🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:54:28 UTC No. 16116302
previous >>16113259
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:59:53 UTC No. 16116311
How will the internet work on Mars? How will it connect to Earth?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:59:55 UTC No. 16116312
space is gay
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:00:41 UTC No. 16116314
>>16116311
everything the same just have to set connection timeout as being much larger
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:02:05 UTC No. 16116317
>>16116310
needs 3 more vacuum engines
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:02:18 UTC No. 16116318
>>16116302
In 20 years, Starship will be so long it won't need to launch to reach the moon.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:02:42 UTC No. 16116319
>>16116311
>How will the internet work on Mars?
Starlink and hab LANs
> How will it connect to Earth?
Mostly it won't. Store-and-forward DTN batch protocols riding lasers will act more like UUCP than the Internet.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:03:28 UTC No. 16116321
>>16116302
Won't it being so much longer fuck up the flop that they already practiced?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:08:23 UTC No. 16116327
1/10 OP. Atleast its space related unlike the broccoli early stager
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:08:41 UTC No. 16116328
> /sfg/ still hyping a spacecraft taht can only launch starlinks
If you really someone is going to mars this century youre a retard or 12 yo
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:20:38 UTC No. 16116338
I hate spaceflight
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:21:28 UTC No. 16116339
>>16116338
yeah it used to be cool but now nobody likes it
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:22:02 UTC No. 16116342
>>16116309
kek, based
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:23:47 UTC No. 16116345
>>16116309
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGN
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:24:48 UTC No. 16116348
reminder starship has been in active development for 10 years and still hasnt launched a damn thing
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:26:11 UTC No. 16116350
>>16116348
You've been in active development longer and can't 1RM your own bodyweight.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:28:00 UTC No. 16116353
>>16116338
>>16116339
don't blame you guys when our biggest hope today is spacex lol which is depressing.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:29:51 UTC No. 16116356
austin barnard you stupid nigger i can see you using /sfg/ jpgs on twitter
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:31:09 UTC No. 16116359
>>16116356
Does he know they are tampered with CP?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:33:40 UTC No. 16116361
>>16116346
what speed of light delay does this correspond to?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:35:38 UTC No. 16116366
>>16116310
>Sketchup memes
Based
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:38:01 UTC No. 16116368
>>16116310
I already can see this gif being stoled and with a shitty unfunny caption on x/instagram.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:40:32 UTC No. 16116370
>>16116368
you forgot about reddit
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:41:29 UTC No. 16116373
>elon still thinks 1 million on mars in 20 years is possible
are there even that many people ready to move? that's a city the size of honolulu. can they even build enough buildings to house that many people?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:43:34 UTC No. 16116376
Tonight's launch might have had more than just Starlink on the manifest. B1069 was carrying a long duration upper stage like the ones on the EchoStar-24 and USSF-44 Falcon Heavy launches that went direct to GEO.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:44:48 UTC No. 16116379
>>16116373
I don't think there are even 1 million people on earth interested in spaceflight
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:47:27 UTC No. 16116383
>>16116379
numbers too low but approximation of 7 figures is about right.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:52:45 UTC No. 16116386
>>16116302
The tower to launch it
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:59:14 UTC No. 16116393
ATTENTION BAIT POSTERS
CHANGE MY DIAPER
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:04:35 UTC No. 16116396
>>16116379
that analogy doesnt work because lots of people fly but only a tiny amount give a fuck about the aircraft industry
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:04:46 UTC No. 16116397
>>16116309
why did you not draw in the noose? her head is literally in the position of someone thats hanging
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:05:15 UTC No. 16116398
test
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:05:47 UTC No. 16116399
>>16116396
do lots of people fly to antarctica? no? your analogy now also does not work.
>>16116398
you are unbanned xir.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:06:16 UTC No. 16116400
>>16116399
im still banned, but only on /g/ lel
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:06:48 UTC No. 16116401
>>16116400
>/g/
/g/tfo
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:07:49 UTC No. 16116403
>>16116400
are you a newfag and dont know how to ban evade?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:08:33 UTC No. 16116405
>>16116403
>ban evading a free vacation away from fa/g/s
lmao
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:09:40 UTC No. 16116406
>>16116405
not like im encouraging him using /g/ just in general since only newfags wouldnt know how.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:14:13 UTC No. 16116409
its obvious isnt it? we're going to need inflatable buildings on mars. they provide enough volume to house lots of people.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:16:19 UTC No. 16116413
>>16116379
Interesting question actually. I saw the other day there were only like (under) 9000 people in the world currently qualified to launch amateur rockets.
Assuming like 1 in 100 spaceflight enthusiasts are Tripoli members, that's roughly 1 million people.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:21:32 UTC No. 16116418
>>16116373
Every woman will be required to birth 6 children on Mars
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:22:22 UTC No. 16116419
>>16116418
retard
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 04:46:51 UTC No. 16116435
>>16116419
retards such as yourself will be euthanized
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:07:37 UTC No. 16116447
>>16116413
there's like 4500 hpr certified nar members. I suspect that as many as half are also tripoli members. but those are just american clubs, I have no idea what amateur rocketry is like outside of america.
do the chinks do it? russians? they'd both be good contenders for countries with big rocketry scenes.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:14:45 UTC No. 16116449
>>16116418
Women are not a problem, you just bring whores and don't allow birth control. Time tested frontier method.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:45:51 UTC No. 16116459
I think we will see a 2 tier society on Mars richfags who paid and construction worker types who got government loans, shit is gonna like Total Recall tier dystopia
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 05:54:56 UTC No. 16116465
>>16116459
>government loans
outright indentured servitude, same as poor early Americans
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 06:22:35 UTC No. 16116482
>>16116465
Im probably gonna be able to pay, if not go there for work, but I would gladly go under indentured servitude to get off this fucking mudball away from all of these other neanderthals that call themselves 'people'.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 06:41:27 UTC No. 16116494
>>16116449
>don't allow birth control
access to birth control can't be banned under US law
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 06:44:52 UTC No. 16116496
>>16116494
Good thing Mars isn't the US (see flag)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 06:51:03 UTC No. 16116497
>>16116494
That's a Supreme Court precedent which used the same faulty bullshit excuse as Roe, which got overturned, not an actual law.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:17:16 UTC No. 16116511
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
19:09: 2.7M Starlink customers.
21:33: Starship in final form over 200 tonnes to orbit with full reuse, able to fly multiple times per day.
