๐งต /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:06:24 UTC No. 16094949
Ever Closer Edition
Previous - >>16092265
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:12:14 UTC No. 16094962
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:12:48 UTC No. 16094963
>>16094957
2022, just like elon promised
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:22:49 UTC No. 16094981
>>16094967
Buy an ad
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:25:40 UTC No. 16094990
>>16094967
this guy is based, very underrated blog, especially the sls post
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:27:41 UTC No. 16094995
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:29:08 UTC No. 16094999
>>16094967
why isn't australia just covering the outback in solar panels and becoming the saudi arabia of methane?
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:29:36 UTC No. 16095000
>>16094999
No infrastructure.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:29:45 UTC No. 16095001
>>16094967
He never responded to critics of him pooh poohing SBSP, he's a faggot looking to suck up Cali's green subsidies
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:37:47 UTC No. 16095018
Two weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:38:28 UTC No. 16095019
>>16095001
this is far and away the least bad thing california subsidizes
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:38:54 UTC No. 16095022
>>16095001
solar is kinda a retarded option for New England compared to wind.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:45:12 UTC No. 16095030
It's curious how solarfags often post some fancy statistics and graphs to prove the superiority of solar panels but in reality they're neither cheap, nor reliable.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:57:02 UTC No. 16095054
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ew
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:58:24 UTC No. 16095063
>Common Stock Shorter
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 22:59:30 UTC No. 16095067
>>16095054
get ready for some seething
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:00:05 UTC No. 16095068
>>16095054
>Common Sense Skeptic
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:02:29 UTC No. 16095072
>>16095065
if we knew what doves or demon cores or screwdrivers looked like we'd say the same thing
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:03:53 UTC No. 16095075
>>16095030
Well you nuclearcels can have fun getting 10 different types of cancer while solar panels continue to get cheaper and more efficient. Theres something called a battery you know that right? Un-fucking-believable.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:05:55 UTC No. 16095081
>>16095075
>Theres something called a battery you know that right?
the only good solar power battery is a can with liquid methane inside
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:11:57 UTC No. 16095094
Solar Energy is pretty based, cheap, reliable. Nuclear will never be cost effective against it
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:13:38 UTC No. 16095099
>>16095022
New England only has steady wind in a few places and most of them are inhabited by a ton of people, or by whales who suffer from the noise of building and operating offshore wind. Solar as incremental power isn't a bad option since we use way more watts in the summer for AC (everyone burns shit for heat in the winter). We still need nuclear or fossil fuels for baseline.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:13:38 UTC No. 16095100
>>16095094
Solar energy is inconsistent, intermittent, and rarely available when it's needed the most.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:14:16 UTC No. 16095102
>>16095100
Not to mention made in China.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:15:04 UTC No. 16095104
>>16095102
Even if it could be proonted at home using sand as feedstock it'd be a retarded use of land.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:15:58 UTC No. 16095107
>>16095100
It's ok, we can store it! I have a solution here https://x.com/TerraformIndies
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:16:00 UTC No. 16095108
>>16095104
Yeah, I live in a rainy fucking country and the last thing we need is more shit that can't produce on demand.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:17:05 UTC No. 16095111
>>16095083
cheap energy good
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:18:16 UTC No. 16095115
>>16095107
Batteries are and always will be capacity limited, lifetime limited, and expensive to deploy as a source of baseload power at grid-scale.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:18:36 UTC No. 16095118
css claiming that bay depressurization from opening the pez door caused the roll but that makes no sense at all. it would've induced a pitching moment.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:18:57 UTC No. 16095119
>>16095115
We will store it as methane, silly billy :)
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:20:51 UTC No. 16095124
>>16095118
hes retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:21:29 UTC No. 16095126
>>16095119
Buy an ad or trip up you kangaroo raping retard.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:22:39 UTC No. 16095127
>>16095126
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/
Here you can get started reading
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:30:17 UTC No. 16095131
>>16095118
>1 atmosphere of pressure making it roll
It's official, we found a cunt who knows even less about rocketry than Thundercunt.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:32:09 UTC No. 16095134
>>16095118
I've noticed you and all replies dont refute what he says, instead you name call and whine and cry
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:33:24 UTC No. 16095136
>>16095134
Your refutation is here, cunt >>16095131
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:34:26 UTC No. 16095137
>>16095104
There are lots of way more retarded things already happening. Like the millions of acres for biofuel corn.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:35:14 UTC No. 16095139
>>16095137
We're about to throw away good hydroelectric power turning water into hydrogen.
Now that's a waste.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:36:15 UTC No. 16095140
>>16095136
>namecalling and whining
Thanks for making my point for me
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:37:24 UTC No. 16095141
>>16095140
Please show calculations for how 1 atmosphere of pressure from a small bay will make a ship with a dry mass of 200 tons spin.
You may suck my fucking dick now.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:37:33 UTC No. 16095142
>>16095139
hydroelectric doesnt scale retard, holy shit you're a dumb fuck
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:44:45 UTC No. 16095145
>>16094990
very good post
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:48:44 UTC No. 16095148
>>16095144
wow css is a genius
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:49:21 UTC No. 16095151
>>16095144
based.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:51:11 UTC No. 16095155
>>16095144
As a space-x stan, this post brings my diaper to full of shit. mommy chNge me!
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:51:47 UTC No. 16095156
>>16095144
IFT-3 got further than that. Its not a failure unless it fails at the same stage as the previous furthest attempt
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:51:56 UTC No. 16095157
>>16095115
Ambri liquid metal batteries. Very simple principle, no degrading parts, can cycle pretty much indefinitely without degradation, very high capacity, about the same cost as pumped hydro storage.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:52:43 UTC No. 16095158
>>16095157
>about the same cost as pumped hydro storage.
Which is way too expensive.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:54:56 UTC No. 16095160
>>16095144
comon sneed-and-feed skeptic
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:56:08 UTC No. 16095161
We had a good thread of solar vs nuclear going but you all ruined it by giving the CSSfag attention.
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:56:20 UTC No. 16095162
>>16095144
By ULA's definition of success this launch was perfect
Anonymous at Sun, 24 Mar 2024 23:59:34 UTC No. 16095164
is CSS a solarfag or a nuclearfag?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:00:54 UTC No. 16095166
>>16095164
hes a coalfag and a zionsit
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:02:20 UTC No. 16095168
it doesn't even matter what made it roll. there was a different failure which led to the rcs not working otherwise it would have just stopped it.
>>16095144
>the third test flight is only a success had starship progressed far enough to be full reuse capable now
goalposts are moving at an ever accelerating speed as if propelled by a rocket
>>16095157
methane is better. pumped hydro is a meme
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:04:50 UTC No. 16095169
>>16095164
Just a fag
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:04:56 UTC No. 16095170
>>16095141
>Please show calculations for how 1 atmosphere of pressure from a small bay will make a ship with a dry mass of 200 tons spin.
small? it's an entire cubic kilometer!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:05:14 UTC No. 16095171
>>16095166
He makes zionist sit?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:05:40 UTC No. 16095173
>>16095170
Thanks for the chuckle at least.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:09:15 UTC No. 16095176
>>16095141
Idk maybe it just does. Can you prove it doesnt?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:11:48 UTC No. 16095180
>>16095170
kek
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:12:53 UTC No. 16095181
>>16095141
1 atmosphere in such a huge volume is enough energy to spin it for sure.
i would even argue that 1 bar over the area of the door would mean it can't open at all.
the remaining pressure which i guess was significantly lower than 1 bar is one of the best candidates for why the door mechanism broke cause it was too hard to pry open.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:16:35 UTC No. 16095185
>>16095181
so why werethey so incompetent that they didnt think of this? This is the equivalent of apollo astronauts dying on the moon because they forgot about pressure differences and explosively decompress the LEM
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:19:50 UTC No. 16095193
>>16095185
if i remember correctly apollo 11 did in fact have to yank on the door to equalize
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:20:48 UTC No. 16095194
>>16095193
did the door break and become unusable?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:21:36 UTC No. 16095196
>>16094949
Should be tumbling out of control.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:22:47 UTC No. 16095199
>>16095194
It wasn't made by Boeing.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:23:23 UTC No. 16095201
>>16095194
No but also SpaceX hasn't burnt 3 astronauts alive yet.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:26:24 UTC No. 16095204
>>16095137
Biofuel corn at least is easier to adapt to some other crop or some other use of corn when politics change.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:27:13 UTC No. 16095206
>>16095201
>that comes later
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:42:26 UTC No. 16095216
>>16094957
Two weeks
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:44:54 UTC No. 16095218
>>16095026
>link-up
Feels out of place or something idk
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:46:53 UTC No. 16095220
>>16095094
Both are good.
We desperately need better battery technology. This is a non-negotiable problem with a seemingly stalled-out set of solutions - and it is holding us back big time as a society.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:47:54 UTC No. 16095221
>>16095118
CSS has been proven wrong more times than Elon at this point
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:54:31 UTC No. 16095226
>>16094999
Australia has a real estate and extraction based economy and Aussie investors wonโt put their money in anything but holes and houses. There simply isnโt the mindset, capital, planning or infrastructure for it, nor would it be very popular.
Australians are some of the most environmentalist people on the planet and almost every home owner uses rooftop solar and the government killed the local solar panel industry for basically no reason. They have less electric car charging stations than Texas. Donโt expect anything from Australia and be pleasantly surprised when they produce the occasional gem
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 00:55:28 UTC No. 16095228
>>16095220
Better batteries, or store as natural gas!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:06:59 UTC No. 16095237
>>16095226
>almost every home owner uses rooftop solar
Yeah well it's not just about environment, we used to get major subsidies, including getting paid for supplying to the grid.
NZ is even more enviro-queers and they have next to no rooftop solar, because they have no subsidies.
It's true though that Australia has no creative drive whatsoever. Making any effort about anything is looked at as tryhard.
>She'll be right
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:08:59 UTC No. 16095239
>>16095206
At least post the real crew.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:25:54 UTC No. 16095257
>>16095239
Whats the ghost of Kiev doing here? Hes supposed to be out fighting Putler for Zelensky
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:27:46 UTC No. 16095259
>>16095239
I'd pay good money to lock Tim, Scott and Thunderfoof in a room together with a camera feed.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:29:47 UTC No. 16095261
>>16095259
Scott Manlet and Thunderthighs would team up to strangle Tim
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:43:21 UTC No. 16095267
>>16095239
I look forward to their research on micro gravity's affect on breast milk production and quality.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:48:40 UTC No. 16095269
IFT3 failed. writing on the wall for anyone who needs confirmation will be that IFT4 will attempt all the same things as IFT3 with just some cosmetic extras, since none of the IFT3 milestones were met.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:51:50 UTC No. 16095273
The goalposts shall keep shifting until the sponsors are bankrupt.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 01:58:21 UTC No. 16095280
>>16094957
I think they go for it in the next launch window. It'll be an unmanned, modified version of whatever HLS is at the time. They're gonna try their damnedest but the public messaging will be that "this is just a test". I think they'll make it to mars atmosphere entry but then have a failure. Whether that is a failed raptor relight due to a failed valve, unexpectedly high boil off,ect, or them kinda scuffing the landing and exploding or toppling over is anyone's guess. This all assumes the intermediate steps of reuse and depot ops goes smoothly enough for them to have a spare starship fully fueled in orbit and ready to go by then
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:02:47 UTC No. 16095284
>>16095280
Maybe they'll try to deploy some starlinks into Mars orbit before attempting a landing. It would make life much easier.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:06:00 UTC No. 16095286
>>16095280
speaking of boiloff, its hilarious how they expect to get to mars with cryogen propellants.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:10:42 UTC No. 16095293
>>16095286
I don't think they're really serious about that. Starship will migrate to hypergolics or solids sooner or later.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:12:07 UTC No. 16095295
>>16095286
just stick it in the shade and it will stay cool
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:14:37 UTC No. 16095296
>>16095293
I've been saying for years that they should build a thiakol plant on the surface and split the ship into its ring segments to bake fuel into while the astronauts go exploring.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:46:46 UTC No. 16095329
>>16095295
Shouldve said -6 gorillion
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:48:46 UTC No. 16095330
>>16095295
A square kilometer wtf
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 02:50:51 UTC No. 16095331
>>16095330
1000 m^2 sure is allot huh
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:05:00 UTC No. 16095341
>>16095269
spacex loses billions of dollars every time a starship is destroyed and funds are starting to run dry. that's why elon has to make crazier and crazier promises as time goes on - the moon, mars, interstellar: investors are starting to realize that he's blown all their money with a rocket that doesn't work and he's desperate to distract them.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:06:07 UTC No. 16095342
>watching neuralink video with their first patient
>the patient praises how the employees work 12+ hours every day
imagine if it was this bad in spacex
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:08:35 UTC No. 16095343
>>16095342
It's much worse at SpaceX lol
-X
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:08:39 UTC No. 16095344
>>16095341
Yeah I can see why you would think six more launches this year is crazy when your standard is based on oldspace.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:16:00 UTC No. 16095352
>Mars Sample Return already lmao$3bil in the hole, no operating portion to be seen
Bros, what would a minimalist architecture look like with Falcon and Falcon heavy? Is it even possible with the available upmass and multiple launches and equipment sections? I wonder what a price estimate would be for SpaceX to develop and orchestrate the sample return.
