with redwood materials that was started by one of Teslas co-founders, its a company doing battery recycling
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:54:04 UTC No. 16091583
>>16091569
It's almost like you won't launch 96 times in a year if you aim for 5 instead of 100.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:55:18 UTC No. 16091587
>>16091571
Stoke is mostly a Blue offshoot
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:56:36 UTC No. 16091592
>>16091569
if the USG nationalized SpaceX it would guarantee China overtakes us in space by the end of the decade
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 20:59:11 UTC No. 16091597
>>16091592
*year
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:00:21 UTC No. 16091601
>>16091577
its almost always about optimistic timelines, just have to take into account Musks over optimism when he says anything
using that overoptimism and missed deadlines as a way to say that the accomplishment themselves are somehow shit, is retarded as fuck (and a pretty common position/cope from EDS sufferers)
for instance, the much maligned hyperloop
I'm pretty sure Musk discovered that it isn't feasible right now due to infrastructure build cost, which is expensive due to tunneling costs being expensive
ergo, start a tunnel boring company to bring down the cost of tunneling and eventually perhaps digging extremely long and numerous tunnels is economically feasible, which means the hyperloop itself is then economically feasible
in the mean time the boring company might solve some other problems like traffic within cities and make utility tunnels cheaper and then make money with that so the company stays alive to actually develop the tunneling tech
starlink basically exist so that Falcon 9 and more importantly Starship has something to launch, so they can keep developing it to ultimately get mass to orbit cheaply enough so mars colonization is feasible
the fact that starlink itself makes money as well is just a necessity as well as a nice benefit
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:01:46 UTC No. 16091604
>>16091562
Not in 50 years, more like 10.
> you want to break them up now
No, I want to prevent them to expand further downstream. The current level is acceptable. But there needs to be a legal barrier put down to prevent even further expansion downstream, so that other payload providers will feel safe investing big money in the future.
>eventually you will have another launch provider with a fully reusable vehicle
Eventually. Maybe. It might take decades in classical Blorigin-style, at which point it might be too late because most payload providers are already dead. Or the other launch providers that try might run out of money and go out of business, perhaps because SpaceX has moved most of the payload market in-house already and thus has unbeatable economies of scale.
Even if another company develops a fully reusable vehicle, that's not enough. A competitor's launcher doesn't just need to be fully reusable, it also needs comparable *scale* as SpaceX, both physical launch vehicle scale as well as scale of operations. Otherwise it still won't be able to compete on price. And they can't achieve scale if SpaceX has already captured the vast majority of the payload market and moved it in-house.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:01:46 UTC No. 16091605
>>16091420
Simply keeping a few small fans on to circulate the air would be enough to negate dead zones. Actually scrubbing CO2 and maintaining O2 levels is a different matter, but that problem has been solved in space and in submarines for a long time.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:02:55 UTC No. 16091610
>>16091601
Starlink being a holy grail for the military in LEO certainly didn't hurt
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:05:22 UTC No. 16091616
>>16091604
>SpaceX has moved most of the payload market in-house already and thus has unbeatable economies of scale.
this is the main problem with your thesis
you are seriously saying that SpaceX will expand into all satellite, no all payload services within 10 years
that is retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:06:23 UTC No. 16091618
>>16091604
>there needs to be legal barriers to ensure commercial space is less efficient
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:06:27 UTC No. 16091619
>>16091610
that came after starlink and is relatively speaking a pretty small market right now
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:09:08 UTC No. 16091623
>>16091616
How long did it take SpaceX to go from not really being in the satellite business, to owning over half of all active satellites in orbit?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:09:43 UTC No. 16091625
so spacex will start building spacestations, do in space manufacturing, build a moon base and monopolize all tech related to that, build all earth sensing sensors, buses and satellites, build spacetugs and do all of this within 10 years and so cost effectively all other companies will go bankrupt?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:10:50 UTC No. 16091628
spacex needs to build a mars colony instead of trying to destroy everyone else's business
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:11:04 UTC No. 16091629
>>16091618
Preventing excessive industry concentration will make the industry more efficient in the long run than not doing so
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:11:18 UTC No. 16091630
>>16091623
something like 10 years, but that is just one very specific satellite and they haven't done anything with respect to the many other upcoming and possible industries that you are saying spacex will dominate within 10 years
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:12:19 UTC No. 16091633
>>16091628
but what about the businesses that would be on the mars colony? spacex needs to be stopped now before it outcompetes the other food growing businesses on mars
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:13:45 UTC No. 16091635
>>16091629
nope not necessarily true, not if the big player isn't abusing its monopoly
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:14:08 UTC No. 16091636
>>16091587
Yup found the RL kike shill. Still angry from the other day?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:14:27 UTC No. 16091637
>>16091623
So what is the argument that supports the assertion that SpaceX will restrict access to space because it launches its own sats?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:15:44 UTC No. 16091639
>>16091636
Anon you forgot your meds.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:19:54 UTC No. 16091646
>>16091426
hah how are the Chinese ever going to build a path that can support a rocket when the US has a monopoly on the Alabaman river rocks
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:20:47 UTC No. 16091650
>>16091521
VGH God bless Texas
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:20:55 UTC No. 16091652
Some quick google maths and wild speculation shows that:
A tomahawk missile weighs 4x as much as a single starlink satellite.
A tomahawk missile costs about 8x as much to build as a single starlink sat.
There are approximately 6000 starlink satellites in orbit.
That could have been 1000 tomahawks in orbit for the same price, 3 billion dollars, which is chump-change for the US Gov.