22:50: 80-90% chance catch booster with mechzilla this year.
23:27: want 2 successful ship landings in ocean before trying on land because they don't want to dump debris on land. Probably this year Starship will land in ocean, next year land on land and reuse.
24:25: will build 2 launch towers at starbase, 2 at cape, by sometime next year.
25:15: development launches at starbase, most operational launches from cape, presumably because they can access more inclinations from there
26:40: Next year demonstrate ship to ship prop transfer.
28:41: thrust for Raptor, 2 and 3. Raptor 3 is 280 tf sea level, 306 tf vaccum.
32:31: flight 3 40-50 tonnes payload to orbit, Starship 2 over 100 tonnes, Starship 3 over 200 tonnes. Starship 3 4050 tonnes booster prop load, 2300 tonnes ship prop load, 3 sea level raptors, 6 vacuum raptors (vs 3 vacuum engines previously).
34:07 Starship cost to LEO goal 2-3M$.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:20:31 UTC No. 16116513
> Flight 4 in a month or so. Aim to get through the high heating regime. Into the ocean at a controlled spot - a virtual tower (soft water landing technique).
> If that works, "Flight 5 will land on the Tower" (catch the booster with the chopsticks).
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:22:40 UTC No. 16116514
>we cant even go back to the moon
> /Sfg/ fags talking about mars colonies
Lets be honest, no one here really believe when musk talk about starships and mars right? Or are you guys that stupid?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:23:50 UTC No. 16116515
> per Elon they moved a lot of external stuff and made it internal as well as adding integrated cooling channels so the surface appearance is somewhat misleading. He also mentioned building them is challenging, which makes sense.
Pretty slick lookinng.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:24:43 UTC No. 16116517
>>16116315
I’ll give you a pity (you) little man.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:28:01 UTC No. 16116523
>>16116514
Are you the newfag from like two threads ago?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:29:04 UTC No. 16116524
>>16116518
Kys dragonfly nigger CANCEL MSR CANCEL DRAGONFLY WHY WOULD YOU NOT GO TO THE FUCKING LAKES WHEN GOING TO TITAN STUPID NIGGERS AT NASA CANT DO SHIT RIGHT SINCE THE 70S
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:29:26 UTC No. 16116526
>>16116514
Is this some sort of humiliation ritual?
You’re embarrassing yourself.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:47:43 UTC No. 16116542
>>16116526
Hes baiting. Thats why I asked if its the newfag. Just hit the arrow next to the lost and put in 'trolling outside of /b/'
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:50:31 UTC No. 16116545
>>16116528
Zoomers have no fucking attention span. If you cant watch this presentation that is genuinely interesting and captivating with all the new details and have to resort to watching a recap then YWNGTS and need to stop pretending like you even care about spaceflight.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 07:56:53 UTC No. 16116552
>>16116496
>Good thing Mars isn't the US (see flag)
>as if Mars won't be developed without US dollars and US technology
>as if Mars colonies, factories, resources etc won't be protected by the US military
>as if US citizens won't travel between Earth and Mars on a continual basis
>as if Mars won't be dependent on US imports for many thousands of years
Saying Mars isn't the US is like saying SpaceX isn't becoming a major US defense contractor
>t. TANSTAAFL
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:07:07 UTC No. 16116557
>>16116552
>between earth and mars
have you ever read the history of british colonization of north america?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:08:58 UTC No. 16116559
>>16116552
>TANSTAAFL
Typical midwit catchphrase
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:09:46 UTC No. 16116561
>>16116552
>what was 1776
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:11:37 UTC No. 16116562
>>16116559
>doesnt know
Typical pseud reply
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:12:04 UTC No. 16116563
>>16116338
are you brown perchance?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:24:51 UTC No. 16116571
>>16116552
Thanks for your input Mr Zeihan but the US is shitting the bed in real time and it's exceedingly unlikely that it will exist as a single political entity in 20-30 years.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:26:06 UTC No. 16116572
>>16116552
It took ~150 years for America to be independent, since the landing of the Mayflower. I can't wait to see the speedrun stats for Mars' independence.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:30:45 UTC No. 16116573
>>16116552
Late stage Rome posting lmao
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:31:11 UTC No. 16116574
>>16116572
>whoops, looks like monitoring nuclear weapon development, something you've failed multiple times at on Earth, wasn't something you could do on a distant planet occupied by us
>shame you have a treaty on orbital nuclear weapons
>we don't
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:32:18 UTC No. 16116575
>>16116302
So, Proxima Centauri has 2 confirmed exoplanets and 1 disputed, while the 2 binary stars have 1 confirmed and 1 debunked planet? Did I get that right?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:35:07 UTC No. 16116578
>>16116552
Do you live in the same country as me? Our fiat currency is just about done and there is no way to save it, ethnic tensions are through the roof not to mention ideological bullshit, just about everyone hates fedgov are you are out here being like "we are going to export to Mars for thousands of years". Lmao.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 08:39:47 UTC No. 16116581
>>16116566
Is that a commie meme? Where is it from? Reddit?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:00:18 UTC No. 16116596
>>16116302
>fully self sustaining mars colony possible with 1 million humans and 1 million ton payload
i would like to see the sources of that claim.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:06:14 UTC No. 16116598
>>16116589
Too late for that, they would need to overhaul everything in starbase to support fatter starship
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:06:52 UTC No. 16116599
>>16116596
1 million is much more than is needed to avoid inbreeding, homo sapiens went down to like 20k at one point and we are fine. A million tonnes of payload seems plenty in terms of industrial equipment, remember you aren't making China sized factories for hundreds of millions of people throwing shit away every year or two. The big thing imo is habitation, if tunnelling or 3d printing regolith isn't workable then it's actually over.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:08:31 UTC No. 16116600
What happened to spinlauch? with a moon colony in the horizon they actually may be usefull for small payloads like fuel tanks for orbit refueling or something
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:10:30 UTC No. 16116602
>>16116598
it will need to happen in the future anyways, right? why wont start sooner than later? 150m high and 9m wide doesnt seem good
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:12:35 UTC No. 16116604
>>16116602
pencil starship for launching starlinks is not bad.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:12:52 UTC No. 16116605
Imagine the metals we can find on mars, some even must be find different from earth right? the distance is far enough to have differences in amounts of the know ones at least.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:15:24 UTC No. 16116608
>>16116589
twice wider and twice shorter starship has twice more volume
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:17:30 UTC No. 16116609
>>16116605
Speak english ESL monkey
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:19:59 UTC No. 16116611
>>16116609
ESL site retard, what are you going to do about it?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:20:43 UTC No. 16116613
>>16116528
the moon looks so much better with stuff on it
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:26:17 UTC No. 16116615
>>16116611
Relax knowing that I'm not a barely sentient subhuman like you
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:28:17 UTC No. 16116616
Imagine the metals we could find on Mars. Some might even be different from those found on Earth, right? The distance is far enough to potentially yield variances in the amounts of the known ones, at the very least.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:38:03 UTC No. 16116620
>>16116616
geology will finally be relevant again thanks to space colonization
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 09:43:59 UTC No. 16116624
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:19:29 UTC No. 16116640
>>16116616
None because Mars is hardly differentiated and has never had a water cycle to concentrate minerals.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:20:29 UTC No. 16116641
>>16116600
Shits out non-reusable minirockets
Even if it worked (it doesnt), it could not compete with the cost of starship
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:39:39 UTC No. 16116653
>>16116575
>Proxima Centauri has 2 confirmed exoplanets and 1 disputed
is this recent news?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:41:25 UTC No. 16116655
>>16116578
Currently US is still the most technologically advanced country.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:41:59 UTC No. 16116656
>>16116578
two more weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:42:29 UTC No. 16116658