>t. NASA administrator :^))
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:17:08 UTC No. 16095353
>>16095343
which is worse, 12 hours at a desk at neuralink or 12 hours in the field at spacex?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:18:59 UTC No. 16095354
>>16095342
>imagine if it was this bad in spacex
it is lol. spacexers work insane hours thats common knowledge
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:21:15 UTC No. 16095357
>9 Falcon 9 launches so far this month
>4 more launches to go
Holy shit
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:30:56 UTC No. 16095363
Is a geostationary orbit in LEO possible?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:31:12 UTC No. 16095364
>>16095352
>what would a minimalist architecture look like with Falcon and Falcon heavy?
You could launch two landers inside independent aeroshells along with a return orbiter on a single (probably fully expended) Falcon Heavy. The landers both come down in heavily overlaped ellipses while the orbiter slowly maneuvers into a parking orbit. One lander deploys a Mars Exploration Rover-sized vehicle that collects samples while road tripping to the launch element that came down on the other lander. After that, launch from the surface and return to Earth proceeds as laid out in the existing MSR proposal.
>I wonder what a price estimate would be for SpaceX to develop and orchestrate the sample return.
None, because SpaceX isn't interested in doing it. They were interested in Red Dragon back when they were planning to do some transport to Mars using a dragon-derived vehicle, but they've moved well past that.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:32:22 UTC No. 16095366
>>16095363
for a short time while you burn a fuck ton of fuel, yes
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:32:43 UTC No. 16095367
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:33:15 UTC No. 16095368
>>16095363
That's what Jeff's suborbital ride is.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:33:16 UTC No. 16095369
>>16095353
18 hours in the field at spacex
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:33:46 UTC No. 16095370
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:34:53 UTC No. 16095372
>>16095363
Yeah you just need TWR >1 and infinity Isp
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:38:16 UTC No. 16095374
>>16095364
it's something that vulcan could handle no problem if MSR wasn't a make-work program for JPL and ESA
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:40:34 UTC No. 16095377
>>16095365
>>16095367
>>16095370
>expendable rockets
After Spacex its just not the same any more.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:41:22 UTC No. 16095378
>>16095357
it wasn't even that long ago when 50 launches a year seemed like a dream
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:45:13 UTC No. 16095380
>>16095374
Vulcan gets about 8 tons to a Mars transfer orbit vs Falcon Heavy's 17 tons. Going with Vulcan would double if not triple the launch cost for the project.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:53:20 UTC No. 16095384
>>16095380
>Vulcan gets about 8 tons to a Mars transfer orbit vs Falcon Heavy's 17 tons
high energy sisters?
what is this??
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:55:32 UTC No. 16095386
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:58:19 UTC No. 16095390
>>16095388
it won't be long before 3 cubic kilometers is considered a laughably small space station
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:58:47 UTC No. 16095391
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 03:59:18 UTC No. 16095394
>>16095388
For the non-metric here, how many blue whales is that?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:04:35 UTC No. 16095398
>>16095384
Do you have brain damage, or is typing like you're retarded just a fetish?
To treat you like a serious person: efficiency only tells you how effective you are at using the propellant you've got and Vulcan only has about half the propellant of Falcon Heavy. Worse, only about 10% of Vulcan's propellant is onboard the "high energy" Centaur V. 50% is in the methalox core and the remaining 40% is in the high-thrust low-efficiency GEM-63XL boosters. When you take Vulcan's isp and average it out across its total propellant mass it only has about a 10 sec overall advantage over the Falcon Heavy, and with it's much smaller size that means it can't do nearly as much. It's just a smaller rocket trying to compete with vehicles that are a lot bigger than it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:09:47 UTC No. 16095405
>>16095026
I'd start smoking again if someone bummed me one of these
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:13:43 UTC No. 16095406
>>16095384
Just more of Snake Tory's lies.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:16:58 UTC No. 16095409
>>16095384
*ahem*
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:19:47 UTC No. 16095411
>>16094957
never.
Musknigger won't deliver anything.
it's better to keep the dream going perpetually to raise more money.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:24:21 UTC No. 16095413
>>16095386
Seggs with Vulcan chan!
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:27:44 UTC No. 16095415
>>16095394
About 1.7 blue whales assuming they're perfect cylinders.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:30:10 UTC No. 16095416
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 04:32:41 UTC No. 16095420
>>16095416
imagine bouncing around this thing in zero g
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:31:28 UTC No. 16095460
>>16095239
please sub in Dugan Ashley for Joe Rogan
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:52:16 UTC No. 16095467
>>16095409
>C3=55
jesus fucking christ, okay I understand why ULA are all smug about "high energy architecture" or whatever now
jesus
I guess Falcon Heavy expendable can beat the tonnage to that ridiculous C3 but not by much...
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:03:08 UTC No. 16095474
>>16095467
Starship refilled in orbit mogs all of these. I think a full refill gets you direct ascent to the moons of Saturn.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:06:27 UTC No. 16095478
If it takes 14 Starship tankers to refill 1 Starship depot which will then fuel 1 Starship ITS, at $10/kg wouldnt that make it $155/kg or so to anything past Terran orbit?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:08:37 UTC No. 16095482
>>16095478
Which is still 10x cheaper than Falcon.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:10:38 UTC No. 16095483
>>16095478
>$10/kg
Come on now
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:12:07 UTC No. 16095484
>>16095482
Dang youre right, thats a substantial decrease and thats to basicalky anywhere in the system
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:14:30 UTC No. 16095487
>>16095483
IF the reusable mode had 220 tons of capacity then the payload cost would be $10 per kilogram. SpaceX plans to make the Starship 20% longer and improve the engines. The payload capacity could increase to 200-250 tons in reusable mode. An expended Future Starship would have a payload of about 300 tons.
This means it could drop to $7.50/kg so my mistake
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:32:22 UTC No. 16095500
>>16095474
>orbital refueling
>direct ascent
oh, anon...
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:44:50 UTC No. 16095509
>>16095386
If only there was a way to add more fuel to an orbiting rocketโฆ
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 06:48:22 UTC No. 16095514
>>16095509
Gooning to the thought of this rn
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:11:13 UTC No. 16095532
>>16095514
>tags: nakadashi, inflation, large (orbital) insertion, (Shelby) mindbreak
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:14:27 UTC No. 16095534
>>16095487
>then the payload cost would be $10 per kilogram
Based on what? The thing doesn't even fucking work yet, we don't even know the internal cost of a Falcon 9.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:23:39 UTC No. 16095543
>>16095534
Youre not very good at baiting you know? The information is very publicly available on how those calculations were done, not using google means this is obvious bait.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:36:27 UTC No. 16095556
>>16094990
holy moley what a great read
...
cancel sls
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:47:28 UTC No. 16095567
>>16095388
I still don't understand WHY only one inflatable is on the ISS
It's not like they only figured out it was a reliable, good idea after bigelow died
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:50:12 UTC No. 16095573
>>16095567
bigelow is still alive
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:54:47 UTC No. 16095578
>>16095573
I hope you didn't think that was funny
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:56:39 UTC No. 16095580
>>16095567
Like many other ISS things, lack of money.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 07:58:27 UTC No. 16095583
>>16095578
oh did you mean the company?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:06:31 UTC No. 16095591
>>16095534
>we don't even know the internal cost of a Falcon 9.
Approximately $18 million.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:08:49 UTC No. 16095595
>>16095580
More incompetence
Bigelow himself had zero engineering acumen and the management team running bigelow aeorospace was supposedly very incompetent with very high turnover of the staff
Might have been mba types like voeing but its a while since i read that glasshouse review
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:37:17 UTC No. 16095620
>>16095591
Proofs?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:45:54 UTC No. 16095628
>>16095620
> In an interview with Aviation Week in May, Musk listed the marginal cost of a Falcon 9 at $15 million in the best case. He also listed the cost of refurbishing a booster at $1 million. This would fit with Musk's most recent claim that the costs of refurbishment make up less than 10 percent of the booster costs.
Quoted from here: https://www.inverse.com/innovation/
Sourced from here if you have Aviation Week: https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp
Rounded up for inflation and assumptions that not all cases are that good.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:51:21 UTC No. 16095635
>>16094990
hehehehehehe
*inhales*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
POO ON MOON SERS
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:52:51 UTC No. 16095636
>>16095635
Total Indian Death
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 08:59:44 UTC No. 16095638
>>16095628
Refurb only 1/15m? Damn those fuel and operational costs are busted. I'm sure they can shave a milly or two off by not using the petroleum jew fuel but I still doubt starship is going to be less than 20m internal, probably more.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:07:04 UTC No. 16095644
>>16095638
The most expensive parts of the operation are building a new second stage and seaborne recovery operations. As far as the other consumables go, the helium is more expensive than the propellants.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:19:00 UTC No. 16095650
>>16095054
Can starship be modified to go straight to the moon without refueling? By reducing the payload or stretching the fuel tanks maybe?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:25:51 UTC No. 16095654
>>16095650
>Can starship be modified to go straight to the moon without refueling
No, it's too much of a fat cunt.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:33:16 UTC No. 16095657
>>16095654
If you let tubby have his energy drinks in orbit then he can get there though.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:34:10 UTC No. 16095659
she noticed me bros
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:36:07 UTC No. 16095660
>>16095650
Drop the recovery stuff and use an expendable fairing and it can probably shoot a payload in that direction without too much issue.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:37:49 UTC No. 16095663
>>16095659
Based heartschizo
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 09:53:57 UTC No. 16095674
>>16095659
Cringe braindeboonker
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:00:21 UTC No. 16095680
>>16095650
easily
just don't expect it to come back again
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:42:10 UTC No. 16095710
>>16095409
>Late '22
A rocket that hasn't launched yet has zero cargo capacity to orbit.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:54:15 UTC No. 16095725
>>16095663
clear noticed me once before but this is the first time it happened since she got big
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 10:58:53 UTC No. 16095729
>>16095711
Imagine wanting to work at Blue Origin out of college
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:10:25 UTC No. 16095740
>>16095711
>Boeing also pitches young engineers on a more stable work-life balance. Beyond its besieged commercial aircraft division, the company can offer career paths spanning a range of other high-profile programs, from fighter jets to missiles to spacecraft. Recent graduates joining Boeing can work on products currently in use, rather than futuristic ideas locked in long and potentially dead-end development cycles.
lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:12:58 UTC No. 16095744
>>16095144
If taken out of context, this is actually a decent infographic on IFT-3. I'm certain that IFT-4 or 5 will be complete successes.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:20:02 UTC No. 16095749
>>16095647
Possibly. Didn't people work with asbestos daily for decades and not notice they had a problem until later life? The Apollo astronauts were on the moon for 1-3 days in a protected environment and still got noticable lung and skin irritation from the dust.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:29:08 UTC No. 16095766
>>16095762
https://www.starlinkmap.org/
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:30:15 UTC No. 16095769
>>16095467
FH expendable is likely comparable in cost to the biggest Vulcan, and gets more payload to C3:55.
>but vulcan is smaller & therefore doing it more efficiently
Customers only care about how much it costs to get their payload to whatever orbit, which is why Starship will take most of the market once it's operating.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:31:43 UTC No. 16095773
>>16095769
Customers also care about greenhouse gas emissions which are lower for a smaller rocket.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:33:21 UTC No. 16095779
>>16095773
The greenhouse gas emissions of the propellants are a drop in the bucket to the factory and machining costs and nobody actually gives a fuck except for the young, the naive, and the exploitive opportunists.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:36:54 UTC No. 16095787
>>16095500
come on now, you know what he meant.
Fully loaded Starship in LEO does throw multiple dozens of tons of payload (not counting Starship dry mass) at Saturn. Of course, any trajectory that long means over a decade away from Earth, meaning no reasonable expectation of reuse, meaning they'd only do this with a stripped down version of Starship, meaning increased payload mass fraction compared to the typical Starship performance estimates.
Also, in real life there's not much reason to go direct to anything beyond Jupiter, because you can throw more mass to Jupiter since it's closer, and you can then use a Jupiter gravity assist to take that entire payload mass to whatever outer solar system target you want, and on a faster trajectory too.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:40:43 UTC No. 16095793
I wish that SpaceX would just shut down. Fuck.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:43:35 UTC No. 16095795
>>16095647
Nope, asbestos is a combo of fibrous, continues to fray inside one's lungs, and almost completely insoluble, meaning it cannot be transported out of one's lungs by the usual mechanism of dust removal and it never dissolves away. Inhaling asbestos is worse than inhaling a handful of glass needles.
Moon dust on the other hand is a rough abrasive, sure, but it's made of lumpy glassy or crystalline particles, which the lungs are adapted to remove like any other dust, and since they aren't long needles they don't do nearly as much damage.