>starship is going to drop these prices through the floor
The weaponization of space is going to be fucking bananas.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:22:12 UTC No. 16091655
>>16091637
I think the argument here is that SpaceX will copy any business any payload developer is doing and outcompete them on cost because they don't have to pay their own launch margin
so basically if they get on par at cost as the customer whose payload they are launching, they can undercut them by the margin they make on the launch and thus outcompeting every business and becoming a monopoly doing everything in space
this will happen within the next 10 years and this will prevent any other company from dveloping a fully reusable vehicle
maybe I forgot something
basically what Amazon has done by controlling a platform, then copying products and price dumping/manipulating the website so they promote their products over the one they are trying to copy
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:22:58 UTC No. 16091657
>>16091625
The big space applications are EO, communications and navigation. SpaceX already owns over half of all satellites in orbit. They're currently moving into EO in a big way, as we've recently heard. The competition likely won't give up immediately and quit within just 10 years, but eventually most will run out of money and be forced to.
The other areas you mention are less important fringe applications. The primary end user / customer will generally be the government, who will often place an order with a second or third provider even if it is more expensive.
SpaceX could potentially move into those applications too quite fast. Starship HLS is like a moon base by itselfThey'll have manned spaceflight experience from Crew Dragon and Starship HLS, applicable to other areas. Starship HLS could potentially serve as the basis for a space station, with relatively minor modifications.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:24:18 UTC No. 16091660
>>16091637
They won't refuse to launch. They'll just charge a price that is higher than their internal prices.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:02 UTC No. 16091665
>>16091635
That's a *very* big if.
Even if the monopolist doesn't abuse its monopoly, it will still cause damage, because entrepreneurs and investors will be deterred from going into the sector, because they can't trust that the monopolist won't start abusing its monopoly at some point in the future.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:27:12 UTC No. 16091666
>>16091655
It’s going to get to the point where the government either breaks them up, or the government will throw buckets of money at ULA / BO (along with Jeff’s personal finances) just to stay anywhere close to SpaceX’s wake
That - or Musk will die of old age and some stupid future management team will eventually make the company public and it will die a slow death like Boeing
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:28:50 UTC No. 16091669
>>16091657
you have no vision, Starship will make launch so cheap completely new areas of industry will be created
they might seem like fringe now, but who knows what happens in the future?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:29:52 UTC No. 16091671
>>16091630
Latest news is that they're moving into EO and started doing it in 2021
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:32:28 UTC No. 16091676
>>16091669
What does that matter for the purposes of this discussion though? SpaceX will be even better positioned to capture emerging application areas, because competitors won't have a technological head start on them
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:32:56 UTC No. 16091678
>>16091666
maybe I should have added this, but I don't agree with the argument
developing some knockoff bag or whatever Amazon is doing is not the same as developing some SAR satellite, or a in-space drug manufacturing system
this isn't shit you can just pull out of your ass and engineers don't grow on trees
the critical flaw in the argument is that SpaceX can just do everything within a very short period of time
they won't even have a monopoly in LEO communication, Kuiper is happening sooner or later
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:34:03 UTC No. 16091679
>>16091666
Boing had a good ~100 year run before turning into a complete turd.
If spacex manages even half of that then we have plenty of time for boots on mars and permanent moon colonies.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:34:07 UTC No. 16091680
>>16091676
companies are already preparing for Starships cheaper payload in areas that SpaceX is not doing anything in
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:38:39 UTC No. 16091683
https://twitter.com/Indian_Bronson/
It keeps happening. Boeing is literally falling apart on a daily basis. What the fuck
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:38:56 UTC No. 16091684
>>16091652
I forgot to mention that is enough missiles in space with a range of 1500 miles to cover the earths surface 35 times over.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:39:19 UTC No. 16091685
>>16091655
you can't do the Amazon thing of outsourcing cheap Chinese plastic consumer goods with communication satellites
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:40:29 UTC No. 16091686
>>16091679
It's kind of wierd that around the same time boeing turned in to complete cancer china finaly gets it shit together and starts selling planes that can compete with boeing&airbus.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:40:38 UTC No. 16091687
>>16091671
GMTI not EO
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:40:49 UTC No. 16091688
>>16091678
Even if Kuiper was happening right now, it wouldn’t be anywhere close to Starlink’s capabilities. And Starlink, as it exists right now (the ‘king or the jungle’, so to speak) has strictly been built up/maintained by measly Falcon 9s. Once Starship comes online, forget about it buddy. The gap in capability is going to not only be exponential, it’s going to be off-the-charts. Even a better-than-best-case-scenario New Glenn with a magical reusable Jarvis fleet ain’t catching up with what’s still to come (and certain to come) from SpaceX
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:43:14 UTC No. 16091692
>>16091683
Engine cowling comes of during routine maintenance anyway. Maintenance fuckup most likely.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:43:32 UTC No. 16091693
>>16091680
There are always entrepreneurs that refuse to see the writing on the wall, or just refuse to give up hope on what they see as their life's work. They only exit the industry once their company gets liquidated due to not having money to pay its bills and already having taken out as many loans as it can get
For a few applications such as space stations, Starship can't bring much launch cost savings because the major launch costs are in the regular manned launches to bring people up and down to the station. Starship won't launch manned for a long time, due to being hard to equip with a launch escape system.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:45:09 UTC No. 16091696
>>16091687
Is that not a subcategory of Earth observation? They don't intend to spy on the moon men, right?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:45:12 UTC No. 16091698
>>16091693
huh? but spacex is already doing the majority of those launches as well, just with another vehicle
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:46:28 UTC No. 16091700
>>16091693
Launch escape systems are for NASA PUSSIES.
Real space chads ride or die on their rocket.