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/st
Two more weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:46:01 UTC No. 16116661
Hey guys just posting outside
the US timezones. definitely American btw. Are my fellow Americans here properly demoralized? Just making sure no one here ever says anything positive about the US.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 10:57:36 UTC No. 16116674
>>16116666
Huh, maybe america does deserve to die in fire and blood
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:12:15 UTC No. 16116688
>>16116666
US technology
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:20:38 UTC No. 16116695
>>16116317
where do they fit 3 more engines?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:26:49 UTC No. 16116699
>>16116600
They realized they can't compete with MagLauncher
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:29:35 UTC No. 16116701
>>16116302
They should have updated the design to 11-12 meters instead of LOOOOOONG.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:30:11 UTC No. 16116703
>>16116653
Honestly, I´m in the process of checking the sources. The Alpha Centauri wikipedia article seems to contradict itself on that, which is why I wanted to fact check elsewhere.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:31:41 UTC No. 16116705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue8
it can't be that hard to move quickly and safely across martian terrain
send a lifted f150 or a cybertruck or something, metres per day is pathetic when we have an entire planet to explore
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:36:44 UTC No. 16116709
>>16116705
meters per day is what you get when you have a ~20 min comms time and don't send humans, it's all about avoiding obstacles, but at least the mini-copter helped
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:36:50 UTC No. 16116710
>>16116705
can't repair it so you have to be extremely conservative
a mars rover next to a hab/colony can be repaired by humans
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:38:48 UTC No. 16116711
When will we colonize another solar system?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:46:16 UTC No. 16116720
>>16116709
>>16116710
a combination of the elimination of mass autism (starship) and a modified version of the tesla FSD software would fix these problems
expendable cybertrucks for exploration and mapping
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:47:31 UTC No. 16116722
>>16116720
sending humans would also solve the problem of digging
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:48:20 UTC No. 16116725
>>16116711
two weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 11:51:48 UTC No. 16116727
>>16116711
probably need some kind of tech breakthrough which could then be applied for propulsion
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:03:26 UTC No. 16116734
>>16116711
600 years when space elon moves to space america
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:05:21 UTC No. 16116740
>>16116615
It's weird seeing the rampant ESL hate on 4chan, I think there's like 400 million EFL people in the world and then everyone else is a subhuman
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:15:25 UTC No. 16116750
>>16116740
EFL?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:33:10 UTC No. 16116768
>>16116640
>has never had a water cycle to concentrate minerals.
>never
Umm that's wrong sweetie. Mars was a wet world for billions of years.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:37:19 UTC No. 16116772
>>16116701
it would allow them for more engines as well
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:42:47 UTC No. 16116783
>>16116755
they really fucked up when they reduced the diameter from the bfg
now they're stuck with that puny stick because of their bespoke stage zero launchpad architecture
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:42:56 UTC No. 16116784
>>16116777
based
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:43:47 UTC No. 16116787
>>16116783
meant bfr
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:43:56 UTC No. 16116788
>>16116783
why cant they make another launchpad
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:45:07 UTC No. 16116790
/sfg/ meetup in AR tomorrow?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:46:05 UTC No. 16116791
>>16116302
How do you figure out the optimal size ratio between first:second stages?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:46:08 UTC No. 16116792
>>16116755
whats advantage to long stick instead of cube >>16116777
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:47:19 UTC No. 16116793
>>16116788
Because it wouldn't mean making only new launchpad, it would mean redesigning everything.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:47:28 UTC No. 16116794
>>16116791
the stage with more engines has more thrust, therefore booster should be way bigger compared to ship
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:48:30 UTC No. 16116795
>>16116793
so redesign everything, you already have engines
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:51:15 UTC No. 16116796
>>16116795
They had engines back in 2016
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:51:19 UTC No. 16116797
>>16116794
yeah, but how much bigger?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:51:54 UTC No. 16116798
>>16116797
as big as possible
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:55:14 UTC No. 16116801
>>16116791
If you plug the relevant variables into the rocket equation, you can easily do optimisation on it to get the maximum delta v for a staged rocket in empty space in a vacuum. Gravity drag and air resistance complicate things but I think you can still do it. But, IIRC, Falcon and Starship aren't even at the optimum because they want to stage earlier (i.e., they're over-thrusted) for reusability reasons.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:55:16 UTC No. 16116802
this is a perfect opportunity for china/india/eu to leapfrog spacex
just make a fatter starship
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 12:57:26 UTC No. 16116804
>>16116802
China would just make Starship clone 1:1, they can't into original thought.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:03:23 UTC No. 16116811
>>16116804
at least they're willing to build a clone. europe and other countries just throw their hands in the air and give up.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:04:30 UTC No. 16116812
>>16116792
a cube would have no aerodynamic control authority
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:05:58 UTC No. 16116814
>>16116811
They are only willing to make renders of clones.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:06:12 UTC No. 16116815
>>16116812
>aerodynamic control authority
what about engines spaced further apart? better aerodynamic control authority than stick
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:06:40 UTC No. 16116817
>>16116794
depends on what speed you stage at, the later you do the more fuel the booster needs to get back and it gets quadratically worse as a function of speed
a big ship also means you have more payload to the destination after orbital refilling
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:08:16 UTC No. 16116818
>>16116791
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQp
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:10:08 UTC No. 16116819
>>16116705
from the pictures it just looks like it's trying to move on some really difficult terrain by mars rover standards
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:10:55 UTC No. 16116820
>>16116815
its about the distance of the engines or flaps to the mean point of lift, with a ball the distance and thus the moment arm is very small
but the longer and thinner it is I think it starts to be more unstable, so more complicated to control
but SpaceX has a lot of control expertise (see F9 boosters landing)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:11:42 UTC No. 16116822
>>16116750
First language, i.e. Anglos I guess
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:14:35 UTC No. 16116823
>>16116777
trips checked
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:17:44 UTC No. 16116828
>>16116373
nah lol. mars wankery is pretty cringe in general. After the first high of having boots on mars wears off it becomes a wasteland curiosity just like moon. Area for research and prospector outposts/sats/bots doing very boring and very mundane tasks like studying the bodies. Main attraction is finding resource deposits, from ores to water, which then later becomes the basis for space industrialization via mining. Much, MUCH later you can talk about some secondary branches like perma colonists. Until then its like living on a oil rig in very hostile environments
Frankly building very big cargo ships in orbit that never land and staffing them with crew moving between planets seems a far more feasible prospect of getting larger groups of humans into semi-perma space residence. Or cruise ships doing short trips like a trip around the moon
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:19:02 UTC No. 16116831
>>16116823
twice as wide means 4 times shorter for same volume
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:23:49 UTC No. 16116836
>While in closely aligned orbits, the LRO’s high-resolution narrow angle camera from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera (LROC) system snapped images of Danuri during three of its orbits around the Moon. This occurred as the two spacecraft were swiftly moving in reverse paths on March 5 and 6, 2024.