Asbestos is to humans what Moon dust is to machinery.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:46:44 UTC No. 16095799
>>16095740
lmao what a spin
"At SpaceX you'll be working on inventing new technologies never used before, scary! Come to boeing instead where you can work to fix the mistakes made by our bogged down bureaucratic engineering practices over the past few decades, no we aren't going to fix the bureaucracy :^)"
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:48:55 UTC No. 16095807
>>16095773
Can you point out a single example of a payload provider picking a more expensive launch option because it emits less?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 11:49:57 UTC No. 16095808
>>16095793
I feel bad for you, you'll never see your wish come true, you must be living in hell every day
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:06:52 UTC No. 16095825
>>16095766
neat
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:10:43 UTC No. 16095828
>>16095808
Kys samenigger
>>16095352
Space shit is expensive but I am impressed how they can request multiple billions for what amounts to rovers with arms and a rocket. A simple hypergolic system should be enough for mars surface to LMO. Maybe I grossly underestimate how expensive it all should be, but there's just no reason you couldn't get this entire mission done (a few lbs of return material) for more than 1.5billion total. The right side of this image could account for the spending of 25%+ of their budget
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:14:18 UTC No. 16095834
https://youtu.be/ekEdq6PhC0Q
i love this man
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:16:42 UTC No. 16095836
>>16095831
I am absolutely exhausted seeing that shitty mockup constantly for the last 20 years
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:22:17 UTC No. 16095840
>>16095828
Cancel MSR and Europa Clipper (but keep Dragonfly).
Put all that money into Starship.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:25:33 UTC No. 16095842
>>16095828
what posts are supposedly mine? I only made that one clowning on the "I hate spaceX" guy
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:26:39 UTC No. 16095844
>>16095828
you don't understand
this isn't about a one-off boots on mars mission
its about building the infrastructure to build a city and self-sustaining civliization on mars
sending 1 million tonnes of useful payload on to the surface of mars
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:33:58 UTC No. 16095848
>>16095843
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OWJ
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:34:04 UTC No. 16095849
>>16095839
Jews gonna Jew
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:37:22 UTC No. 16095852
https://archive.is/ywPel
>South Texas cities are rebranding themselves amid unprecedented SpaceX-fueled space tourism
>As with the first two, Starshipโs third launch was a boon for businesses across the region โ and an apparent turning point in the evolution of SpaceX in South Texas. As launches become more regular and successful, the race among South Texas cities to nab space tourism dollars is ratcheting up.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:49:50 UTC No. 16095862
>>16095352
Launch a 15 tonne payload at Mars using Falcon Heavy.
In that payload include a landing/ascent stage and an Earth return stage, plus sample gathering hardware.
Math tells me that using hypergolic engines with an Isp of 290, to get 1 tonne of total burnout stage mass thrown back to Earth you need a total mass sitting on Mars of 13 tonnes, where the upper stage is 75% propellant by mass (4T total) and the first stage is 91% propellant by mass (11T total). For reference a Falcon 9 with all its reuse hardware is still over 96% propellant by mass, and hypergolics are denser, making this easier overall to achieve.
Three burns are needed.
First, a landing burn of 400 m/s post-entry uses up 2 tonnes of propellant in the first stage. The vehicle would probably need to be able to bellyflop like Starship to scrub off enough velocity to achieve this, or it could be a wide squat vehicle, idk.
Second, the first stage re-ignites to launch off of Mars again. This provides 2700 m/s, easily enough to escape Mars' atmosphere entirely and get a good way to orbital velocity.
Third, after separating off the lower stage, the upper stage provides 3900 m/s of Delta V, enough to go from the fast suborbital trajectory to an Earth intercept.
The burnout mass of 1 tonne includes engines and tanks, so if we imagine a 90% mass ratio, the actual useful mass thrown at Earth is about 700 kg. This should be easily enough to not only include the entry capsule containing the samples, but also an entire little spacecraft bus to allow for maneuvering on the way back to Earth, via chemical or electric propulsion.
We could get more ambitious by assuming in situ propellant production, ie a carbon monoxide & oxygen rocket, but that's more complex and needs to be counterbalanced against how much power supply mass is necessary to produce tonnes of propellants in an acceptable time frame. Probably better to put an Earth return vehicle in Mars orbit if needed.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:51:43 UTC No. 16095863
>>16095840
Why cancel Clipper? It's pretty much built and isn't launching on SLS anymore
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:53:02 UTC No. 16095864
>>16095843
We're fat with advanced propulsion concepts anon, that's no issue. We need better ppwer supplies in space to make any of these systems useful in the real world.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 12:53:39 UTC No. 16095865
Cancel NASA, give the money to Israel
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:02:18 UTC No. 16095873
>>16095286
why can't they insulate and actively cool?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:04:07 UTC No. 16095875
>>16095873
i dont know, why cant they? they have absolutely no plans to do so and it will drastically increase the dry mass. cosidering they cant open a door in space i dont have hope...
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:08:20 UTC No. 16095879
>>16095405
As a Brit I learned the hard way that "bumming a fag" means something entirely different in America. People kept trying to give me cigarettes.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:08:26 UTC No. 16095880
i'm incontinent Dx
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:10:44 UTC No. 16095882
>>16095865
Agreed. US wastes so many billions of tax dollars a year sending people to space that could have easily gone to Israel to help defend democracy.
It seems extremely anti-semitic to be withholding money from Israel for no other reason than that they are Jewish. No other nation gets this unfair treatment. Each rocket launched to Mars could have been spent more prudently on hundreds of small missiles and bombs to help Israel defend themselves, and thus the entire world, from terrorists in Gaza. What a joke.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:15:00 UTC No. 16095889
>>16094897
In China there are many that don't. Virtually all the start-ups with solids bought the engines from CASC or CASIC.
To some extent it is also the case with liquids. Space Pioneer bought YF-102 from CASC for TL-2, which has launched to orbit. Space Epoch and Rocket Pi made deals to buy engines from JZYJ, and Nayuta Space made a deal to buy engines from Yutian Tuijin. Space Epoch, Rocket pi and Nayuta are latecomers to the industry and don't seem well funded, which I think explains why they have both the option and the will to buy liquid engines rather than develop an engine in-house from scratch.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:19:46 UTC No. 16095896
>>16095729
>Imagine wanting to at Blue Origin out of college
ftfy
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:20:02 UTC No. 16095897
>>16095894
There was some talk on the local news last night that we might be able to see some auras but I think we were too far south for that.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:21:59 UTC No. 16095900
>>16095872
plane designed to melt in hypersonic wind as rapidly as physically possible
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:22:13 UTC No. 16095901
>>16095873
Because a sunshade is adequate. When you're flying to Mars you're not exposed to reflected heat from earth like in LEO. The sun is in a fixed location and all you have to do is block it out.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:22:53 UTC No. 16095902
>>16095897
If it goes in belly first and can fold the canards back like starship it might be ok
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:24:51 UTC No. 16095905
>>16095880
Lmao nice XD
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:26:37 UTC No. 16095908
>>16095902
It looks like it has scramjets, which implies hypersonic flight, which means it's gonna melt lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:28:59 UTC No. 16095909
>>16095873
It's not that easy in propellant storage
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:30:56 UTC No. 16095913
>>16095901
>The sun is in a fixed location and all you have to do is block it out.
So no spin gravity for starship?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:33:24 UTC No. 16095916
>>16095913
Yes, so long as the spin axis points sunward. That calls for a deployable shield though. If you don't spin you might get away just pointing your ass at the sun.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:39:12 UTC No. 16095923
>>16095913
Moron
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:40:04 UTC No. 16095927
>>16095384
Brute force rocket. Not a real high energy rocket.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:45:03 UTC No. 16095932
>>16095773
6 GEM-63XLs (1 maxed vulcan launch) is far worse for the environment than 6 entire Falcon Heavy launches
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:45:23 UTC No. 16095933
>>16095398
>When you take Vulcan's isp and average it out across its total propellant mass
Doesn't the final propellant isp matter a lot more than the initial propellant isp though?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:51:45 UTC No. 16095937
>>16095916
youre a fucking idiot dide. im surprosed they let you post here.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:52:32 UTC No. 16095938
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-n
>Gearing Up for Starship Flight 4 | SpaceX Starbase Update
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:53:38 UTC No. 16095940
all the posts below are written by homos
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:54:53 UTC No. 16095941
>>16095729
Why not? They are working on a lot of exciting things, including lunar landers, space stations, and arguably the no 2 or no 3 most advanced launch tech in America. Also, they're not at significant risk of folding or getting forever stuck in NSSL Lane 1, like every other launch company apart from SpaceX is.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:54:54 UTC No. 16095942
>>16095940
yum yum yum yum yum yum
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 13:59:11 UTC No. 16095947
alarms at starbase, no overpressure notice. what are they doing, another spin prime?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:01:34 UTC No. 16095950
How the fuck could a sane person look at a Vulcan and a Starship/Superheavy and deduce they are โsimilar,โ or even that Vulcan could โoutperformโ SS in some areas
Anyone talking about โefficiency of Centaur,โ โprecision orbits,โ or โLEO optimizationโ is a coping midwit!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:01:44 UTC No. 16095951
>>16095352
I think the problem with MSR isn't so much with the Earth ascent launchers
SpaceX probably isn't interested in allocating resources to developing that kind of payloads for Falcons. They'd probably propose some kind Starship derivative instead, and try to get NASA to help fund their Martian Starship and ISRU ambitions
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:03:02 UTC No. 16095952
>>16095950
It all depends on how soon rapid reuse and in-space refueling will become mature
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:04:51 UTC No. 16095953
>>16095952
What the fuck does it matter if itโs one year away or five years away?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:12:17 UTC No. 16095959
>>16095953
It matters depending on when you want to launch your payload.
It's not inconceivable that it could be more than 5 years away before Starship becomes mature, in the sense of, not just being able to reuse and to refuel in space, but also having low marginal cost of launch, quick and easy turnaround, high cadence, high reliability, etc.
Of course, if you only want to launch in, say, 2032, or if you are stuck at the absolute back of the Vulcan launch queue, then it doesn't really matter. It's very hard to argue that a Vulcan will have anything to offer over Starship in the long term.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:15:36 UTC No. 16095962
>>16095953
prick.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:18:04 UTC No. 16095966
>>16095952
Actually it depends on when space tug companies are ready and how much they cost per flight. Starship will be able to push over 24 tonnes to GTO, so with a tug that's gonna be at least over a dozen tonnes to GEO for the cost of one Starship launch (maybe $25m to start?) and 1 tug (less than $35m each according to some post that came up on google that I didn't read), something around $60m.
$60m for 12+ tonnes to GEO is far better than any variant of any other rocket.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:18:50 UTC No. 16095967
>>16095951
idiot.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:26:35 UTC No. 16095977
does anyone know when WSF-M is launching? as recently as February I was hearing late March. but now it's late March and I don't see anything on spaceflightnow's launch schedule for it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:27:10 UTC No. 16095978
>>16095966
>for the cost of one Starship launch (maybe $25m to start?) and 1 tug (less than $35m each
When adding that to the cost of operations and reuse of Superheavy, which might be quite significant before all the bugs have been ironed out and high cadence has been achieved, the price advantage need not that great over a Vulcan. It might be cheaper, but not order-of-magnitude cheaper.
By booking with Vulcan you remove a lot of risk, because all the necessary R&D and testing is already complete. So it can still be reasonably argued that Starship and Vulcan are "similar" and "outperforms" SS in some areas (e.g. schedule risk)
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:27:23 UTC No. 16095979
>>16094957
Probably as soon as Starship is in a working shape, it would be a pretty big flex. Definitely won't make it down in one piece the first time though. But they'll have a Cybertruck as a payload
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:28:32 UTC No. 16095983
>>16095967
Care to elaborate?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:43:51 UTC No. 16096005
>>16096003
400m aint enought to develope one reusable launch vehicle lol.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:47:51 UTC No. 16096014
>>16096003
Need to add two more zeroes, or this isn't going to make much difference. The companies can't fund R&D with margins on commercial orders because they'll be competing with incumbents like SpaceX. The government will have to buy a lot more launches and/or subsidize commercial payloads on the condition that they launch exclusively on these launchers.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:51:39 UTC No. 16096018
>>16095744
Whether or not reusability is ready, they should still be able to launch payloads into space this year.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:52:25 UTC No. 16096021
>>16095872
I had a toy one of those as a kid but thought it was just a melted XB70.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:52:33 UTC No. 16096022
>>16096003
IVPITER
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:54:06 UTC No. 16096025
>>16094999
Government hates itโs people. Might as well ask why the UKs economy sucks.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:54:06 UTC No. 16096026
>>16096005
the key word is support. the startups still have to raise most of the money themselves from shareholders, but an injection of cash early on can help them along the way
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 14:54:24 UTC No. 16096028
>>16096014
yeah, 100m is not enough
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:00:47 UTC No. 16096036
>>16096026
>injection of cash early on
The up-front money is small. They only get the bulk of the money after a first flight.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:05:19 UTC No. 16096042
>>16095978
Starship is currently flying at a higher cadence than vulcan, and isn't even operational yet.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:06:24 UTC No. 16096047
>>16095226
What's real estate based economy? Also Australia is building perhaps the world's least efficient pumped storage plant. It's called Snowy 2.0
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:08:06 UTC No. 16096050
>>16096003
they should be trying to copy Starship, not invent 4 different alternatives to Falcon 1
what the fuck are they doing
this is like investing into more horses after seeing a freight train
I'm so fucking done with this continent
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:10:56 UTC No. 16096059
>>16096050
Everyone wants their own Falcon 9. Starship is too far ahead technologically for anyone to attempt to do the same without first making a medium-heavy launch vehicle. in short trying to copy starship without any expertiese in building and landing rockets would be retarded.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:14:16 UTC No. 16096065
>>16096059
>in short trying to copy starship without any expertiese in building and landing rockets would be retarded.