But really, there is no law saying that you have to provide a launch escape system.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:46:52 UTC No. 16091701
>>16091685
yes, I agree, Starship launching mass to orbit doesn't automatically mean you monopolize everything in space
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:47:30 UTC No. 16091702
>>16091693
stations have very large upfront >costs< that something like Starship would drastically reduce
even the ISS would have been billions cheaper if Shuttle-C had been used
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:48:41 UTC No. 16091705
>>16091698
not because SpaceX 'owns the road' but because the other providers are a clown show
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:51:01 UTC No. 16091708
>>16091696
Technically speaking, but it's not Optical, or IR, or any of the other many EO methods other companies have spent decades developing hardware for and the institutional knowledge to operte it with. SpaceX will still happily take Maxars money for a ride to orbit. What benifit would they get from trying to edge them out of the market?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:52:12 UTC No. 16091710
>>16091226
PLS PROFIT??
NO WORK!!
ONLY PROFIT
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:52:16 UTC No. 16091711
>>16091698
Huh? I'm talking about the future, not about an instantaneous snapshot of the present.
My point was, that launching people to LEO is one of few areas where competitors' services need not have order-of-magnitude price differences with SpaceX's services, so space station operators will have bargaining power and can potentially remain quite competitive against a SpaceX in-house alternative even if they pay more to launch their stations on Starship than SpaceX would pay to launch its own stations.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:53:39 UTC No. 16091712
>>16091700
>it's 2035
>you stay on earth (now renamed to brazil 2.0)
>or you take the the rocket roulette and find new opportunities in the off world colonies.
Ride or die.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:53:59 UTC No. 16091714
>>16091710
Get the fuck out of hete with your redditnigger meme
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:55:37 UTC No. 16091717
>>16091712
Can I ride earlier?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:55:57 UTC No. 16091719
>>16091700
I don't get why your life all of a sudden matters so much more once you get on a rocket. Odds are you flew to the launch site in an airplane without ejection seats or even a parachute
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:57:11 UTC No. 16091720
>>16091708
>What benifit would they get from trying to edge them out of the market?
SpaceX taking over Maxar's business would allow SpaceX to take all of Maxar's profits (or more accurately, Maxar's potential profits; a quick search suggests they aren't profitable today)
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:57:18 UTC No. 16091721
>>16091712
why did the scifi dystopias have to come true? they were warnings, not goals to achieve. at least we got space colonies i guess.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:22 UTC No. 16091723
>>16091719
the difference is that if your life ends when you're on a rocket then nasa has a years-long congressional investigation on its hands
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:01:01 UTC No. 16091727
>>16091720
if building a permanent mars colony requires spacex controlling all business in space for the next 25 years, I'm completely fine with that
if it actually becomes a problem in the future, SpaceX can be broken up
preventing them from doing business now just because you speculate something might happen in the future is alarmism
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:02:36 UTC No. 16091730
>>16091702
Depends on what the station will be used for. A station mainly intended for astronauts who stay 6 months each is not the same as one mainly intended for tourists who stay 15 days each.
And I don't think the ISS is a good example from which to predict anything in terms of any kind of costs
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:05:47 UTC No. 16091733
>>16091721
Somewhere along the way while uplifting the human race we accidently stumbled in to becoming caretakers of all those who cant take care of themselfs and they are holding us down.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:06:13 UTC No. 16091734
>>16091730
space tourism is not profitable without a low cost launch vehicle
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:06:26 UTC No. 16091735
>>16091727
It is not so easy to break up a company. Firstly, it might not be so easy to replace management of a peerless high-tech company. Secondly, it might not be so easy to split up production facilities, which might be all joined at the hip. Thirdly, being a monopoly in an important strategic sector will give the owner a lot of money and political clout with which to fight any efforts to break up the company.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:08:08 UTC No. 16091738
>>16091735
all of those are irrelevant
if they have to be broken up, they will
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:09:42 UTC No. 16091746
>>16091734
Regardless of to what extent launching people is profitable, at least it's an area that's unlikely to be undercut by Starship for quite a while, because a launcher without an escape system needs time to prove itself before most people will trust it
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:10:47 UTC No. 16091747
>>16091738
Better to avoid the problem in the first place
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:11:07 UTC No. 16091749
>>16091738
If they need to be, <company> is a near monopoly because their product is better is not a reason to break them up.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:12:08 UTC No. 16091752
>>16091749
It is, if their monopoly status contributes to preventing the emergence of peers
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:12:15 UTC No. 16091753
>>16091746
The launch vehicle that put the most people into space did not have one.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:13:09 UTC No. 16091756
>>16091720
Funny that Maxar is being used as an example here, LockMart is trying to buy it.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:13:19 UTC No. 16091757
>>16091752
They aren't peers if they cannot make a comletetive product.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:13:36 UTC No. 16091758
>>16091753
And what did people learn from that experience?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:14:07 UTC No. 16091759
>>16091721
Because you consumed too much fiction. The past was way more dystopian.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:14:42 UTC No. 16091761
>>16091757
>emergence of peers
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:14:50 UTC No. 16091762
>>16091758
That you cannot always have an abort mode.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:14:51 UTC No. 16091763
>>16091747
no, it is not in fact better to avoid the problem if the problem won't necessarily exist and you destroy economic value, perhaps new innovations and generally fuck with the free market for some speculative reasons about what might happen in 10 years
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:16:38 UTC No. 16091766
>>16091763
to add to this, you could basically use the same argument for many other emerging new technologies or fields
hamstrung every new company doing some new tech because they might monopolize it in the future
kind of ridiculous
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:16:40 UTC No. 16091767
>>16091761
Anon your entire argument is that <company> must be forced to make an inferior product so that an even worse product can survive in the market.