>Engineers at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, meticulously calculated the precise timing required for the LRO to photograph the South Korean lunar orbiter. Since Danuri was traveling at a relative velocity of about 1,500 kilometers per hour (approximately 7,200 miles per hour), the LROC had to have an exceptionally brief exposure time of just 0.338 milliseconds. Despite this, images show Danuri appearing elongated by a factor of ten due to the high-speed flyby.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:25:21 UTC No. 16116840
18m seems like too much, but why didnt they do 12m design?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:30:33 UTC No. 16116848
>>16116840
got spooked while trying to make carbon rocket
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:42:09 UTC No. 16116861
>>16116823
I pray Artemis is completed using Starship V2 and then they begin work on a wider diameter starship for mars.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:45:41 UTC No. 16116867
>>16116784
this thing would unironically be very good. Remember SpaceX doesnt want to do an entry burn on SuperHeavy, and the reason they think they wont need to is because the booster is fatter than f9 so aerobrakes better. A superfat booster could get away with less heat shielding. Not to mention the ship would be much much easier to land on an unprepared surface like mars or the moon. Remember how SN4 looked goofy tall for a moon lander? And now we are looking at a ship twice as tall.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:47:09 UTC No. 16116870
>>16116867
plus if you make a rocket that's too fat you futureproof the launch pad, whereas now theyve fucked themselves and it cant get much taller without being ridiculous.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 13:53:50 UTC No. 16116875
>>16116814
They've tested YF-215 engine components. They also test-built a 10m diameter stage connector (although those were for a previous CZ-9 version)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:00:28 UTC No. 16116882
>>16116804
CZ-9 first stage is probably going to be made of aluminium. The 10.6m diameter was likely chosen due to the CZ-9 project's original aim of producing a Saturn V type lifter capable of ~50t to TLI
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:09:53 UTC No. 16116889
>>16116802
>>16116804
Bigger diameter means either more engines than SS/SH or bigger engines than Raptor though, which makes things more complicated, deviates from the proven, and introduces higher technical risk. 33 engines already beats the N-1's 30 and that was an infamous example.
It also means their rocket might become *too* fat to work if they can't make an engine of Raptor 3 thrust density level. It probably makes more sense to make a SS clone of ~10m diameter and then later make an entirely new SS clone from scratch that's of greater diameter once they can improve their engine from ~200tf to ~280tf. It's not like factory capex or metal item manufacturing is a weakness for China
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:14:02 UTC No. 16116893
>>16116802
>>16116804
Bigger diameter means either more engines than SS/SH or bigger engines than Raptor though, which makes things more complicated, deviates from the proven, and introduces higher technical risk. 33 engines already beats the N-1's 30 and that was an infamous example.
It also means their rocket might become *too* fat to work if they can't make an engine of Raptor 3 thrust density level. It probably makes more sense to make a SS clone of ~10m diameter and then later make an entirely new SS clone from scratch that's of greater diameter once they can improve their engine from ~200tf to ~280tf. It's not like ability to construct new facilities or willingness for large capex is the weakness for China; time is.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:30:41 UTC No. 16116914
>>16116893
if you make if wider you can make it shorter, same volume, same amount of engines
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:34:46 UTC No. 16116920
>>16116914
if you make it wider, you have more space for engines
each engine basically has a section of mass on top of it which is optimal and in the most stretched out version you are close to that
so the height would stay the same, but the fineness ratio would get lower and it wouldn't be as much of a pencil anymore
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:35:59 UTC No. 16116922
>>16116581
Worse, /pol/.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:36:43 UTC No. 16116924
>>16116920
the height would not stay the same, thats the point
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:37:08 UTC No. 16116925
>>16116922
pol is full of commies too, all kinds of schizos there
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:37:55 UTC No. 16116926
>>16116309
股票 is a nice touch
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:38:15 UTC No. 16116927
>>16116924
it would if you pack the engines as close together as previously
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:38:21 UTC No. 16116928
>>16116914
That gives it other aerodynamic properties though. What is the limit? Why not make the rocket as wide as it is tall while you're at it?