Then why aren't the French doing it?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:20:02 UTC No. 16096069
>>16095839
>'Nordic supremacy'
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:20:05 UTC No. 16096070
>>16096065
haven't landed a booster yet?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:21:56 UTC No. 16096072
>>16095839
so zubrin hates whites?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:27:55 UTC No. 16096080
>>16096069
>>16096072
Kek this is your 'based zubrin' btw. Shills btfo
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:30:48 UTC No. 16096086
>>16096003
Making fun of france is not only fun, but easy as well!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:39:04 UTC No. 16096097
so the IFT-4 priority list is:
>payload door (highest priority)
>starship orbital adjustment
>superheavy reentry
>starship rentry (lowest priority)
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:40:22 UTC No. 16096099
>>16095711
>Hiring Booms at SpaceX and Blue Origin Making It Hard for NASA to Attract Talent
how? just work a few years at spacex then move to nasa for an easier cushier less stressful job. nasa should have plenty of talent to choose from given the huge churn at spacex.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:40:27 UTC No. 16096100
>>16096097
No retard. Highest priority is obviously reentry on both vehicles. They can test payload door whenever, getting reentry correct is the most important thing now.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:42:10 UTC No. 16096103
>>16096097
Itโs reentry theyโve said it themselves
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:44:41 UTC No. 16096105
>>16096097
Successful deorbit burn would give them the greenlight to launch usable payloads on Starship, regardless of whether ship or booster can successfully reenter and land yet.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:47:56 UTC No. 16096113
>>16096099
Location, maybe? Blorp and Kuiper and Starlink are all hiring in the Seattle area.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:49:56 UTC No. 16096118
>>16096080
never seemed based, just a mars mission advocate but even there he insist on some pet mission constantly
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:56:40 UTC No. 16096126
>>16096107
Hopefully the next one kills their entire spaceflight division to focus on their aerospace division because holy shit they are about to have a MUCH more public disaster with Shitliner
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:57:37 UTC No. 16096128
>>16096042
I don't think it'll be enough of a difference to contribute to order-of-magnitude cost advantages in the immediate future, especially when you consider that Vulcan has some supply chain commonality with BO's New Glenn and (I think?) NG's other solid business. Especially not to GEO.
The reason I mention cadence is that a higher cadence allows you to spread annual fixed costs on many launches. So high cadence is an important contributing factor to making SS/SH launches cheaper.
In the case of SS/SH, because it is reusable (even if the SS is expended), cadence also matters for cost in the sense that high cadence implies quick turnaround, which implies a quick and easy turnaround process and a high utilization level. This all lowers cost per launch.
Of course, it's possible that SpaceX might decide to mask these higher early-day costs and eat the difference, offering low prices from the start to get customers to ramp up payload production for Starship quickly, with Musk having optimistic expectation that they'll soon get launch costs down to the level that they'll make big profits.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 15:58:28 UTC No. 16096130
>>16096099
especially as isn't NASA and others on that list big on DEI? so its not like they would hire the whites and asians that go work for spacex anyway
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:04:14 UTC No. 16096138
>>16096059
I think the problem with a Starship clone might not be so much that you necessarily need deep experience with booster recovery before attempting to develop a Starship clone, rather it is that a Raptor clone is very expensive and time-consuming to develop. Almost no one can develop a Raptor clone with investor money alone, so you need some kind of intermediate product to sustain you in the meantime.
Even if you could develop a Starship from the get-go, it is still a very enticing proposition to first develop an expendable upper stage and thus have a viable product quickly, long before you get the reusable second stage working (a Starship expended suffers from a huge payload penalty compared to a purely expendable second stage). This is what CASC is doing.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:05:19 UTC No. 16096141
>>16096099
>for an easier cushier less stressful job
Anon if we wanted that we could work in another industry. People dont go into the spaceflight industry for an easy job, its literal rocket science.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:06:01 UTC No. 16096142
>>16095839
Why are they like this bros
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:06:01 UTC No. 16096143
>>16096059
I think the problem with a Starship clone might not be so much that you necessarily need deep experience with booster recovery before attempting to develop a Starship clone, rather it is that a Raptor clone is very expensive and time-consuming to develop. Almost no one can develop a Raptor clone with investor money alone, so you need some kind of intermediate product to sustain you in the meantime.
Even if you could develop a Starship from the get-go, it is still a very enticing proposition to first develop an expendable upper stage and thus have a viable product quickly, long before you get the reusable second stage working (a Starship expended suffers from a huge payload penalty compared to a purely expendable second stage), similar to CALT's roadmap for CZ-9.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:09:53 UTC No. 16096146
>>16096050
>copy Starship,
They don't have nearly enough money to do that
They need a minimum viable product ASAP to prove themselves to investors and to start earning revenue
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:13:31 UTC No. 16096151
>>16096100
Getting the payload door working is necessary for any future flight is to carry any payload to help pay for itself
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:20:18 UTC No. 16096160
>>16096151
Payload door can be tested on ANY future flight. Its also specifically made for Starlinks and thats bot what the important payloads are going to be. OBVIOUSLY landing the fucking spacecraft is more important because then theres no incident report slowing them down AS WELL as being able to study it for what went wrong AAAAND they get closer to full reusability and the REQUIRED Lunar landing goal. YOU are RETARDED for thinking the STARLINK PAYLOAD DOOR is the most important thing on the next flight. If I were this much of a brainlet I would kill myself.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:25:27 UTC No. 16096166
>>16095711
Fuck I'd kill to work for any space company, they're always hiring for the field I work in but it's near impossible to migrate from the UK to the US
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:26:57 UTC No. 16096170
>>16096151
Starship is way too big to just leave expended in orbit.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:30:10 UTC No. 16096175
>>16096160
cope.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:31:23 UTC No. 16096177
>>16096166
Me to (You) every day on the job.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:31:51 UTC No. 16096180
>>16096050
Suppose a French company started the costly process of developing a Starship, and had it finished in the mid-late 2030s. What immense payload orders could they get, that would justify those development costs?
By that time there will already be at least 2 American and at least 3* Chinese Starlink-style megaconstellations deployed, and probably multiple American and Chinese megaconstellations of other types deployed or well into the process of deployment. It's hard to justify entering such a capital-intensive and scale-benefitting market as player number 6. It's not inconceivable that they could get some large orders, but no investor is going to look at that business case and think it's a smart investment. The French government needs to pay up, and 400 million euros isn't anywhere close to enough.
*I think Huawei is making noises about being interested in participating in a third constellation, although launch capacity is currently a constraint
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:32:53 UTC No. 16096182
>>16096003
This rocket is called baguette one and it looks like it has an aerospike!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:34:23 UTC No. 16096186
>>16096182
Why do the french have a humiliation fetish?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:35:07 UTC No. 16096187
>>16096182
you can tell these fuckers arent serios with designs like this. Why develope an aerospike for a first stage?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:36:33 UTC No. 16096189
>>16096187
where else would you stick an aerospike? isn't the whole point that it preforms well at a variety of atmospheric pressures. something upper stages don't deal with nearly as much
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:38:07 UTC No. 16096191
>>16096166
Find a nice cowgirl to marry in Texas
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:40:19 UTC No. 16096197
>>16096180
europe is building some kind of megaconstellation I think
you could have the european launchers have exclusive access to launch contracts for that
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:41:20 UTC No. 16096199
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wne
static fire attempts
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:42:30 UTC No. 16096202
>>16096160
>Payload door can be tested on ANY future flight.
You want payloads to help pay for test launches ASAP
>Its also specifically made for Starlinks and thats bot what the important payloads are going to be
Even if its not the most lucrative payload per kg, Starlink is still a revenue-generating payload, it is a payload that can make good use of SS's unique capabilities, and is available for SS in large quantity in the immediate future
> theres no incident report
Except a payload door malfunction I guess
> they get closer to full reusability
Even the most perfect reusability is useless if you can't deploy a payload
>as being able to study it for what went wrong
This is the only reason I can think of for prioritizing SS recovery over getting the door working. But that's only if they can't for their life figure out what's wrong with the door without personally inspecting it post-flight
>and the REQUIRED Lunar landing goal
HLS and other Artemis components aren't close to ready anytime soon anyway. There's plenty of time to figure out both the payload door and SS recovery
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:43:45 UTC No. 16096205
>>16096047
>700m height differential
ok not terrible
>27km tunnel
lol lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:43:51 UTC No. 16096206
>>16096197
What constellation is that? What guarantees are there that it would be exclusively launched on European launchers?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:46:00 UTC No. 16096207
>>16096097
Priority 1 Starship attitude control & reentry, soft booster splashdown
Priority 2 Raptor relight during coast phase
Priority 3 all other bits and bobs like payload door
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:47:59 UTC No. 16096209
>>16096099
>worker works at spacex
>worker "retires" at blorb
>nobody works for NASA because they don't want to invest in a project that just gets cancelled after 5 to 10 years
Alternatively maybe SpaceX isn't actually burning out that many workers and that has been oldspace cope for the past few years, maybe all along
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:48:29 UTC No. 16096210
>>16096097
Gwynne said reentry is now their priority
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:48:30 UTC No. 16096211
>>16096170
Why? As long as it remains in one piece, it's not much different than any other piece of trash left in orbit.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:48:38 UTC No. 16096212
>>16096206
https://defence-industry-space.ec.e
its more of a plan right now, but nothing guarantees it, it would just be a way to try to foster a private european launch economy
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:50:11 UTC No. 16096216
>>16096211
>runner up for biggest single object in orbit
>designed to survive reentry in one piece
>WILL deorbit eventually. who knows where
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:50:41 UTC No. 16096217
>>16096128
>I don't think it'll be enough of a difference to contribute to order-of-magnitude cost advantages in the immediate future
Okay? If Starship is exactly as expensive as Vulcan per GEO launch it still eats Vulcan's lunch because Starship has room to launch multiple 5 tonne sattelites at a time. There's no need for Starship + tug to cost 1/10th of Vulcan for it to win. Also my estimate is that Starship + tug would cost millions less than Vulcan to GEO, keep in mind.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:52:05 UTC No. 16096222
https://spacenews.com/msr-highlight
>MSR, though, is just the latest in a series of ambitious NASA science missions that have suffered delays and overruns, such as the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). โNASA struggles to develop complete, credible and transparent estimatesโ for such missions, said George Scott, the agencyโs acting inspector general. That is linked at least in part to a โculture of optimismโ that causes it to underestimate the challenges such missions face.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:52:41 UTC No. 16096225
>>16096212
Probably won't be big enough to justify the expense of developing a Starship clone. Could probably be launched well enough on a Falcon 9 clone, or perhaps even on an expendable. Especially since the launch orders would be split up between multiple launch companies.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:55:50 UTC No. 16096233
>>16096209
the goal of work is to collect a good paycheck, not to waste your life working all day, hence why nasa is a good place to work
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:56:03 UTC No. 16096234
>>16096225
yeah, but a F9 clone should be developed anyway as a stepping stone before going for a Starship clone
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:56:28 UTC No. 16096235
>>16096189
an ssto, or the upper stage on a normal rocket which is intended to land on earth. Aerospikes are kind of trash in all regimes, theyonly make sense when you absolutely need to do a burn at sea level but also spend ages burning in space.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:56:47 UTC No. 16096236
>>16096128
>The reason I mention cadence is that a higher cadence allows you to spread annual fixed costs on many launches.
I estimate Starship will cost around $25m to launch from day 1 of reusability, before "high cadence" is achieved (though calling ~12 launches/year of the largest rocket ever low cadence seems kinda wrong and silly).
The cost of continuing to develop Starship & build more etc doesn't need to be covered by Starship launches, there's literally no incentive for SpaceX to take that strategy. They have enough money to build & fly Starship expendable NOW, and with Starlink imminently becoming a cash cow there's no reason to think SpaceX will be strapped for funding, especially as they phase out the relatively more expensive F9 Starlink launches for Starship Starlink launches.
Generating more early market interest in Starship by making it available for less than a Falcon 9 launch makes perfect sense if they want to guarantee Starship is massively successful, which they obviously do want.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:56:48 UTC No. 16096237
>>16096216
It probably wouldn't survive reentry very well unless it deliberately keeps the heat shield in the right orientation. But okay. So consider reliable engine relight as a priority. Remaining parts of reentry don't need to be prioritized at the same level.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 16:57:25 UTC No. 16096239
>>16095390
3000 cubic meters is not 3 cubic kilometers, you buffoon
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:03:21 UTC No. 16096252
>>16096239
idiot.