Think about that for a second.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:17:51 UTC No. 16091771
>>16091762
That was what the type of thinking people were content with *before* it blew up twice with people on board
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:20:34 UTC No. 16091774
>>16091422
nuclear weapons
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:20:49 UTC No. 16091775
>>16091767
>Think about for a second
Armies of economists have been thinking about it for decades already
><company> must be forced to make an inferior product
If their competitive advantage stems from vertical and/or horizontal integration, then yes
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:21:18 UTC No. 16091777
>>16091771
neither of which were situations where an abort mode would have saved lives
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:23:13 UTC No. 16091781
>>16091775
the economists you speak of are cringing at your economic illiteracy
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:24:53 UTC No. 16091785
>>16091775
no
not all monopolies are automatically bad, what is bad is the abuse of that monopolistic power
just being a monopoly isn't automatically bad
making a good product for a good price is good actually
Anderson at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:31:33 UTC No. 16091789
Cool
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:33:25 UTC No. 16091792
>>16091777
Well, I think it can be argued that it would have been technically possible to design a launch vehicle that would have been survivable in case of a ascent failure like Challenger experienced.
But both Challenger and Columbia demonstrates that critical things can fail at a far greater rate than you thought it would. I think this is especially the perception in the public eye, which is what matters in this context. So you want the system to either have a back-up option in case of failure, or use a well-proven conservative method, or prove its reliability through repeated use.
In fact, Starship is even worse when you consider the whole cycle. Not only does it lack a launch escape system, the reentry system is one that immediately draws the average mind to Columbia.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:34:43 UTC No. 16091794
>>16091646
Like all good Communists they will use rails
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:35:15 UTC No. 16091796
>>16091792
Setting aside that Starship cannot experience Columbia's failure mode.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:36:55 UTC No. 16091798
>>16091785
>not all monopolies are automatically bad,
If the industry is a natural monopoly, which I don't think space is. But such a monopoly then needs to be extra heavily regulated or outright owned by the state.
>what is bad is the abuse of that monopolistic power
This is pretty much inevitable though. Even if it doesn't happen, then still
>>16091665
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:37:28 UTC No. 16091800
>>16091796
uhh anon...
could you explain this post please. starship could easily lose tiles in critical areas and explode on reentry (something it has already done)
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:38:15 UTC No. 16091801
>>16091796
Starship doesn't lack potential ascent phase failure modes of its own though
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:42:46 UTC No. 16091808
>>16091800
Starship doesn't have a giant insulation covered external hydrolox tank of which a piece can break off and strike the leading edge of a wing resulting in super hot plasma entering on reentry causing its aluminium structure to fail.
But you knew that.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:44:04 UTC No. 16091809
>>16091800
S28 didn't come apart on reentry due to the loss of tiles.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:45:28 UTC No. 16091812
>>16091781
Can you, for the benefit of me and the others, attempt to briefly explain the widely accepted economic theory that says a privately owned monopoly is a good thing?
Cases where monopolies are superior are in industries that are natural monopolies, or prone to market failure, or where the products are demerit goods, but that still needs extra regulation or state ownership.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:45:31 UTC No. 16091813
>>16091808
who the fuck cares what damages the tile or what material is under it. damaged insulation -> burn up on reentry is a failure mode starship can experience
>>16091809
but it did explode on reentry, which is what the (something it has already done) was referring to
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:46:59 UTC No. 16091816
>>16091796
Nor can it exactly experience Challenger's failure mode
It still has potential ascent and descent failure modes of its own
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:48:37 UTC No. 16091819
>>16091813
Anon a failure mode is what caused it to burn up on reentry, not that it burned up on reentry.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:55:02 UTC No. 16091832
>>16091546
You don't necessarily need your EO division to communicate with your launch division more than if they were separate companies.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:57:57 UTC No. 16091837
>>16091756
I think that, if there's one company that can survive the SpaceX march into the downstream, it is LockMart. They'll have a Lock on enough government contracts for their space division to survive. And the launches of their payloads will likely be ordered by and paid for by the government in most cases anyway.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 22:58:03 UTC No. 16091838
>>16091832
okay, so in that case it shouldn' be difficult to break them into separate companies if that is necessary
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:01:21 UTC No. 16091845
>>16091794
It's nuts that the NASA crawlers exist because the stacked Saturn, Shuttle, or SLS SRBs are so cartoonishly heavy they bend rails out of shape.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:04:06 UTC No. 16091848
>>16091774
I both expected and dreaded someone making this pun. As expected of /sfg/
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:09:20 UTC No. 16091852
>>16091845
they are heavy becase they are packed full of american punch, weakling communist.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:12:32 UTC No. 16091858
>>16091845
1500 tons is a lot of booster.
Meanwhile, the largest rocket ever constructed can be transported without issue on an unmodified state highway
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:15:48 UTC No. 16091862
>>16091858
doesn't use srbs or roll the launch tower out with it.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:17:03 UTC No. 16091866
>>16091862
This, it's basically a big can of air plus the raptors, and it's moved unstacked.
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:18:57 UTC No. 16091870
>>16091838
Separately owned companies can still have heavy interdependence and heavily intertwined supply chains. Such arrangements made during a time of common ownership might get quite awkward if they are forcibly split. In any case, I'm not saying how it will be, just how it could be. It depends on how Musk would choose to organize his business empire.
At such a point, you'd still want to break up all the divisions into at least two parts, especially the launch division. Otherwise you might have to wait a very long while until a peer competitor eventually emerges, when all the competition would be dead or barely subsisting on government life support in a very weak state. How would you break up each division?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:21:11 UTC No. 16091873
>>16091838
Separately owned companies can still have heavy interdependence and heavily intertwined supply chains. Such arrangements made during a time of common ownership might get quite awkward if they are forcibly split. In any case, I'm not saying how it will be, just how it could be. It depends on how Musk would choose to organize his business empire.