>>16116920
>>if you make it wider, you have more space for engines
More engines makes it more complicated though
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:38:42 UTC No. 16116929
>>16116925
when you realize nazis were jews too the circle closes
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:39:54 UTC No. 16116930
>>16116928
1:1 ratio has best properties for keeping fuel cool too
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:40:03 UTC No. 16116931
>>16116914
worse stability during booster decent, which is extremely important
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:40:06 UTC No. 16116932
>>16116928
>More engines makes it more complicated though
sure, but going from 33 to 42 or whatever isn't that much more complicated anymore
to get 33 engines working you basically have to solve the "many engines" problem already, its not a qualitative change to add more engines at that stage
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:41:09 UTC No. 16116933
>>16116701
Can their current construction, transport and pad infrastructure handle 12m diameter?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:44:52 UTC No. 16116935
>>16116578
>just about everyone hates fedgov
And I'm supposed to think the US is failing? Seems to me it's about to only get stronger.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:46:48 UTC No. 16116937
>>16116933
no, everything would have to be rebuilt
and raptor 3 doesn't even exist in a mass produced form yet
making it fatter is overoptimizing it way more than makes sense at this point, they don't even have this version working fully yet
I mean its not impossible they build a new factory in the cape or something and start developing a 12m version at some point in the future and then keep two different diameter versions running at the same time or something
or build a 9m factory at the cape, then retool boca chica in the future for a fatter vehicle basically ripping everything out, but the benefits would have to be substantial
I mean really, what do you gain here? other than aestethics
like what are the concrete improvements, how do they translate into cost of mass to orbit?
what would be the marginal cost of mass to orbit on a optimized 9m diameter starship vs a 12m diamater starship vs 18m diameter?
perhaps the benefits are large enough that they do make that "refresh" or iteration in the future, but in the short term it would be ridiculous
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:47:48 UTC No. 16116939
>>16116932
>going from 33 to 42 or whatever isn't that much more complicated
I can quite vividly imagine such an argument not working well during the meeting of the relevant CASC design committee
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:49:07 UTC No. 16116942
>>16116373
If the first and second generations are all women and they are continuously pregnant you easily could get more than 100 times the initial population in two generations. With this "breeder" strategy a single fleet of 10,000 fertile 18-20 year old female passengers could populate Mars Base Alpha in less than 30 years.
Of course this would likely require a large degree of automation and some form of government, security forces or enforced isolation (i.e. no interhab transportation)
Ultimately, though, bringing 1 million passengers is probably more realistic than trying to govern and pacify a whole world of BPD whores and welfare queeangs.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:49:35 UTC No. 16116943
>>16116933
would need new pads, new chopsticks, new tower placement and maybe a full new tower. all the engine install infrastructure would need to be redone. I'm not even sure it would fit through the megabay doors
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:50:07 UTC No. 16116945
>>16116939
Going from 33 to 42 seems like it'd be a lot easier than going from 9 to 33.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:52:06 UTC No. 16116950
>>16116942
are they shipping gigatons of crickets to support converting that much matter into human flesh though?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:52:13 UTC No. 16116951
>>16116542
based and correct
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:52:37 UTC No. 16116952
>>16116948
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:55:15 UTC No. 16116958
>>16116373
>>16116828
Yeah that giant colony dream seems very unrealistic. People who are well adjusted and have useful skills already have options to live comfortably on Earth. People who would just go there because they have no better options aren't people who you want to send on a gig like that, they'd just be a liability. I'm listening to the presentation and Musk just said that most people who'd go there probably wouldn't come back. Where will they find people who want to permanently leave Earth to work in a shitty colony?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:57:04 UTC No. 16116962
>>16116574
"Oops, your entire global communications infrastructure depends on Starlink and we control LEO and provide your entire launch capability."
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:58:37 UTC No. 16116963
>>16116942
they need people working there
there will be so much work that needs to be done
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:59:43 UTC No. 16116966
>>16116599
frozen jizz means the minimum viable population is one fecund female
life support and economic capacity are the limiting factors
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 14:59:50 UTC No. 16116967
>>16116950
NASA doesn't want you to know this but Mars is actually edible. Mars bars while not actually made of Mars are imitations based on modeling of what Mars would taste like.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:00:51 UTC No. 16116971
>>16116945
It might be. They aren't at 33 yet though. It's all on the drawing board right now. In fact, they're only aiming for 30 with CZ-9. And that's probably just because, given the 200t engines they're using, it's what they need to build a rocket capable of ~50t to TLI, which is the original goal of the CZ-9 project.
One might as well say, if we have 42 on the drawing board then it's not a big step to increase it to 50-something. And if we have 50-something on the drawing board, then it's not a big step to increase it to 60-something. Etc. At least 33 has been demonstrated by someone.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:04:02 UTC No. 16116978
>>16116605
The periodic table is already fairly comprehensive at this point
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:04:04 UTC No. 16116979
>>16116958
you could ask the same question about the american colonies
I would argue being a mars colonist/pioneer is going to be overall much safer than being an early american colonist due to a variety of factors
yes the environment is much more inhospitable, but our technology is also much more advanced and in net it should be much safer
entire colonies in the americas got wiped out by one reason or another, disease, angry natives, starvation
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:05:12 UTC No. 16116981
>>16116610
Is that what you tell women?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:06:50 UTC No. 16116983
>>16116655
Until, God willing, Mars brain drains it.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:10:28 UTC No. 16116989
>>16116948
>we could have 3 internet cables running from the earth to the moon
lunar internet is going to be sweet
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:13:00 UTC No. 16116991
>>16116945
It might be. They aren't at 33 yet though. It's all on the drawing board right now. In fact, they're only aiming for 30 with CZ-9. And it's that many probably only because, given the 200t engines they're using, it's what they need to build a rocket capable of ~50t to TLI, which is the original goal of the CZ-9 project.
One might as well say, if we have 42 on the drawing board then it's not a big step to increase it to 50-something. And if we have 50-something on the drawing board, then it's not a big step to increase it to 60-something. Etc. 33 has at least been demonstrated by someone.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:17:40 UTC No. 16116996
>>16116979
I was actually going to mention the old colonists. As you said, Mars is inhospitable. And people didn't really have the same kind of entertainment back then. Some sailor drinking gin in his damp village was probably happy to go to a new continent, build a nice house in lush nature and hunt deer or something, his biggest ambition being to have a lot of kids. Now a plumber will have a PS5, internet, maybe he likes to go hiking or go race Miatas on track days. What's his incentive to move to Mars for the rest of his life, where you'll be stuck indoors like you're in some kind of prison or military base, with a 20 minute latency to Earth so you can't even watch that football match or play FIFA online. There won't even be a motivation like oh the pay will be really good so you can build that nice house and retire early, you'll just be sitting there bored in your living quarters. Musk made it sound like people would even be paying to go there, to put their life on the line and have a worse quality of life
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:19:26 UTC No. 16117000
>>16116955
Kek, SpaceX is dancing all over the stuffed caskets of oldspace these days and it’s cathartic
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:19:57 UTC No. 16117001
>>16116996
literally no reason you couldn't watch a football match with 20 minutes of lag
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:22:32 UTC No. 16117005
>>16116996
you don't need to play real time online games to have a good quality of life
at first the motivation to go there is to accomplish great things, become part of history
later it will be for adventure, perhaps to start a business there or start/join a satellite colony to be able to live like you wish (like many of the early colonists to the americas did)
the EU is becoming more and more authoritarian for instance
and after mars has some industry, it would be relatively easy to start doing outposts on other celestial bodies as well
tl:dr become part of history, adventure, freedom
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:22:55 UTC No. 16117007
>>16116991
>it's that many probably only because, given the 200t engines they're using, it's what they need to build a rocket capable of ~50t to TLI, which is the original goal of the CZ-9 project.