Kilo means thousand.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:04:14 UTC No. 16096253
>>16096246
Finally, black gay transsexuals in space.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:06:11 UTC No. 16096260
>>16096217
You still need to develop and test a lot of stuff for that, such as a deployment and stacking mechanism for multiple satellites and the necessary tugs. Hence schedule risk.
Anyway, is SpaceX even interested in allocating development resources and testing effort on such an Ariane 5 style stop-gap solution? Is there any sign that they are trying?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:07:18 UTC No. 16096262
>>16096222
The decadal survey literally begged NASA to cap MSR spending and they still fucked it up
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:08:25 UTC No. 16096268
>>16096252
>american education
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:08:31 UTC No. 16096269
>>16096254
Nigger in the general
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:10:39 UTC No. 16096273
>>16096268
works on my machine
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:11:29 UTC No. 16096274
>>16096273
your machine is as stupid as you are
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:12:42 UTC No. 16096275
>>16096274
I think you are just confused
check it again
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:13:09 UTC No. 16096277
>>16096274
Xir, you should know by now that 1 km^3 is 1000 m^3 just like how 1 km is 1000m and 1 km^2 is 1000 m^2
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:13:10 UTC No. 16096278
>>16095962
Better to be a prick telling the truth than a retard drawing up some delusional โteam spaceโ fantasy
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:14:53 UTC No. 16096280
>>16096275
brainlet
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:15:23 UTC No. 16096282
>>16096280
Newfag
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:15:38 UTC No. 16096283
>>16096280
you're the one who can't into metric prefixes
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:15:50 UTC No. 16096284
>>16096280
sir there is no need to get upset
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:16:05 UTC No. 16096286
>>16096282
brainlet
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:17:01 UTC No. 16096287
Cubic kilometer might be my favorite joke because it's both funny and an instant litmus test.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:17:38 UTC No. 16096289
>>16094957
They will run out of money before Starship ever reaches the Moon, let alone Mars.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:17:42 UTC No. 16096290
>>16096286
You dont have to pretend like youre smart. You can just be the midwit socially inept retard you are and admit it, and stay quiet while the rest of /sci/ teaches you. Its called lurking, maybe do it newfag.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:18:10 UTC No. 16096292
>>16096290
brainlet
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:18:43 UTC No. 16096293
>>16096287
Why the fuck would you tell this retarded newfag that its a joke?? Youre ruining the fun what the fuck is wrong with you
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:19:45 UTC No. 16096294
>>16096293
Oh? If you're such an oldfag then please tell me why a cubic kilometer is funny.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:20:21 UTC No. 16096295
>>16096143
A raptor clone isn't required to build a Starship-alike vehicle though. It could be done with gas generator engines. Raptor is only necessary if you want your Starahip clone to also work as a Moon and Mars transport vehicle, if you just want to compete for Earth orbits you don't need that high Isp.
If I were in charge of bringing euro launch out of the stone age, I'd be demanding a high TWR methalox gas generator engine (think methalox Merlin but likely not as good), to be developed alongside an 8 to 10 meter diameter single stick 2 stage rocket, with plenty of hardware burst and crush testing, again basically copying Starbase development methods. I want my engine to achieve 300 Isp at sea level and 320 in space, with a vacuum variant that gets 350 Isp. I want it to produce betwen 1 and 2 MN of thrust.
My rocket's gonna land the booster on legs nearby the launch mount. My rocket is gonna have an upper stage with a Starship-like entry method, but it'll also land on legs nearby the launch mount. Nothing crazy. I don't want to try to beat Starship yet, I want to beat everyone else.
Upper stage total mass of 800 tonnes, burnout mass of 80 tonnes, payload of 55 tonnes. Delta V of 5900 m/s. Future upgrades reduce dry mass & increase payload.
Stack liftoff mass of 3000 tonnes, burnout mass of 900 tonnes, Delta V of 3600 m/s.
These figures were calcuated with reserve propellant masses for landing.
Booster requires 15 engines at 2.5 MN each. Upper stage requires 3 engines, 2 vacuum one sea level, 2.5 MN each. Will require a hoverslam landing but F9 does this routinely, others can do make it work too.
Result is a fully reusable rocket with no coking issues, no requirement for FFSC engines, approximately 60% of the liftoff mass of Starship with ~30% of the payload, absolutely mogs all non Starship launchers and has room to be upgraded over time as well.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:20:39 UTC No. 16096296
>>16096277
Depends on whether it is k(m^3) or (km)^3
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:20:40 UTC No. 16096297
>>16096293
it's not a joke. kilo means thousand. even american schoolchildren learn this
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:21:31 UTC No. 16096298
>>16096296
Kek
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:21:46 UTC No. 16096299
yeah it's a kilo-cubic meter
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:22:48 UTC No. 16096301
>>16096151
Starship doesn't need to pay for itself in the short term. SpaceX is willing to invest billions into Starship forever if necessary, and they can afgord to do so. They have a massive incentive to get Starship working and deploying payloads, but not because they want to recoup their investment asap.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:23:48 UTC No. 16096304
>>16096170
Expending Starship does not mean leaving it in orbit. It means using it to torpedo sea life.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:23:55 UTC No. 16096305
>>16096295
something with Raptor like thrust density is necessary if you want a SHLV that is optimized for RTLS
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:26:23 UTC No. 16096307
>>16096189
Earth's atmosphere isn't enough of an issue for aerospikes to be worth the mass gain. Stoke has the only vehicle that is using an aerospike for real benefits, and it's not because it's better propulsion. They're using it because it can double as an actively cooled heat shield.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:27:04 UTC No. 16096308
>>16096301
is that why they keep raising funding rounds and musk sets absurd goals? spacex is a money burning party with the only thing propping it up being musks bombastic promises.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:27:09 UTC No. 16096309
>>16096295
>15 engines at 2.5 MN each
this strikes me a pretty big ask
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:27:46 UTC No. 16096311
>>16096202
The payload door is not a significant priority because it's not a hard problem to solve.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:29:18 UTC No. 16096315
>>16096233
t. euro
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:31:57 UTC No. 16096317
>>16096260
>Hence schedule risk
I'm sorry are you referring to why payload providers aren't going to pick Starship over Vulcan *today*? Or are you trying to talk about operational Starship vs Vulcan in 2 to 3 years from now? I'm talking about the latter case, which may as well be tomorrow as far as ULA is concerned.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:34:26 UTC No. 16096327
>>16096311
I feel sorry for you lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:34:28 UTC No. 16096328
>>16096305
It's not, you can make your stage wider and shorter to fit more engines.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:35:43 UTC No. 16096330
>>16096328
N1 proved this strategy always fails lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:36:59 UTC No. 16096333
>>16096330
nope
are you retarded?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:37:28 UTC No. 16096334
>>16096309
Would you be more comfy if I told you that's less than 3x the power output of a Merlin 1D and the engines can be physically much larger because this rocket has a proportionally higher diameter? 2.5 MN is less thrust than an RS-68, using a denser and warmer propellant than hydrolox.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:37:29 UTC No. 16096335
>>16096330
>always
did it though?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:37:42 UTC No. 16096336
>>16096333
Are you retarded???
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:38:43 UTC No. 16096337
>>16096330
Starship proves it works fine
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:40:00 UTC No. 16096338
I like how the purposefully inflammatory bait posts in this general are almost always completely ignored
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:40:55 UTC No. 16096341
>>16096336
N1 wasn't an engine problem, it was a computer problem
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:41:57 UTC No. 16096342
>>16096309
If the Delta IV main engine could achieve 3 MN burning hydrogen I don't see why a different gas generator engine getting 2.5 MN burning methane would be so hard.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:42:01 UTC No. 16096343
>>16096328
Do you realise how wide your rocket would be with ~30 BE-4?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:43:43 UTC No. 16096347
>>16096295
>>16096309
>>16096334
>>16096342
The real reason that design is totally unrealistic is because it assumes euros could mass produce a cheap rocket engine lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:44:58 UTC No. 16096349
>>16096342
Look at how big DIV's tanks are, now scale that to 15 engines.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:48:21 UTC No. 16096355
>>16096341
and those engines had such a great track record with a different computer running the show
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:48:42 UTC No. 16096357
NSF is 5k subs away from a million
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:49:15 UTC No. 16096359
>>16096355
chickenshit journalists
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:49:49 UTC No. 16096361
https://x.com/Int_Machines/status/1
>As previously announced on February 29th, our IM-1 mission ended seven days after landing, as Odysseusโ mission was not intended to survive the harsh temperatures of the lunar night.
>As of March 23rd at 1030 A.M. Central Standard Time, flight controllers decided their projections were correct, and Odieโs power system would not complete another call home. This confirms that Odie has permanently faded after cementing its legacy into history as the first commercial lunar lander to land on the Moon.
Rest in peace, little buddy.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:54:18 UTC No. 16096367
>>16096295
I guess you could build a worse version of Starship that uses simpler gas generator engines. It used to be Relativity's plan with Terran-R. It is similar to CAS Space's plan with Kinetica-3. They say 1.5MN kox engines (GG or ORSC, they don't say), diameter 6.6m, liftoff mass ~1,950t, payload 20t. Although they don't have any hardware for it yet; they just have a rough notional render.
However, with a worse engine, your payload mass will be worse. This is especially painful when so much mass on your upper stage is already dedicated to reusability. So the benefits of full reuse become a lot less. I also think an FFSC engine is very beneficial for long engine life, quick turnaround and minimal refurbishment, because it sidesteps the issue of interpropellant seals starting to leak, and turbopumps can run at lower temperature and pressure.
So such a half-way solution with GG engines might be hard to justify if you have to face direct competition from SpaceX. And that kind of investment into reusability would still be hard to justify unless you have a large amount of guaranteed payloads that are safe from competition from SpaceX, allowing you to have the high cadence that lets you to reap greater benefit from full reusability than the price you pay for it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:57:20 UTC No. 16096375
>>16096311
You could be right. Fixing the door is a top priority in the same sense that breathing is a top priority. It's not something you mention explicitly, because it's just an implied truth, and it's not something you'd usually worry about being able to do.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:57:54 UTC No. 16096377
>>16096343
It'd only need 16 BE-4s anon, BE-4 is a 2.4 MN engine and that rocket needs ~37.5 MN.
On a 9 meter diameter rocket there's room for a ring of 12 and a center cluster of 4, all BE-4 sized, with no parts sticking out into the air stream.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:59:45 UTC No. 16096385
>>16096355
>antares blowing up was 10 years ago
I feel sick.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:00:23 UTC No. 16096387
>>16096317
Yes
At the start of this comment chain, I wrote that it depended on how fast Starship matures
>>16095952
I also earlier wrote that
>>16095959
I was talking about the next ~5 years, and that it would be very hard to argue that Vulcan has any advantage over Starship in the long term. So that's what the type of discussion I thought I was having.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:00:25 UTC No. 16096388
>>16096349
RS-68 is an example of a gas generator engine that makes around the level of thrust I was talking about. Its tank mass is irrelevant because hydrolox is far less dense than methalox.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:01:23 UTC No. 16096391
>>16096239
newfag
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:03:26 UTC No. 16096397
>>16096387
Be more clear next time. Also, I stated that Starship will be capable of GEO launches 2 to 3 years from now at most, referring to the fact that Starship propellant transfer is slated to be a routinely used technology by then.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:09:30 UTC No. 16096409
>>16096397
>is slated to be
Well, that's the problem, isn't it.
You can ask people to place orders without offering a large schedule risk premium discount in 2-3 years when that routine propellant transfer is being routinely demonstrated
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:12:23 UTC No. 16096412
>>16096409
>schedule risk premium discount
That became weird. What I meant was a discount that compensates the risk caused by the schedule risk, conceptually similar to a risk premium
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:15:34 UTC No. 16096418
>>16096409
prop transfer between Starships will be demo'd before march of next year, and at that point the only barrier to GEO Starship launch will be a big door and asking if providers who bought a GTO Falcon 9 launch would prefer to swap to a Starship GEO launch, possibly at a discount. To be clear, I'm arguing Starship will likely start doing GEO payload launches 2 to 3 years from now, not that people will start buying Starship GEO launches 2-3 years from now that will happen in 4 to 5 years.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:16:48 UTC No. 16096420
https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight
BRAAAAAAAAAAP
Nominal static fire complete
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:16:50 UTC No. 16096421
>>16096412
I don't agree that there will be a risk to launch schedule. Starship will likely have the most indisruptible launch schedule of any rocket in history by then.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:19:29 UTC No. 16096424
lel tiles missing
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:21:00 UTC No. 16096427
>>16096367
CZ-9 is a forever 10 years out rocket
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:22:27 UTC No. 16096431
>>16096388
>dry mass is irrelevant
Oh no, it's retarded!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:28:14 UTC No. 16096446
>>16096420
I could never watch that stream but appreciate the update, thank you for your service
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:29:53 UTC No. 16096450
>>16096431
I know you're being a trolling fag, but I'm going to reiterate anyway that specifi ally the size of the Delta IV's tanks are irrelevant, because a methalox rocket with a 2.5 MN engine would require much smaller tanks, because methalox is denser.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:45:18 UTC No. 16096474
>>16094957
Realistically, Starship to Mars by 2040. Starship got rerouted to be a lunar payload servicer and will waste decades milking NASA contracts there
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:45:41 UTC No. 16096475
Contact is a terrible movie lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:46:45 UTC No. 16096479
>>16094967
His best stuff is on colonizing Mars. Very insightful analysis of how much stuff you would have to send there to create a self-sufficient supply chain and the extreme labor crunch that such a colony would have.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:47:05 UTC No. 16096481
>>16096474
2040 seems really excessively far out there. I think SpaceX will likely start tossing uncrewed Starships at Mars before 2030.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:47:07 UTC No. 16096482
https://europeanspaceflight.com/fra
>This week, the French government is expected to announce that it will commit to purchasing the first flights aboard the rockets of four of the countryโs launch startups.