In such a scenario, you'd still want to break up each division into at least two parts, especially the launch division. Otherwise you might have to wait a very long while until a peer competitor eventually emerges to restore proper competition, because all the competition would be dead or barely subsisting on government life support in a very weak state. How would you break up each individual division?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:25:30 UTC No. 16091880
>>16091873
pointless to speculate about something like this
this is so situation dependant
the fact is, it is possible to break them up
hamstringing the company that is making all of this possible in the first case is idiotic
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:27:47 UTC No. 16091882
>>16089636
I love Rogozin
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:28:40 UTC No. 16091883
>>16091880
There's zero reason to break them up. Monopolies aren't illegal. Anti-competitive practices are illegal. Styling on the rest of the launch industry with cheap launches and leveraging that capability for another enterprise is not anti-competitive.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:29:43 UTC No. 16091884
>>16091883
NTA but you’re retarded, sorry to be blunt lol
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:32:00 UTC No. 16091887
>>16091884
Hey if monopolies in launch are always bad why does ULA exist?
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:33:23 UTC No. 16091889
>>16091887
i wish i could pick your eyes out with a toothpick.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:34:57 UTC No. 16091891
>>16091884
https://www.ftc.gov/advice-guidance
>Some companies succeed in the marketplace to the point where their behavior may not be subject to common competitive pressures. This is not a concern for most businesses, as most markets in the U.S. support many competing firms, and the competitive give-and-take prevents any single firm from having undue influence on the workings of the market.
>Section 2 of the Sherman Act makes it unlawful for a company to "monopolize, or attempt to monopolize," trade or commerce. As that law has been interpreted, it is not illegal for a company to have a monopoly, to charge "high prices," or to try to achieve a monopoly position by what might be viewed by some as particularly aggressive methods. The law is violated only if the company tries to maintain or acquire a monopoly through unreasonable methods. For the courts, a key factor in determining what is unreasonable is whether the practice has a legitimate business justification.
>These Fact Sheets discuss antitrust rules that courts have developed to deal with the actions of a single firm that has market power.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:38:20 UTC No. 16091895
>>16091889
thats not very nice
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:41:07 UTC No. 16091901
>>16091889
Thank you for conceding.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:45:11 UTC No. 16091907
I just squirted yellow shit!
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:46:05 UTC No. 16091908
>monopoly bad because the government said so
poor argument
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:46:11 UTC No. 16091909
>>16091887
The space sector never had a “pricing-out” problem until now. It’s always been an oligopoly-that’s why ULA was formed (for convenience to NASA, Boeing, and Lockheed)
I disagree with you saying styling with low prices isn’t anti-competitive. At a certain point it will be. Because the industry hasn’t had this problem before… but now it has Bezos, Rocket Lab, etc. to cry foul to the “invisible hand” that can conveniently curbstomp SpaceX for any ludicrous “anti-competitive behavior” if it sees fit
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:47:36 UTC No. 16091911
>>16091909
>that’s why ULA was formed
ULA was formed because Boeing violated antitrust law egregiously to underbid Lockheed. To avoid dealing with the inconvenience of the legal fallout from Boeing's malfeasance, ULA was formed to sweep it under the rug.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:49:10 UTC No. 16091913
>>16091909
>I disagree with you saying styling with low prices isn’t anti-competitive. At a certain point it will be. Because the industry hasn’t had this problem before… but now it has Bezos, Rocket Lab, etc. to cry foul to the “invisible hand” that can conveniently curbstomp SpaceX for any ludicrous “anti-competitive behavior” if it sees fit
Per the Federal Trade Commission, the point that low-prices becomes anti-competitive is when the company is willing to operate at an extended loss for the specific purpose of starving out the competition before raising prices.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:50:15 UTC No. 16091916
>>16089621
You know what, I was thinking for 2 seconds ands I figured out why the booster couldn't light its engines.
It's almost as if engines are going at mach 3 and they just can't light them up because of the pressure.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:52:32 UTC No. 16091923
>>16091911
And because if Boeing got anymore than a slap on the wrist they'd leave the launch market entirely since the Delta IV was DOA as a commercial launcher. That'd leave Washington with an actual monopoly that was built on top of Russian engines. An engine export ban from Moscow could have shut down American national security space launch and no one was going to put up with that.
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:52:34 UTC No. 16091924
>>16091913
Hmm maybe I piped up about something I knew nothing about
Anonymous at Fri, 22 Mar 2024 23:58:12 UTC No. 16091930
>>16091916
High speed retropropulsive ignition isn't all that hard. The airstream going into the engine creates a stagnation boundary that helps keep the chamber pressure fairly stable.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:13:26 UTC No. 16091939
>>16091930
I mean, Super heavy doesn't do a reentry burn.
So it means it's a very different beast than F9.
I can imagine the pressure at the ignite point is much higher.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:17:14 UTC No. 16091942
https://twitter.com/ModdedQuad/stat
40:10 he talks about going to mars to control Optimus robots
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:17:58 UTC No. 16091944
>>16091939
It's also not using TEA-TEB. That's a pretty big change right there.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:21:45 UTC No. 16091946
>>16091944
I mean, how do you test lighting a rocket engine at reverse Mach 3?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:23:56 UTC No. 16091947
>>16091944
And yes, Falcon 9 did it, but not that close to ground, with actual air pressure.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:25:31 UTC No. 16091949
So it seems that every gas giant has a specific border where the thick gas and clouds just goes basically instantly to space. Why do they not have an atmosphere like the Earth where it's sort of layered as it goes out. I would think that gas giants would look for like late life stars where they are blasting away their layers and arent exactly solid. This is another comparison where its like the sun that has an almost completely solid boundary. I get that some particles are blasted away from the sun but I wouldn't consider that a traditional atmosphere where it gets less thick until it fades to nothing. Is there a specific name for this phenomenon like a boundary or is it a misconception that I'm having?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:28:36 UTC No. 16091951
>>16091949
That's not what it means.
It means as size goes up, The planet doesn't get bigger, just more dense.