It might also be because 30 engines on the first stage is about the minimum in order to have a diameter that can accommodate vac and sl engines on a reusable upper stage in a concentric arrangement like SS without seriously impairing the isp of the vac engines
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:22:58 UTC No. 16117008
>>16117001
yeah not like you are gonna get spoiled
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:24:39 UTC No. 16117009
>>16117008
bruh what? do tweets travel faster than the speed of light now?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:25:14 UTC No. 16117010
>>16117009
no i was agreeing with you
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:26:54 UTC No. 16117013
>>16116711
It's at least 100 years out.
You need to freeze and thaw out live adult humans or automatically gestate and rear children, with equipment that will operate independently for decades or centuries based on technology that doesn't even exist yet. You also need the orbital infrastructure to build a colony ship.
With that kind of time scale some gay new physics might be discovered first, which makes any prediction meaningless.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:29:19 UTC No. 16117016
>>16116896
What will V5 look like?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:29:48 UTC No. 16117018
>>16116804
你才是创造力不足的。
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:33:42 UTC No. 16117024
>>16117005
I'm just really skeptical how many people like that there are in the world. The sense of adventure will just get smaller the more people go there, the novelty will fade and it'll become mundane. Plus I really doubt a colony like that would have more freedom than Earth, when everyone is relying on life support systems to not just die. Freedom to do what?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:37:12 UTC No. 16117030
>>16117024
>sense of adventure
If that doesn't work, offer enough money and you'll find people. Just look at the shipping industry. Filipinos work for 6 months on board, go back to home for a few weeks and return to work again. They do that because the salary of a sailor is great in Philipinnes.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:41:52 UTC No. 16117033
>>16116552
>Thinking space will be consuming more resources from earth than earth will be consuming from space.
jej
Earther moment
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:42:59 UTC No. 16117034
>>16116958
>Where will they find people who want to permanently leave Earth to work in a shitty colony?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:55:31 UTC No. 16117047
>>16117030
>go back to home for a few weeks
Which you don't get on Mars, if they're meant to move there permanently. Quoting Musk, he said they're trying to make it so that "anybody can afford to go there", so they'd be paying to move there and hopefully stay. Just sounds like a shitty deal unless someone's just really into the idea of living in a wasteland. Immigrants will pay to get into a new country with a better life quality, but I don't see that being the case with Mars for a long time, if ever
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:55:45 UTC No. 16117049
Why is everyone taking about an elongated starship suddenly?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 15:58:06 UTC No. 16117056
>>16117049
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
Also pics related
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:05:15 UTC No. 16117063
>>16116996
Neuralink/ simulated reality could cover a lot of recreational needs.
You need to remember tech development is also moving target and it will move in tandem with space flight development.
Also funny you brought up video games.
If anything I’d say gamers would be EAGER to move to mars, more than you’d think.
It’d just be like a big comfy LAN party, rather than the rat-race SBM multiplayer networks on earth that are full of bots and cheaters.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:09:34 UTC No. 16117070
>>16117068
money
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:11:26 UTC No. 16117074
>>16117068
nothing, though not sure I would want to stay permanently and it depends what kind of work needs to be done
say manual labor vs directing humanoid robots or something like that
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:17:34 UTC No. 16117084
>>16117068
Enormous will power. Enough to make you want to work your ass off to get to your goal. Work is actionable will power. If you dont do work for your goal, you dont have enough will power necessary to get your goal.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:18:17 UTC No. 16117085
>>16117078
we're going to do both moon and mars. at the same time. like fucking a mexican chick and black chick at the same time.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:22:57 UTC No. 16117091
>>16117068
if I can't start a family before regular colonial ships go there I might as well if they let me
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:32:47 UTC No. 16117099
>>16116302
I love all the zoomers crying about how long Starship 3 is when it is still less of a pencil than Falcon 9
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:35:50 UTC No. 16117102
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:40:31 UTC No. 16117107
>>16117068
I have no connections other than my family. I am dedicating my career to spaceflight. My final goal is to go to the colony as soon as I can. It would take nothing for me to want to move to Mars.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:43:38 UTC No. 16117110
Two more weeks until two more weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:48:20 UTC No. 16117115
>>16117110
Trvth
ALSO B11 BEING DESTACKED NOW
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:51:11 UTC No. 16117116
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:53:22 UTC No. 16117120
>>16116302
SOUL > soulish > soulless
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 16:57:30 UTC No. 16117122
>>16117120
And SOVL?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:00:19 UTC No. 16117125
>>16117116
conspiracy theory...elon wasnt always named elon, he got his name changed before starting spacex
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:05:08 UTC No. 16117131
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:05:19 UTC No. 16117132
>>16117005
As long as I can still connect to the internet, even if I can't do stuff in real time and have to deal with several minutes of lag, that's fine for me.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:06:59 UTC No. 16117136
>>16117024
Most of them will be born there. People don't live in the slums of Manila because it's stylish or fun but there sure are a fucking lot of them there. Definitely more people than are "interested in the lifestyle."