Would be exciting if these were not all small lift.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:48:15 UTC No. 16096485
>>16096479
Does he factor in much in terms of robotic labor?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 18:53:44 UTC No. 16096496
>>16096485
From what I recall, there is basically no way to create a self-sufficient colony without massive automation. You don't realize how many specialized processes go into modern supply chains until you start to tally them up. With refueling, a Starship can send about three tractor trailer loads worth of stuff at a time. So figure out how to fit an entire country's supply chain worth of specialized equipment in as few tractor trailers as possible.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:09:05 UTC No. 16096518
>>16096050
Why invent when you can copy a success? Stagnation and complacency is a hell of a drug.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:10:06 UTC No. 16096519
>>16096246
>May 1
It's gonna scrub.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:15:05 UTC No. 16096527
>>16096496
Actually I completely understand precisely how many specialized processes go into modern techmology in total
>t. knower
Anyway cool, just making sure he isn't one of those "technology will remain frozen at its current state throughout this decades long Mars settlement effort" people.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:16:47 UTC No. 16096530
>>16096519
Shut up chud it will fly flawlessly unlike NaziX with Hitlon Musk
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:17:32 UTC No. 16096531
>>16096519
Screen grabbed for the spaceX muskrat cope collection
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:18:05 UTC No. 16096533
>>16096518
Copying a success is a good way to remain relevant when your current most advanced rocket was designed to compete in a market state that hasn't existed for about a decade and is about to change in a way that makes said rocket even less viable by an even larger degree
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:19:03 UTC No. 16096535
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:19:22 UTC No. 16096536
Post your reactions when Starliner shits the bed again
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:20:34 UTC No. 16096540
>>16096535
How much money is he getting?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:20:54 UTC No. 16096542
>>16096536
>Post your reactions when Starliner shits the bed again
>t.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:22:56 UTC No. 16096547
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:23:43 UTC No. 16096548
>>16096533
>remain relevant
It's really not a good way considering the lead time it takes to actually design, test and build the rocket in question. By the time it's ready for its first test flight, it's obsolete.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:24:03 UTC No. 16096550
>>16096546
I was actually surprised CSS is this clueless
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:25:00 UTC No. 16096551
>>16096550
Next you'll be surprised the sun rises in the east.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:25:43 UTC No. 16096554
>>16096550
His argument for the spin was 1 atm of air leftover in the cargo bay.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:26:22 UTC No. 16096557
>>16096546
huh
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:33:53 UTC No. 16096563
>>16095816
what is this god forsaken diagram?
>no axis labels
>5 4 3 1 2 0
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:34:13 UTC No. 16096564
>>16096554
If there was 1 atm in there, that thing would fuck up a lot worse than the little jiggle we saw on the door.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:35:40 UTC No. 16096565
>Starship, according to this animation, the system is supposed to release starlink satellites through the side of the craft to deploy them into orbit. Of course in order to do that, as seen in the animation, the ship would have to be flying perpendicular to the earth. Otherwise the satellites would either be shot out into space or fired right back down into the planet.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:38:04 UTC No. 16096567
>>16096535
https://twitter.com/TheBabylonBee/s
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:40:20 UTC No. 16096569
>>16096548
Option A is to do business as usual and die.
Option B is to copy the thing that's going to eat the market, ie Starship.
Option C is to attempt something even more ambitious than Starship.
Option A is obviously bad and I doubt anyone has the capacity to do option C. I dunno if Option C is even feasible. At least if you pick Option B early enough you have a chance to arrive on the market with a Starship clone before anyone else and absorb the "anyone but SpaceX" interests
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:41:51 UTC No. 16096573
>>16096565
I wonder if CSS will lose subscriber over this
More likely his fanbase is just as clueless
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:42:33 UTC No. 16096574
>>16096573
>More likely his fanbase is just as clueless
That was always the case. It's the same with Phil's audience.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:44:31 UTC No. 16096576
>>16096573
You serious? LMAO. Grifters like these just gets more followers. There are 8 billion people in this world. 30% of them are below 80IQ. Thats 2 billion people.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:47:16 UTC No. 16096579
>>16096563
> on a space thread
> doesn't know right ascension and declination
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:47:36 UTC No. 16096580
>>16096166
>it's near impossible to migrate from the UK to the US
no, it isnt. it is one of the easiest pathways to a visa. especially if you have a high value career
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:47:55 UTC No. 16096581
>>16095852
>Over in Brownsville, Malinalli โMaliโโ Montesam, manager of the Brownsville Convention and Visitors Bureau, said the city is creating an Office of Space Commerce that will be part of the bureau. The effort began in October.
>Its goal is โbasically bringing in and attracting more tourism related to space tourism,โ she said, โand getting organizations that can provide services to the space industry to establish here in the city.โ
sounds like they need a science museum/district. putting it downtown near the university would probably be a good spot.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:56:58 UTC No. 16096589
>>16096576
I was taking the piss lol, any chance to clown on CSS & his retarded followers
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:57:07 UTC No. 16096590
>>16096014
>The companies can't fund R&D with margins on commercial orders because they'll be competing with incumbents like SpaceX
This is an important part. The environment SpaceX started in no longer exists as there is actual strong competition in the industry from SpaceX so any group that's looking to get in now basically has to leapfrog spaceship to compete in the market. SpaceX has the performance, reliability and the US market selling their product while a newcomer from europe would have none of those.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:57:12 UTC No. 16096591
>>16096565
>fired right back down into the planet
Starship confirmed to be a military 'Rods from God' deployment platform.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:57:50 UTC No. 16096592
>>16096535
It worked last time!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 19:58:58 UTC No. 16096594
>>16096565
Its not that he's dumb, its just that he's so incredibly dumb that he doesn't even know that he's dumb.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:04:11 UTC No. 16096598
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:04:48 UTC No. 16096599
>>16096579
>spacing an arrow
>posting a nigger
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:07:50 UTC No. 16096602
>>16096347
Euros make jet engines with wizard-tier metallurgy. Why can't they make rocket engines?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:11:30 UTC No. 16096607
>>16096599
> embarrassed by lack of knowledge of astronomical coordinate systems
> posts an irrelevance followed by a falsehood
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:18:23 UTC No. 16096611
>>16096427
That's because the rocket called "CZ-9" keeps getting cancelled and replaced by a new, more ambitious rocket with the same name
CZ-10 is what the original CZ-9 was, and it's still NET 2027
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:21:27 UTC No. 16096617
>>16095916
this is a good post, just point your heat shield at the sun and if you need to heat up spin around
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:26:24 UTC No. 16096621
>>16096594
>so incredibly dumb that he doesn't even know that he's dumb.
That's not really incredible, it's just standard human behavior
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:29:26 UTC No. 16096623
>>16096166
Becoming a trucker might be the easiest way to migrate to USA, after jumping the border.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:32 UTC No. 16096626
>>16096621
Standard human behavior isn't to dedicate years worth of effort to seethe endlessly on something for which you know nothing about. It takes a real special person.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:32:58 UTC No. 16096629
>>16096474
I think most people are underestimating the difficulty of Mars colonization...
Musk's Mars colonization mission is a joke (this isn't a swipe at Starship btw).
The Mars base is a massive system engineering project (Saturn V is a 2-300000 personnel project with over 20k suppliers). Even if SpaceX completely solves the problem of Starship, the US can't in its current state achieve large-scale extraterrestrial space infrastructure projects.
Such an undertaking requires a complete revamping of our space industrial base, ie. requiring the collaborative technical expertise of >100,000+ personnel to carry out a 10-20 year plan in order to achieve it.
I like SpaceX but this ain't it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:34:20 UTC No. 16096632
>>16096629
mean for >>16096481
2040 is somewhat more feasible
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:35:09 UTC No. 16096633
>>16096166
Find love in Mississipi or Louisiana.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:40:56 UTC No. 16096638
>>16096474
lol
Fat chance.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:42:38 UTC No. 16096643
>>16096569
>I dunno if Option C is even feasible.
Orion.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:42:56 UTC No. 16096645
>>16096474
Fortunately, NASA contracts are pennies compared to Starlink/DoD
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:43:05 UTC No. 16096646
>>16096638
Yeah you would know about being fat wouldnt you tubby. Jelly belly. Porky. Lardo. Fat nips. Jabba the fat.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:43:53 UTC No. 16096647
>>16096629
>Musk's Mars colonization mission is a joke
the real joke is how hard we force space to be. mars rovers cost billions of dollars. bomb disposal robots cost hundreds of thousands. modify one with low-offgassing components and some solar panels. done. the same is almost certainly true for every other thing we throw into space. how much do saturation diver habitats cost? I'll bet it's several orders of magnitude less than space station modules. no need for the hundreds of thousands of personnel of apollo.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:48:41 UTC No. 16096650
I just saw a video by NSF:
IFT-4 gearing up? is it true??
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:48:45 UTC No. 16096651
>>16096621
turns out this effect isn't actually real
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:48:59 UTC No. 16096652
>>16096643
Oh please
(nta)
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:49:52 UTC No. 16096654
>>16096650
Yes, we're 6 weeks away from launch.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:50:00 UTC No. 16096655
>>16096564
Wouldn't it have reverse vacuum sealed the door shut? Would the door have been strong enough to push back against that force?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:50:00 UTC No. 16096656
>>16096650
Yup, two weeks
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:58:22 UTC No. 16096662
>>16096651
Really? I see it in action all the time.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 20:58:28 UTC No. 16096663
its getting worse now, there are multiple replies asking to debunk the comment by CSS
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:01:36 UTC No. 16096665
>>16096602
Arianespace
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:02:19 UTC No. 16096666
>>16096662
ignorant and overconfident people exist yes, but that is different from that valley of overconfidence being a thing
its an artifact of the data
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/c
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:04:30 UTC No. 16096669
>>16096666
after having done no research on dunning-kruger myself I can assure you it is a real phenomenon.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:07:37 UTC No. 16096671
>>16096629
>>16096632
You are conflating Mars crew missions and base building with full settlement building. It does not take a work force of hundreds of thousands to enable Starship to keep a dozen people alive on Mars and safely return them to Earth, nor does it take that to allow Starship to deploy inflatable surface habitats on Mars to be buried in dirt and permanently inhabited by rotaring crews.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:09:47 UTC No. 16096674
>>16096666
>probably not real
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:10:09 UTC No. 16096675
>>16096643
muh nuclear test ban treaty
Really though it'd be cool if someone had the balls to build a U-235/Pu-241 pellet-fission nuclear pulse engine capable of a high enough TWR that vehicles could use it for Earth launch. It'd be fucking expensive though.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:11:49 UTC No. 16096678
>>16096674
again ignorance and overconfidence vs dunnin-kruger effect which is supposedly about people with some specific amount of knowledge being extremely overconfident in general
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:12:58 UTC No. 16096680
>>16096674
What he means by not real is that the typical "mount stupid" graph that goes around isn't how it works.
It's more like this.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:13:06 UTC No. 16096681
>>16096602
Politicians can't agree on funding anything else than what they're currently doing, and there's not much of a business case for private investors
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:15:53 UTC No. 16096686
>>16096654
bit pessimistic considering they are launching 9 times this year (Gwynne said)
>>16096656
more like it
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:16:08 UTC No. 16096687
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cva
>SpaceX Ship 29 Engine Test
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:17:41 UTC No. 16096688
>>16096647
Factual. Also, contrary to popular belief, keeping a habutat volume stable and capable of supporting life gets significantly easier at greater scale. Equipment that scrubs CO2 for example can be bigger, simpler, AND less reliable, because with a 10,000 m^3 air buffer, it'd take literal weeks of zero CO2 removal for it to build up enough to become hazardous. Furthermore, with a big ass facility and big ass rocket transport, it's easy to store several years' supply of emergency chemical CO2 scrubber packs in a closet somewhere, to back up your three redundant cold-trap CO2 removers and the dozens of spare parts for each of those units. CO2 being an easier issue to fix is just one example of factors that get less "works or you die" the bigger you make your base.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:18:01 UTC No. 16096689
>>16096687
Sounds like the honk has been firmly tamed.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:19:01 UTC No. 16096691
>>16096680
This is a graph of tech in every era. People think they are supreme despite being cavemen, then they get jetpacks and think the world is doom blackpill soros while they use their galaxy-hopping button.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:19:53 UTC No. 16096693
>Full duration static fire of all six engines
https://twitter.com/spacex/status/1
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:20:26 UTC No. 16096694
>>16096680
What is the x-axis here?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:20:28 UTC No. 16096695
>>16096686
Well Gwynne also believes in FTL.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:21:04 UTC No. 16096697
WE GAAN
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:21:45 UTC No. 16096699
>>16096695
she also has boobs and is cute :3
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:22:07 UTC No. 16096700
>>16096694
Same as >>16096621
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:22:59 UTC No. 16096702
>>16096694
just rank order I guess
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:23:46 UTC No. 16096703
>>16096479
>>16094967
>>16094990
>>16094999
>>16095001
Casey Handjob is a hack.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:24:06 UTC No. 16096704
>>16096655
yes, the force pushing against that door would have been in the ballpark of 2 MN, waaaay too much for the actuators to pull against. I'm basing that off of 101,000 Pa pressure acting on a door 1.5m by 13m, or 19.5 meters squared. Since 1 Pa is defined as 1 newton acting on 1 square meter, 101,000 Pa means 101 kN per square meter, and that door has almost 20 square meters of area.