If dense enough it becomes a star.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:32:59 UTC No. 16091956
>>16091949
>>16091951
I meat "as the Mass goes up"
And this has been known for 50 years
It's just that we couldn't observe brown dwarfs before.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:36:36 UTC No. 16091959
>>16091951
But why is it like this, that must mean that theres some sort of boundary that can be calculated, probably proportional to mass somehow right? Is it like the atmosphere is filled up basically to a point where the gravity just can't hold on to the hydrogen atoms anymore, and if so why is it that it doesn't the majority of the atmosphere at that boundary get let go into space when it usually just continues to compress until it becomes a star. Can this maximum planetary radius be calculated? Is it dependent on local densities of the planet? What exactly is keeping it together and not just letting the particles float away at that boundary or atleast thin out in to a similar terran atmosphere?
>>16091955
I see, but then why isnt the atmosphere as visible? On earth you can see the cloud layer but you can also clearly make out the atmosphere, doesn't seem to be the case on Jupiter. Is it the atmospheric makeup maybe?
>>16091956
I dont know what you are meating and to be honest I dont think I want to know.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:38:40 UTC No. 16091961
>>16091959
>>16091951
The first message in that post, just change the meaning of 'maximum planetary radius' to maximum cloud height I guess.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:39:09 UTC No. 16091963
>>16091959
>theres some sort of boundary
There is.
And that's why stars exist.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:40:12 UTC No. 16091964
>>16091963
Equation?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:40:38 UTC No. 16091965
>>16091946
hypersonic wind tunnels
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:42:50 UTC No. 16091967
>>16091959
>why isn't the atmosphere [of a gas giant] as visible
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:44:29 UTC No. 16091969
>>16091967
The clouds are clearly visible. In every image of Jupiter I've ever seen has never had a halo like most images that Terra has. Also not a shit post.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:44:55 UTC No. 16091970
>>16091946
NASA was planning to mount a rocket engine on one of those test tracks the Air Force uses to test supersonic ejector seats
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:45:21 UTC No. 16091971
>>16091136
At that rate, they might even get one that doesn't fall apart!
>>16091133
lel, the Boeing Telephone Company!
>>16091226
fortunately
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:45:49 UTC No. 16091972
>>16091964
I don't need equations, just look it up it's been well known in physics since the 1970s at least.
Also we're now finding more and more brown dwarfs systems. Wanna know what they have in common? radius.
They're "almost stars"
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:46:18 UTC No. 16091973
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
>The XB-1 vehicle flew from Mojave Air & Space Port in California, reaching an altitude of 7,120 feet (2.2 km) and a maximum speed of 273 mph (439 kph). In a news release, Boom Supersonic said the initial test flight of the XB-1 aircraft met all of its objectives.
>The XB-1 aircraft is a demonstrator intended to test materials and the aerodynamics of a larger commercial supersonic aircraft the company is calling Overture.
https://twitter.com/boomaero/status
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:48:50 UTC No. 16091976
>>16091434
>SpaceX owns the the road.
No, they're just the only ones using wheels.
Everyone else is using skids and throwing away most of the rocket as the fuel gets used up.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:49:07 UTC No. 16091977
>>16091972
Well I want equations theorems. Theres a Schwarzchild for black holes, theres a Roche limit for every astronomical body, theres an equation out there for the maximum height for clouds to be found at on gas giants, what is this phenomenon called?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:49:29 UTC No. 16091978
>>16091969
i think it just seems like that because we've never had a jupiter probe that could support the sort of data rates you need for high-resolution images where you can see airglow
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 00:54:02 UTC No. 16091982
>>16091977
It's the size of Jupiter.
How hard is it to understand.
If not, then we would have a cloud of gas instead of the Sun.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:00:20 UTC No. 16091987
>>16091982
I am talking about ALL gas giants. I want specific answers and functions on how hgih a gas giants cloud layer can get, what variables (i.e. mass) make this vary, and maybe a theorem and how the equation was derived. This is a board about math and science and if you just tell me
>the science is settled its just like that stop asking questions goy
I will continue to ask questions on why something is the way it is and how this is calculated. If you dont know the answer you dont have to front and pretend you do, just dont respond to it or maybe offer ideas on why something is the way it is instead of hand waving the question away.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:03:52 UTC No. 16091989
>>16091978
Interesting. Do you think that maybe it would be more visible in different light frequencies like infrared maybe? I remember from >>16091955 this graph that temperature goes up the further you get from the surface so maybe its more obvious like that. Are there any infrared telescopes that have taken a picture of Jupiter or the other gas giants then? Maybe they might show it better.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:07:12 UTC No. 16091991
>>16091719
>Odds are you flew to the launch site in an airplane without ejection seats or even a parachute
To be fair, airplanes have a much more proven safety record. Over the entire history of spaceflight, 685 people have been to space, compared to 19 people who have died during spaceflight, roughly suggesting a historical fatality rate of 2.8%. You can argue that it's less risky nowadays, and I'd be inclined to agree, but to my knowledge no spacecraft has ever proven to have a less than 1% fatality rate, measured by a record of at least 100 flights and less than 1 per 100 in which the crew were killed.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:10:29 UTC No. 16091994
>>16091987
It goes like this.
Jupiter size until enough mass to ignite nuclear fusion.
Maybe if it's orbiting close to a star, it could be bigger.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:12:40 UTC No. 16091997
>>16091994
Explain Saturn, Neptune and Uranus being significantly smaller.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:13:32 UTC No. 16091999
>>16091997
Jupiter is a fat piggy who swept up most of the mass of the outer system.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:14:02 UTC No. 16092001
>>16091997
Well, they just have less Mass
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:15:56 UTC No. 16092003
>>16091999
>>16092001
Ok now that youve acknowledged that gas giants can have signficantly different radius than Jupiter would you care to provide the function that dicates the radius in relation to mass of the planet? Which is what Ive been asking for this entire time?