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:09:13 UTC No. 16117140
you arent going to mars to play video games, you're going there to work hard ass blue collar labor for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:09:46 UTC No. 16117141
>>16117046
I prefer Dominus Noster
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:10:25 UTC No. 16117144
>>16117140
more like 12 6 but yeah sure
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:10:46 UTC No. 16117145
>>16117068
literally nothing else is required
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:11:46 UTC No. 16117149
>>16117085
you have 5 kinds of AIDS
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:15:31 UTC No. 16117155
>>16117140
I know that and cant fucking wait to work to my 80s for the colony.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:15:47 UTC No. 16117156
>>16117140
I know that and cant fucking wait to work to my 80s for the colony.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:16:48 UTC No. 16117159
>>16117156
>>16117155
Why it post twice? 4chan has to be the worst fucking site ever.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:17:15 UTC No. 16117160
>>16117140
I know that and cant fucking wait to work to my 80s for the colony.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:19:38 UTC No. 16117163
imagine being known as the first murderer on mars
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:19:55 UTC No. 16117164
>>16117140
i'm going to mars so elon can keep pump&dumping crazy bitches.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:20:29 UTC No. 16117165
>>16117159
Because it’s multiple people, duh.
keep your hair on.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:21:30 UTC No. 16117167
>>16117163
Imagine if your name is cain.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:25:04 UTC No. 16117170
>>16117168
Fucking saved
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:27:51 UTC No. 16117173
>>16117168
this is why I want to move to mars
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:28:20 UTC No. 16117174
>>16117125
Just show (or shop) us his birth certificate.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:28:51 UTC No. 16117177
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_7
>Incredible Progress!! Starship's Next Flight Could Come as Soon as Next Month! - SpaceX Weekly #109
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:31:36 UTC No. 16117180
>>16117140
>giving people zero free time is definitely a way to be productive
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:31:39 UTC No. 16117181
>>16117159
I know that and still post here
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:31:47 UTC No. 16117182
>>16116615
If you feel so superior why are you getting replaced by chinks, spics and jews rn? Is because they are simply better players right, or what is your cope?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:33:45 UTC No. 16117185
>>16117182
It's literally because they're willing to work for less because they have worse alternatives and are unashamed to steal from American taxpayers.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:34:30 UTC No. 16117186
>>16117185
sorry mate, git gud then, I know you can because you are superior.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:35:42 UTC No. 16117188
>>16117140
Video games, or any recreational activity for that matter, would be very localized.
And that is precisely why it will be better.
Quaint local recreation, gatekept from all the filthy E*rthers.
>NOOO YOUR GOING TO BE WORKED TO DEATH! DONT GOOOOO!
E*rther lies.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:36:19 UTC No. 16117190
>>16117182
>shitskin cope is divorced from reality
Shocker, really.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:37:32 UTC No. 16117191
>>16117190
Come on Pablo Jones, you know I'm right.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:40:02 UTC No. 16117195
>>16117183
he knows
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:40:16 UTC No. 16117196
>>16117191
Your greatest insult is calling someone else one of you.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:42:17 UTC No. 16117199
>>16117168
What's the EU trying to do with space regulation?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:44:02 UTC No. 16117203
>>16117200
mein neger
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:44:57 UTC No. 16117204
>>16117200
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo
It was too good for this world.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:45:07 UTC No. 16117205
>>16117200
God starship is such an ugly disappointment
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:45:44 UTC No. 16117208
>>16117205
your parents say the same about you
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:47:24 UTC No. 16117212
>>16117205
Current version is still better than the ones before it, apart from ITS.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:47:57 UTC No. 16117215
>>16117199
>The European Commission is gearing up to publish the world’s first comprehensive space law.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:48:14 UTC No. 16117218
we need to go skinnier
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:48:56 UTC No. 16117219
>>16117200
We're on version 14 already. Version 15 soon too.
>Version 13
Remove the landing legs for booster
>Version 14
Add hotstage
>Version 15
Extend by another 10 meters or so
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:49:56 UTC No. 16117221
>>16117196
I accept your concession, now stop whining like a bitch, pull your dick in your pants and stop talking about shit derailing the thread. All of this happened because you could not forgive a sleep deprived post.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:50:06 UTC No. 16117222
>>16117205
Starship will not enter the public psyche if it isn’t aesthetically pleasing to normies
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:51:35 UTC No. 16117224
>>16117186
>foreigner
>too retarded to read
Everything checks out
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:51:39 UTC No. 16117225
>>16117221
My first post in this was >>16117190
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:52:44 UTC No. 16117226
>>16117200
so what were versions 1-5?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:53:29 UTC No. 16117229
>>16117226
they were cancelled after the tragic capsule fire
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:53:30 UTC No. 16117230
>>16117200
What was versions 1-5?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:53:53 UTC No. 16117231
>>16117208
I'm his dad. I don't even think about him, much less talk about him.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:54:50 UTC No. 16117235
>>16117224
if you are good enough you keep your job, simple as. You are the one who has to learn to read. Also stop derailing the thread you nigger.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:55:03 UTC No. 16117237
>>16117199
>“We need to build a true EU single market for space and this is, of course, the purpose of the upcoming EU space law,” said Thierry Breton, commissioner for the internal market, in a keynote address at the conference.
>The law, he said, would help harmonize the current “very diverse space regime” within the EU, where 11 member states have their own national laws for space. “This fragmented approach prevents us from acting as a bloc,” he said.
>“All of this has been floating around the European Parliament for much longer,” said Niklas Nienass, a member of the parliament. That includes, he said, “clear support for the single market, the ability for companies throughout Europe to easily work together on space matters.”
https://spacenews.com/eu-space-law-
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:55:35 UTC No. 16117239
https://ground.news/interest/starsh
Media and Starship coverage
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:57:27 UTC No. 16117242
>>16117159
I know that and cant fucking wait to work to my 80s for the colony.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 17:59:59 UTC No. 16117249
>>16117239
buy an ad
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:00:34 UTC No. 16117250
With SeX becoming basically the only one viable rocket launcher, what are some good emerging space related companies one could work for?, It doesnt even have to be that exiting, probably like the ones currently working on lunar platforms or mining I guess
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:04:10 UTC No. 16117260
>>16117249
bro this shit is free
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:04:33 UTC No. 16117263
>>16117250
Any commercial space station companies really though Vast and Gravitics seem to be the best. Miscellaneous satellite companies will also be good, but anything to do with lunar/martian builds wont be good to work in until a bit later. There arent even many companies existing that want to do their own base, so if you want to do off planet stuff your best shot is to join SpaceX themselves or companies that work for/with SpaceX.