I doubt that payload bay held more than a few dozen pascals by the time they tried opening it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:25:13 UTC No. 16096705
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:27:35 UTC No. 16096709
>>16096705
Caseyfags plz go
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:28:53 UTC No. 16096710
>>16096700
In one graph, "actual" (competence) is on the x-axis, and "perceived" (confidence) is on the y-axis. In essence, confidence is a function of competence.
In the other graph, what does it mean that "actual" and "perceived" are different lines? What are they functions of?
Or do you mean that "actual" and "perceived" are something entirely different than "competence" and "competence"?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:29:02 UTC No. 16096711
>>16096709
Basedey Handmer shits all over you. Solar is already mogging nuclear. Goodbye
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:29:11 UTC No. 16096712
>>16096629
>(Saturn V is a 2-300000 personnel project with over 20k suppliers)
Starahip is a far more impressive vehicle and has something like 2% of that work force involved. Things have changed since Apollo my man, I cannot stress enough how much better our ability to model shit and manufacture shit has become since the fucking 60's lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:30:16 UTC No. 16096714
>>16096709
>flips off cameraman
>later gets set on fire and fucking dies
coincidence?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:31:39 UTC No. 16096715
>>16096714
karma.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:33:04 UTC No. 16096716
why does it take 6 weeks to prepare the booster?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:34:26 UTC No. 16096718
>>16096714
>>16096715
Masonic human sacrifice, its common knowledge
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:36:59 UTC No. 16096721
>>16096720
Crispy.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:38:01 UTC No. 16096723
>>16096716
Oh it gonna take much longer than that loool
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:38:05 UTC No. 16096724
>>16096720
fucking served
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:38:58 UTC No. 16096725
>>16094957
would just hitting it qualify?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:40:07 UTC No. 16096727
>>16096716
Because they're probably doing changes to both RCS and gridfins. Just getting the engine fire test over and done with is just ticking a box that doesn't require any extra work at this point.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:43:39 UTC No. 16096730
>>16096720
it would be so kino being in there whenit lites up
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:44:41 UTC No. 16096731
>>16096720
>when i eat indian food before flight
>and i dump ass
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:44:48 UTC No. 16096732
>>16096702
It seems the axes are indeed rankings. "Actual Test Score" line is result vs result, and "Perceived Ability" is result vs self-estimate.
I note that 12.5% is the average of 0-25%, 37.5% is the average of 25%-50%, 62.5% of 50-75% and 82.5% of 75%-100%. The "Actual Test Score" line seems like it's the same variable plotted against itself. Obviously the first quartile will have average rank value 12.5%. I don't see the point of the "Actual Test Score" graph. It's just confusing.
In any case, it doesn't have the same axes as the usual well-known Dunning-Kruger graph, so I don't see how it can be compared with it.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:57:45 UTC No. 16096740
Casey Handjob is such a bitch, he sucks my dick.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 21:58:24 UTC No. 16096741
>>16095284
Now that would be cool. They're going to want to build out a comm network anyways, why not start with one. Put a bigass relay dish in the starship and bang, they can sell bandwith to space agencies. They could also give aerobraking a go while they're at it and try to characterize what sort of performance they'd get. I wonder how deep they could dive into the Martian atmosphere but not burn up or de orbit.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:01:20 UTC No. 16096745
>>16096740
typical american, can't even form a structured thought without imagining gay sex.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:04:06 UTC No. 16096749
>>16094957
Mars will land on Starship and crush it
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:05:06 UTC No. 16096751
>>16096740
I assume you're the same guy who posts about trannies every other time you post. You truly need to seek help, this os not normal or healthy to be thinking about
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:05:08 UTC No. 16096752
>>16096709
crazy how the astronauts were born into a world without cars, planes, computers, etc. but they were on the moon by middle age. civilization has stagnated since then, but luckily elon is helping to drag us back onto the right path.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:05:22 UTC No. 16096753
>>16094999
Because getting it from the ground is cheaper
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:07:12 UTC No. 16096756
>>16096752
>the astronauts were born into a world without cars, planes
No they weren't zoom zoom
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:08:13 UTC No. 16096757
>>16096752
You could argue that Elon is a founding father of rocketry and cars
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:09:02 UTC No. 16096758
>>16095144
Why tf are people so obsessed with labeling a development test flight as a failure or a success. That label only makes sense with a certification test flight or an operational flight. There is no "mission"
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:10:29 UTC No. 16096760
Why not pave the oceans with solar panels?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:11:20 UTC No. 16096761
>>16096716
It contains secret Martian technology that they don't fully understand
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:12:00 UTC No. 16096762
>>16096760
why not pave the oceans with concrete?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:12:31 UTC No. 16096763
>>16096758
Because they either don't understand iterative testing or willfully choose to ignore it. The average person only sees a new rocket from "NASA" that doesn't explode the first time, completely ignorant that it's using old parts and have been computer simulated for 3 decades before they even heard of it. They don't know about exploding steel Atlases and whatnot that led to the conservative and safe rockets that bureaucracy puts out.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:13:50 UTC No. 16096766
>>16095650
>MOAR BOOSTERZ
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:14:15 UTC No. 16096767
>>16096712
How do you count work force? How do you count upstream suppliers? What counts as a supplier?
Don't, for example, the computers and software stack that SpaceX uses count as part of SpaceX's supply chain? There are hundreds of thousands or even millions of people involved in making that supply chain work
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:15:03 UTC No. 16096769
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:17:31 UTC No. 16096770
>>16096769
Based Mars poster
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:19:27 UTC No. 16096772
>>16096767
I really hope you're a troll making that argument in bad faith. No, they don't count.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:31:14 UTC No. 16096780
>>16096760
horrific environmental consequences
>>16096762
costs too much
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:32:19 UTC No. 16096784
>>16096767
no that shit doesn't count, those are tools.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:43:02 UTC No. 16096794
>>16094990
>The SLS is such a monumental, epochal failure at every possible level that at any level itโs self-similar โ a fractal.
fucking lol
Everyone involved in the SLS chain of production or management should be forced to read this.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:44:40 UTC No. 16096797
>Armstrong was 39 when he walked on the moon
What the fuck
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:45:22 UTC No. 16096798
>>16096797
how old did you expect him to be?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:51:49 UTC No. 16096805
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 22:56:41 UTC No. 16096810
>>16096803
how delusional. It will take at least 6 months.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:03:23 UTC No. 16096816
>>16096803
No way the current pad infrastructure can support more launches a year, they just scrapped the Florida pad too.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:08:27 UTC No. 16096818
>>16096816
shiit. thats bad. looks like they are in a money crunch. no wonder they are no longer building prototypes.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:14:58 UTC No. 16096824
>>16096803
I effortpost, get 4 likes
Elon says yeah, 400+ likes
reeeee eat the rich etc
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:16:17 UTC No. 16096828
>>16096810
>>16096816
>>16096818
see you in may!
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:36:11 UTC No. 16096852
>>16096629
Musk is fully aware that he's unlikely to succeed before he dies, but what he's most interested in is building the capability to make it so that its impossible to regress. Think of it less of laying the track to Mars and more of building a steam locomotion with track to the Moon instead. Once the first track and the first locomotion is put into service, its capability over the horse is so materially significant, that EVERYONE would want one of their own; and if everyone wants to replace the horse, then the mass volume of its implementation will all but ensure that the long term plans will succeed eventually.
Also remember that Starship is an architecture being built for the next generation of humans and the generation that follows them, GenZ and Gen Alpha. The boomers will be dead in the next 10-20 years tops. GenX another 10-20 years after that. What matters is having the technology and means to empower GenZ and Gen Alpha to take control of the stars, away from the bureaucratic faggotry of Boomers and GenX.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:38:56 UTC No. 16096854
>>16096852
Delusional
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:40:10 UTC No. 16096857
>>16096854
>being a cynic
you should kill yourself right now
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:42:45 UTC No. 16096859
>>16096857
Enjoy your disappointment :)
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:50:52 UTC No. 16096872
>>16096852
>>16096857
Musk is just worried about lining his own pocket. It was all bullshit from the beginnning and he is just a good showman. thats the painful truth. remember when he said they would do launches to mars every launch window once falcon heavy was up and running? remind me how many theyve done? now remind me of how many missions to mrs are ACTUALLY being planned for starship?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:51:24 UTC No. 16096873
>an entire f9 launch with no posts about it from launch to landing
based
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:53:41 UTC No. 16096875
>>16096182
So this is Eur*peโs best attempt at a โmodernโ rocket?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:54:09 UTC No. 16096876
>>16096873
Thank God, I missed the days where rocket launches were exciting before spaceX ruined them lol
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:55:02 UTC No. 16096877
>>16096872
>lining his own pocket
>with a rocket company
>doing the hardest rocket project ever
yeah this was always cope. you might say he's doing it for attention and it would make more sense.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:56:50 UTC No. 16096879
>>16096877
rocket companies exist to line pockets. dont you shill against ula for doing exactly the grift musk is doing? think about it
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:57:06 UTC No. 16096881
>>16096872
How would you line your pockets with a company where one wrong move could set you back hundreds of millions if its just a regular payload and billions if it kills a human? This isn't Boeing.
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:58:10 UTC No. 16096883
>>16096879
>dont you shill against ula
no
>doing exactly the grift musk is doing
where is the ula starship?
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:58:41 UTC No. 16096884
>>16096873
gomenasorry. I was on the bus and couldn't get home in time.
Clear live rewatching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-g
Anonymous at Mon, 25 Mar 2024 23:59:48 UTC No. 16096885
>>16096881
>>16096877
youre too emotionally invested in a cult so i doubt you will listen to this, but i will try anyway.
Being the sole western launch provider is obviously profitable. Musk has done way more to muscle out his competition than he has done to get anything to Mars (0). Just think about it with rational eyes. What do his actions tell you? Bare in mind I was a musk fanboy back in 2013.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:00:49 UTC No. 16096889
>>16096885
Good bait I'm sure you will keep getting replies since this general sucks at not biting.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:06:33 UTC No. 16096894
>>16096870
expendable [thing other than rocket]
cubic kilometer argument
frogpost replied to by cirno post
call to cancel MSR
robert zubrin
pisslock
starlink launch going completely unnoticed
discussion of soviet rocketry getting derailed by the war in ukraine
twitter link that goes to krystal porn
twitter link that doesn't go to krystal porn that anons are treating as though it does
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:08:20 UTC No. 16096896
>>16096870
>THE NEXT 100 YEARS
>Boing
>RUD
>rocket waifus
>spaceX
>sls
>MSR
>Europa clipper
>HOP WHEN
>any /pol bait
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:08:22 UTC No. 16096897
>bait vs mentally disabled
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:09:05 UTC No. 16096898
>>16096894
Expendable astronauts
Also there is no mention of spincels or solarfags in this proving you as a full diapered pissbaby who has only been here since at best IFT-2.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:11:21 UTC No. 16096901
>>16096870
it's not that easy in x/y/z
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:12:22 UTC No. 16096904
>>16096233
How's the weather in France today?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:13:36 UTC No. 16096906
>>16096885
>Bare in mind
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:13:53 UTC No. 16096907
>>16096885
>Bare in mind
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:14:57 UTC No. 16096909
>>16096870
I forgot:
>Fuel D*pots
>The Shelby posting that follows
>That one image of a dude fueling his car, but the price board show costs for Methalox and kerosene fuels
>"the front fell off" parodies
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:15:41 UTC No. 16096911
>>16096898
>spincels
keep seething wellnigger
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:26:46 UTC No. 16096923
>>16096870
Alabama river rocks
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:29:21 UTC No. 16096927
>>16095862
Unfathomably based. Thanks, anon.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:31:56 UTC No. 16096932
>>16096870
WE
ARE
GOING
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:32:17 UTC No. 16096933
>>16096873
space is finally becoming normal
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:37:12 UTC No. 16096939
>>16096474
2032 will likely be the first mars launch unless they rush something pure pathfinder for 2029
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:39:27 UTC No. 16096943
>>16096927
you're welcome I fucked around on my phone instead of working on a legit real life project for my actual job with millions of dollars behind it which is already months late and I regret it but I'll probably do it again tomorrow because the work culture at this fucking place has destroyed my motivation to be productive oopsieeee haha I'm kinda fucked desu
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:41:02 UTC No. 16096946
>>16096939
why wait so long? They'll have early Starships by 2027 that only have a few LEO missions left in them that they could launch, fill, and send to Mars just to see how far they get.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:47:59 UTC No. 16096953
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:50:20 UTC No. 16096958
>>16096870
that deranged guy who talks about shitting himself everytime a rocket launches
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:53:10 UTC No. 16096961
>>16096953
Actually I'd say they were overdone
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:54:14 UTC No. 16096964
>>16096848
yummy food for hungies peasants U mean
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:55:17 UTC No. 16096965
>>16096870
max-qute!