>inb4 google/chatgpt
Already tried couldnt explain it well enough or find it.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:17:19 UTC No. 16092004
>>16091973
>3D printed supersonic engines
cool
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:17:37 UTC No. 16092005
>>16092003
No, look it up yourself
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:18:12 UTC No. 16092006
>>16092004
Proonted engines are wild. Here's an aerospike.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:19:06 UTC No. 16092008
>>16092005
I accept your concession, faggot. Just say you dont know or dont reply you nigger brained halfwit.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:20:20 UTC No. 16092010
>>16092008
It's the truth, though. You're too lazy to think about it is all.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:20:57 UTC No. 16092011
>>16092003
>the function that dicates the radius in relation to mass of the planet
I don't know but I suspect it's not that simple. I bet composition and temperature play a huge part
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:29:56 UTC No. 16092019
>>16092006
Looks like something out of Knights of Sidonia.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:30:26 UTC No. 16092020
>>16092019
I never got past the janky CGI in the first episode. Was it any good?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:31:31 UTC No. 16092021
>>16092020
I read it.
I like the stuff the mangaka does.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 01:32:51 UTC No. 16092023
>>16092011
Hmm, do you think it would be the temperature of its host star or its internal temperature then? Or maybe both, but I would imagine that host star temperature/distance would matter more because its the particles at the very top of the cloud layer that are most likely to be blown away or become too highly energized that they can escape. Composition would also affect this because a higher density gas would be more likely to stay within the gas giants gravity field and also affect temperature properties, but that seems almost entirely hypothetical.
Most gas giants if not all in the universe have hydrogen because its the most common element due to being the simplest and most stable, so something like a helium majority or even methane majority gas giant just doesnt seem nearly as likely, though maybe its possible. Lets say for this case though that its only hydrogen gas giants we consider this for, there still must be some sort of atleast theorem that dictates at what point the radius gets to the point where it stops expanding and starts just getting denser right? Is it when the force of gravity overcomes some other force? Something special must be happenin at that specific radius right? It seems to be common across all of these equal radius gas giants. If you can figure out whats happening at that layer I'm sure you could figure out what happens at other densities and surface temperatures where radius is smaller.
>>16092010
I already told you I spent time searching through multiple pages of google you troglodyte just shut your fat nigger lipped mouth. I cant find it and I gave a good attempt at it you just cant help yourself in chiming in to every conversation even if you dont care about it because you want to feel like youre some smart know-it-all when youre a random socially inept loser who just wants attention instead of taking an interest in the topic already at hand.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:05:19 UTC No. 16092048
>>16089668
why didn't they just use rails? Why build an enormous self-propelled tracked vehicle when you could just build a rolling platform on top of some train tracks?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:15:44 UTC No. 16092056
>>16091845
Why didn't they spread out the weight on multiple sets of rail?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:30:05 UTC No. 16092063
results of a rough investigation into the cost-effectiveness of nerva I and the 10m orion drive for round trip missions out of LEO in RP1:
-the lh2 nerva config is the only useful one. the density issues and tankage costs get completely wiped out by the reduced number of tanker flights to a tug in all use cases. i'd go so far as to say the methane/ammonia nerva config should never be used in career play.
-orion's biggest hangup is the high cost of the pulse units, which are something like 1250 funds per ton. lh2 is basically free by comparison.
-orion is cheaper as a reusable lunar tug only when dealing with impractically large payloads. you have to be placing at least 75 tons into low lunar orbit before it breaks even (maybe refueling a depot for a reusable lander?)
-orion is cheaper per mission for all round trip manned interplanetary missions, although for barebones mars and venus missions its advantage is slight enough that i think nerva's still cheaper once you factor in the unlock costs
-orion is clearly cheaper for round trip manned missions to mercury or anything beyond mars
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:38:11 UTC No. 16092072
>>16092048
and just let all that perfectly good river rock go to waste?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:39:11 UTC No. 16092074
>>16092021
>I like the stuff the mangaka does.
me too
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:40:57 UTC No. 16092078
>>16092074
If you liked Blame!, you'll like Knights. It's way more slice of life'y than his usual work, but has shitloads of themes from his other stuff in it.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 02:42:43 UTC No. 16092079
>>16092048
Given the choice between a ramp up to the launch pad and a crawler or a below-the-water-table trench and a railroad, they chose the ramp.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:00:54 UTC No. 16092091
>>16091858
and no Alabama river rocks either
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:09:52 UTC No. 16092102
>>16092063
Ummm based department?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:10:58 UTC No. 16092105
>>16092078
>>16092074
would you retards take your discussion of NON SPACE FLIGHT ACTIVITIES to >>>/a/
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:19:34 UTC No. 16092112
>>16092063
Errr cringe department?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:47:36 UTC No. 16092121
nta, but BRILLIANT PEBBLES
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:48:28 UTC No. 16092124
>retard asking retarded questions triggering huge autism dumps about gas giant atmospheres
>orion drive mentioned
>manga recommendations
>local sperg flipping out over anime mention
Now this is an old school esefgee
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:50:16 UTC No. 16092125
>>16092124
So I'm not allowed to ask how gas giants work with scaling mass and what the equations are with calculating their maximum cloud height?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:51:12 UTC No. 16092126
>>16092125
I’m not joking when I say it’s the best discussion on /sfg/ in quite a while and I have enjoyed it a lot. It brings me back
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:51:20 UTC No. 16092127
>>16092124
were still missing spincels and solarfags so ur wrong.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:51:56 UTC No. 16092128
>>16092020
no, pretty shit
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:52:26 UTC No. 16092129
>>16092124
comfy.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:52:39 UTC No. 16092130
thread is shaping nicely
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:53:00 UTC No. 16092131
>>16092127
Hasn’t that been literally banned since an anon made a solar vs nuclear general like 4 years ago
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:53:39 UTC No. 16092132
is it time for a solar vs. nuclear board?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 03:56:27 UTC No. 16092135
>>16092132
/svn/ would be comfy
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:03:31 UTC No. 16092136
>>16092132
We should just start up the old wars on here again. Solar vs nuclear, spinhabs vs planetary colonies, who cares we just need more argumentative autism in here.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:27:49 UTC No. 16092145
>>16089636
>unpopular in general
Interstellar travel might never be economically feasible
Space exploration is more than science. Getting pretty pictures for the hell of it has it's value.