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:56:22 UTC No. 16096968
>>16096870
Lunch/Launch
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:57:02 UTC No. 16096970
>>16096946
2029 is the next window
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 00:59:30 UTC No. 16096976
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLoun
shut it down
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:08:10 UTC No. 16096988
>>16096976
KILL YOURSELF REDDIT NIGGER GO BACK RIGHT FUCKING NOW IM SO SICK OF YOU FAT NIGGER DISGUSTING TOURISTS GTFO AND ANY OTHER FAGGOTS STILL LINGERING FROM IFT-3 HOLY SHIT
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:08:51 UTC No. 16096989
NET 2033
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:09:32 UTC No. 16096991
>>16096976
So SpaceX is about one launch window behind?
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:12:11 UTC No. 16096995
>>16096991
DIE YOU STUPID NIGGER FUCKING OBVIOUS SAMEFAG REPLYING TO HIS OWN POST OH MY LORD YOU NEED TO DILATE YOUR DISGUSTING AXE WOUND KILL YOURSELF TROON THE 42% ARE WAITING FOR YOU IN HELL
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:14:38 UTC No. 16097001
>>16096970
fat fingered, I meant the 2026 window
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:14:42 UTC No. 16097002
TOTAL REDDIT DEATH
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:17:42 UTC No. 16097007
>>16096607
>stupid goy posts himself
>continues to suck jewish cock
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:27:52 UTC No. 16097020
>>16096995
>>16096988
dude relax, the other reply isn't me. I just found that while image searching mars launch window and thought the commends saying there would be a ship launching to mars in 2024 were funny.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:30:46 UTC No. 16097022
>>16097001
I guess they COULD launch a pathfinder in 2026 but I'm really very dubious of that. presumably what they'd launch is some sort of iteration of moondship (legs, you're already building moondship and this is just a pathfinder)
Saying that though I guess they could launch one to Mars in 2026 if HLS is going well, maybe an earlier prototype of moonship? it would get a lot of attention and they could demonstrate refueling... and use a cybertruck for meme cargi
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:32:42 UTC No. 16097023
>>16097020
>thinking reddit is funny
yeah hes right you should kys
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:39:37 UTC No. 16097033
>>16097022
I'm not even claiming they'd try to land necessarily, just throw one or two vehicles onto a Mars flyby to test how the vehicle handles a long duration interplanetary coast while maintaining communication and maybe holding up basic HVAC control of a habitat volume with nothing in it
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:42:46 UTC No. 16097035
>>16097026
literally nobody cares. stop posting.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:44:07 UTC No. 16097037
>>16097026
Who knew the falcon 9 steamroller would end up being boring? It's so good it's become expected that it'll work without any hiccups
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:44:07 UTC No. 16097038
>>16097023
yeah sorry I think 4 year old predictions that SpaceX would be landing shit on mars today to be funny in hindsight. sue me. doubt you hysteronic fags were even here when halley's comet impacted luna
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:44:48 UTC No. 16097039
>>16097033
they wotn try that becuse they know the vehicle wont work. they cant keep it working for 45 minute coasts ff sake
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:45:05 UTC No. 16097040
>>16095390
based
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:45:31 UTC No. 16097041
>>16097033
huh, okay. how many refuelings is that, maybe we can figure out a rough cost outline. flybys are kinda gay and cuckolded though
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:48:22 UTC No. 16097043
>>16097035
No
If seeing pictures related to the topic of the thread is too much for you, maybe Reddit would be more your speed?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:50:10 UTC No. 16097045
>>16097026
the drill that pierced the heavens...
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:51:19 UTC No. 16097046
>>16097045
The goyim that fellated the hebrews
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:52:56 UTC No. 16097048
>>16097041
Flybys are gay but it'd be in SpaceX theme to just send it and get as far as they can until something fails. I'm thinking a "mission goal" of a Mars demo landing, but they don't bet on the engine relighting for the course correction that turns a flyby into an entry trajectory. Kinda like how the first Starship flight included plans for a splashdown by hawaii but SpaceX just wanted the thing to not crash back to the pad lol
Anyway I think Starship would need like 6 refillings in LEO to get to Mars, cuz if it has a dry mass of 150 tonnes and an Isp of 375 six refillings would get the wet mass over 800 which means over 6km/s of delta V.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:54:12 UTC No. 16097049
low effort troll starving for attention makes me chuckle
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:55:20 UTC No. 16097050
>>16097049
Can you point them out to us?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:55:41 UTC No. 16097051
>>16097048
so minimum 7 launches? would that be worth it over holding off and spending three more years refining the test vehicle?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:58:09 UTC No. 16097056
>>16097054
it's over. methehoax is finished
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 01:59:13 UTC No. 16097058
>>16097050
>>16097049
Anon can you please show the messages that are the low effort troll?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:04:49 UTC No. 16097062
>>16097051
I am fairly certain it would be worth the effort, yes. 7 launches of Starship at that point will likely cost less than any of the current Starship flight tests
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:06:13 UTC No. 16097064
https://youtu.be/sgkahtmSwek
major new eager kino
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:08:59 UTC No. 16097065
>>16097054
The best pad is no pad
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:09:27 UTC No. 16097066
>>16096380
also good for puking
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:14:08 UTC No. 16097068
>>16097058
all posts I don't like or agree with are low effort trolls and all posts I make or agree with are high effort
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:16:36 UTC No. 16097072
>>16097064
I don't like eagerspace. his youtube profile is like a creepy mask. it's icky
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:22:57 UTC No. 16097076
Houston bros we have a UFO on our hands
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:24:49 UTC No. 16097078
https://www.space.com/darpa-northro
kek. Burgers have proven incapable of building decent trains since the steam era, why would they suddenly build one on the moon.
This has to be the most BS excuse ever to pile money on a defense contractor..
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:29:30 UTC No. 16097082
>>16097026
Camera angle obscures ion tail
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:31:33 UTC No. 16097084
the moon is the 51st state
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:44:16 UTC No. 16097099
>>16097072
close your eyes little one
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:45:32 UTC No. 16097101
>>16097078
Why not give it to amtrak if we're just padding pockets
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:50:08 UTC No. 16097110
>>16097105
the only thing I miss is the dead astronauts. I don't understand the reusable astronauts meme
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:00:03 UTC No. 16097123
jenny death when?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:11:26 UTC No. 16097129
janny death when?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:12:50 UTC No. 16097133
>>16097129
Danny jeath when?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:15:09 UTC No. 16097137
>>16097123
I Break Mirrors with My Face in the United States
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:18:40 UTC No. 16097141
>>16096107
>expendable CEOs
>>16097078
US train problems boil down to land ownership / eminent domain problems and govt mismanagement. There are no NIMBYs on the moon.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:23:00 UTC No. 16097149
>>16097078
On the moon there's only two regulations you have to abide by: containing lateral velocity and maintaining a stable pressure for life support. That opens up a lot of doors for ideas and implementations that would be otherwise impossible anywhere else in the world.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:28:38 UTC No. 16097156
>>16096647
I always thought sat divers would be on the shortlist to be the first real commercial astronauts. I'm not talking glorified tourists. Once HLS is a reality, our appetite for the moon is going to outstrip our robotic abilities. It'll make more sense to send a couple mad lad biorobots to camp out on an HLS while they drive excavators and stack sandbags around the first hab dugouts.
>b-but muh automation
If we were able to accomplish novel and complex construction tasks remotely in an extreme environment, the oil companies wouldn't have saturation divers on their payroll
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:40:19 UTC No. 16097169
>>16096704
There's a real easy fix to the pressure differential issue, if it was the issue
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:40:36 UTC No. 16097170
>>16096305
that's not true at all, thrust density is only required for making very tall rockets, and current size rockets are limited by fineness ratio when it comes to height
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:42:08 UTC No. 16097172
>>16097170
he's right and you're gay
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:52:16 UTC No. 16097178
>>16096879
How many times has ULA launched this month? How many were recovered?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:52:23 UTC No. 16097179
>>16097172
Well youre a stinky poopy head fart breath booger face, AND youre a poop that took a pee. What do you think about that huh?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:53:17 UTC No. 16097181
>>16097179
log off, Senator Shelby
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:02:38 UTC No. 16097190
>>16097179
Grow up
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:05:33 UTC No. 16097191
>>16097190
Im turning 20 this April
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:09:22 UTC No. 16097197
>>16096894
TWO WEEKS
W
O
W
E
E
K
S
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:12:13 UTC No. 16097200
>>16097141
>no NIMBYs on the moon
The Navajo witch doctors would like a word
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:15:19 UTC No. 16097203
>>16097200
Why dont we take their land and kill them, there's only like a few hundred left right?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:30:53 UTC No. 16097214
Recorded before IFT-2:
https://youtu.be/PqUoBaO7mzM?t=1473
>I do think going to Mars as a private company will be bureaucratically difficult to do. Technically a challenge of course, but I think there will be lots of bureaucracy that pops up that will make it hard to get there. I feel like we need to start working on that.
Serious question, what is Gwynne Shotwell implying here? What laws prevent SpaceX from flying people to Mars?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:36:12 UTC No. 16097216
>>16097214
it's bureaucracy, they'll just make shit up to try to stop SpaceX from accomplishing anything
that's how it works
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:37:44 UTC No. 16097217
>>16097214
Contamination cuckery
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:38:14 UTC No. 16097218
>>16097214
>>16097216
HEAVILY depends on who the president is. If there are any real regulatory hurdles, the executive branch can decide not to enforce. Alternatively the opposite is true with an administration hostile to Elon or the goals of SpaceX
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:41:33 UTC No. 16097220
>>16097217
as of now, NASA planetary protection policies only apply to NASA. NASA has voiced desire for a regulatory agency making it law, however, which would kill any effort of human exploration in the cradle
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:49:16 UTC No. 16097226
>>16097203
>Why dont we take their land and kill them
we basically did
>there's only like a few hundred left right?
yeah that's why we pander to them, people feel guilty
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 04:50:56 UTC No. 16097228
>>16097226
are there any cute navajo girls? or any native girls for that matter
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:11:05 UTC No. 16097242
>>16097218
>HEAVILY depends on who the president is.
>implying the president would care
They're gonna defer to NASA if they even give a shit. First they're gonna hear of it is shortly before arrival to prepare a congratulatory soundbite maybe.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:12:59 UTC No. 16097245
>>16097242
Keep coping, brandoncuck. Trump uses boots on Mars as a rally talking point and used the Artemis Accords to establish property rights in space. The interregnum administration punishes SpaceX for no reason.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:35:00 UTC No. 16097257
where are the nuclear spaceships
whats the expected specific impulse increase from a methane/kerosene heavy rocket to a comparable thermal nuclear rocket
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:44:07 UTC No. 16097261
>>16097078
Don't you need at least 2 space bases to need a railroad. Last I checked we were still at 0
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:07:26 UTC No. 16097275
>>16097214
Some members of the US government hate what SpaceX is doing, they want to control it and suck all its money out until it dies.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:20:36 UTC No. 16097290
Ok guys, what is with all the hype about 3-body problem? /sfg/ told me the book is retarded and unsatisfying and rife with bizarre plot devices and nonsensical conclusions.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:25:49 UTC No. 16097295
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 06:45:56 UTC No. 16097302
>>16097290
do you think there's some mystery as to why a tv show that just came out is getting shilled?
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:09:45 UTC No. 16097321
>>16094957
When Elon delivers full self driving.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:17:24 UTC No. 16097333
>>16096848
100% safe. They're blinking their indicators and even have a single fire engine in the convoy.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:27:26 UTC No. 16097341
>>16097333
China and safety are diametrically opposed.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:30:10 UTC No. 16097342
>>16097321
But FSD might actually happen in a year or so, Starship wont be ready for mars by then
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:46:22 UTC No. 16097352
>>16097290
SF is the product of thought. And frankly, I find the idea of a bug that thinks offensive.
>bizarre plot devices and nonsensical conclusions
Sounds about right, then.
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 07:59:56 UTC No. 16097365
Anonymous at Tue, 26 Mar 2024 08:51:47 UTC No. 16097405
this show writing is incredibly cringe. all it's missing is the big bang theory laugh tracks