>unpopular on /sfg/
AI and robots will make manned spaceflight obsolete
There won't be a million people on Mars by the end of the next 100 years not even in the best case scenario for spaceflight.
>>16090407
Neuralink won't be ready for mind upload before Musk dies, but he will ask for Grime's mind to be uploaded instead, but she will turn crazy and kill everyone.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:33:24 UTC No. 16092149
robert zubrin
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:34:14 UTC No. 16092150
>>16092132
solar and nuclear are both for fags. space colonies, martian colonies and lunar colonies will all burn hydrocarbons for fuel, just like here on earth.
expect a lot of greenhouses growing genetically modified plants for biodiesel and wood gas.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:35:20 UTC No. 16092151
>>16092149
ah yes i forgot about you. you are very subtle about your shilling so it usually gets drowned out during big events.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:36:07 UTC No. 16092152
>>16092145
>not even in the best case scenario for spaceflight
in the best case scenario, where robots can do all of the work and even make all of the engineering advancements, you can still move there and lounge around and have a bunch of kids like it's a permanent resort
you don't go to mars for "the science", you go so it can be peopled
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:37:59 UTC No. 16092153
>>16092150
>hydrocarbons on the Moon and Mars
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:38:11 UTC No. 16092155
>>16092150
>spinsect expects ground based colonies to run on combustion
>no mention of his oneil shytlinders
what are you up to now....
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 04:38:33 UTC No. 16092157
>>16092153
>yeschaddotpng
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 05:44:37 UTC No. 16092187
>>16092153
With Starship's upmass, just send gasoline to Mars
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:32:28 UTC No. 16092206
>>16092185
i hate to break this to you but 4200 != 3200
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:34:03 UTC No. 16092207
>>16091362
>the Russian position of Ukrainian Genocide
they are trying to save the Ukrainians from another genocide at the hands of the usual suspects (and those behind their last genocide in the 1930s) but to be able to do that they have to remove the US installed ZOG from Kiev
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:45:20 UTC No. 16092214
>>16091485
>Oh and the general public needs to grow up and stop shitting its britches at the thought of the “N-word” (“nuclear”, in this case lol)
shut up, douche bag
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 06:56:53 UTC No. 16092221
The State Commission decided to launch the Soyuz MS-25 spacecraft on March 23
The meeting considered the results of clarifying the causes of an emergency situation, as a result of which the launch procedure of a space rocket was interrupted.
The ship carrying Oleg Novitsky, Marina Vasilevskaya and Tracy Dyson will reach the ISS using a two-day rendezvous scheme. Manned spacecraft docking: March 25 at 18:10 Moscow time.
The return of Oleg Novitsky, Marina Vasilevskaya and Loral O'Hara on the Soyuz MS-24 ship is on April 6.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:09:00 UTC No. 16092228
>>16091808
>strike the leading edge of a wing resulting in super hot plasma entering on reentry causing its aluminium structure to fail.
I'm guessing those leading edge spars under the tiles should have been made out of titanium instead of aluminum, but the deciders were aware that the shuttles would have cost about 0.1% more each so they made the decision that doomed Columbia (inb4 "We couldn't get any Russian titanium to use!" bullshit, every single one of the hundreds of F-15 we built in the 70s and 80s had a large structural support piece made out of Russian titanium)
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:11:39 UTC No. 16092231
>>16092185
You don't need to carry as much supplies to get to Mars.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:17:10 UTC No. 16092235
>>16092228
wait was titanium actually considered for shuttle?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:42:03 UTC No. 16092257
>>16092256
hmm?
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:51:29 UTC No. 16092266
>>16092235
only aluminum was used as it's light weight and cheap, even in places where it melting if a tile was lost could be catastrophic, like on the leading edge of the wings, funny thing though titanium is lighter than steel but stronger so a piece made out of titanium instead of aluminum could be smaller but would be stronger, comparable in weight, and with like twice the melt temp, but the cheaper cost of aluminum won out though
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 07:52:22 UTC No. 16092268
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:01:01 UTC No. 16092277
>>16092056
They intended to keep adding bigger and bigger rockets (post Apollo Saturn designs, Constellation/DIRECT, etc.) the whole time, all of which relied on big SRBs. The rocks were faster for iterative development. Now that Starship has made that whole lineage obsolete we can see road or rail at the cape.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 08:29:35 UTC No. 16092295
>>16092266
>funny thing though titanium is lighter than steel but stronger
It's not stronger than steel.
The usual claim is that it's stronger per unit mass, i.e. that it's weaker and lighter, but not quite as weak as it is light.
But even that depends on the steel alloy.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:17:47 UTC No. 16092508
>>16092206
Landing on Mars from LEO takes less delta V than landing on the Moon because Mars has air to slow down with.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 13:20:43 UTC No. 16092512
>>16092266
The strongest titanium is about as strong as a medium strength steel, but it weighs half as much and loses less strength with increasing temperature.
The only metal I know offhand that's outright significantly stronger than steel is tungsten, but you gotta be careful cuz tungsten alloys are very brittle outside of a very narrow range of compositions.
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 14:10:36 UTC No. 16092574
>>16092153
Just send a bunch of lactose intolerant women and feed them milk, and collect their smelly braps to fuel the base. (I will have to personally test each sample to make sure it's high enough quality)
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 16:47:45 UTC No. 16092728
>>16092207
>this is your brain on /pol/
Anonymous at Sat, 23 Mar 2024 17:02:16 UTC No. 16092742
>>16092207
the Russians are trying to save the Ukrainians from a genocide at the hands of the Russians???