TLDR, commercial space stations, satellite manufacturers, SpaceX.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:04:50 UTC No. 16117264
>>16116496
>Mars flag
>Japan but inverted
>Elon wants to make cat girls real
IT ALL MAKES SENSE
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:06:46 UTC No. 16117266
>>16117264
incel
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:07:46 UTC No. 16117268
>>16117266
lecni
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:09:29 UTC No. 16117269
>>16117268
cline
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:11:20 UTC No. 16117271
>>16117262
wouldn't it be harder to inspect rockets when it's like this
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:11:58 UTC No. 16117272
>>16117264
Blue Japan
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:14:09 UTC No. 16117277
>>16117078
disagree. We should be building smaller rockets not bigger ones.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:14:57 UTC No. 16117279
>>16116511
Assuming $110/mo for each Starlink customer average, that's $2,970,000,000 in annual revenues. $2.97Bn is pretty good. Let's say $45M per Starlink launch (rocket + cost of putting 53 V1.5s all inclusive + range, faa, and fuel logistics costs), gets you to 66 launches. $2.97Bn in revenue pays for effectively 3,498 satellites to orbit. There's 6600 satellites or so currently in orbit now, so FY '22 revenue (roughly), pays for 53% of the total network so far. FY '23 revenues (EoY Q1 25 roughly) would pay for the remainder of satellites currently in orbit.
Since each satellite has a 5-6 year life span, the cost is amortized. So by latest FY '26, Starlink's revenues will exceeds its launch and operational cost of its entire fleet. By '26, SpaceX expects to be putting V3 into service w/ 200T to LEO. Which would give them 100 V2 or V3 Starlinks to orbit deployment capability, wherein each new sat will likely have 3x the capability of the V1.5s. 3:1 ratio capacity and service coverage and the older variants can be deorbited. '26 is also roughly the EOL expectation for the V1.5s in orbit currently.
So yeah, FY '26+, SpaceX becomes self-funded and is decoupled from the need to raise money.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:15:38 UTC No. 16117282
racist chud above
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:16:06 UTC No. 16117283
>>16116908
this is not what progress looks like
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:17:45 UTC No. 16117286
>>16117283
i just have to ask, are you baiting here because i told that anon on /pol/ a few days ago that we exist since he actually wanted to talk about spaceflight? i can tell that its literally only you baiting this general right now and if thats the reason youre here i want to apologize to the entirety of /sfg/ for making us known.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:19:40 UTC No. 16117288
>>16117286
Why would you ever do that? Why would you ever think that was a good idea?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:20:01 UTC No. 16117289
>>16117286
>Using /pol/
>Advertising /sfg/ there
KYS
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:20:58 UTC No. 16117291
>>16117140
>do hard work on Mars
>stop being a fat slob
>gain six pack abs
>become fit
>become breeding material for all the women on the planet
>sire children
>start a family
>create a legacy
>contribute to the sustainable future of Mars and the human race
Literally everything that happens as a result of going to Mars is a positive you raging faggot. Most importantly, it allows everyone to LEAVE THIS PLACE FOREVER.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:23:04 UTC No. 16117293
>>16117289
I have no justification for my actions other than Im retarded. I didnt think of the consequences of my actions by just inviting one random anon while I was baiting there.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:23:32 UTC No. 16117295
>>16117200
V7 will be revived on Mars for beyond Mars. Earth's gravity well is too deep. Mars' gravity well is just right for something of that caliber to be designed and launched from. Mass/Fuel and TWR all align for it.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:25:59 UTC No. 16117297
>>16117068
I would drop everything and go the second I was offered a chance to.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:26:47 UTC No. 16117298
>>16117295
>moron thinks inferior designs will be brought back simply for aesthetics
it will be a grungy, metallic future and you will be happy to live in it.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:27:02 UTC No. 16117299
>>16117295
IFT is more powerful than Starship, I thought? The problem was the carbon design was too expensive thoughbeit
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:27:41 UTC No. 16117300
>>16117068
Almost nothing lmao. I have a comfy job but if the opportunity arises Im leaving, even if it's a shit jannie/miner job.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:28:36 UTC No. 16117301
>>16116937
The primary gains are in handling infrastructure and reduced fineness ratio, which is going to make reentry much more difficult to handle, and what should be a significant increase in the propellant mass fraction, and an opportunity to increase the amount of initial lofting provided by the booster that isn't self-defeating for their own reuse paradigm. Starship in particular has the most to gain here: the extra long propellant tanks make an appropriately lengthy payload bay segment on the order of 20 meters prohibitively difficult to implement. The vehicle's processing and handling envelope only gets better when it's 12 meters wide.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:29:36 UTC No. 16117303
>>16117299
It is. All revivals are forward leading. Which means that the design would be revived, but incorporate all the technologies and material science standards of the current day (of the future when it is revived). So ITS would be Stainless Steel with Raptor6 or 8, and all the bells and whistles that Mars' industry can afford it. In fact, I would go as far as to say that ITS from Mars would be an SSTO, because Mars' gravity well w/ 1% atmospheric density is the golden ratio for SSTOs.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:32:34 UTC No. 16117309
>>16117307
Possible to do anywhere else but Earth.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:33:01 UTC No. 16117310
>>16117286
I am not the anon you think I am, I'm just a /sfg/ regular. And Yes I was baiting (you). also a quick reminder that the BO engines has been in development shorter than the Raptor 12345 engine.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:38:16 UTC No. 16117316
>>16117303
all starship/bfr/its/whatever iterations are ssto from mars, the architecture doesn't work without that
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:42:28 UTC No. 16117318
>>16117316
Right.
For deep space activity beyond Mars, I would expect that SpaceX would build a tower same as Earth and build SuperHeavy boosters + Starship. Stack the two and launch them. Which would allow SpaceX to have a fully fueled Starship with enough velocity at upper atmosphere staging that it wouldn't need in-orbit fueling to be able to do ballistic trajectory or direct boost out to Jupiter and beyond.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:52:08 UTC No. 16117328
>>16117310
>baiting
it's called pretending to be retarded anon, and it's very embarrassing behaviour, your parents should be ashamed of you.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:12:43 UTC No. 16117354
>>16117271
yes
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:14:50 UTC No. 16117355
>>16117271
>>16117354
All they have to do is swap out an engine if something is wrong.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:19:33 UTC No. 16117363
>>16117279
you also have much more expensive tiers for business, planes and the ocean with different tiers within those as well (more prioritized data costs more)
and cell service might bring in some revenue as well
I did similar napkin math to you now and got to something like 30 bil revenue when its fully operational, but with kuiper coming online at some point, that revenue share for spacex might go down though
but in any case, its going to be in the right pallpark to bankroll the launches at the very least, perhaps not everything related though (the ships + payload needs to be paid for too)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:20:24 UTC No. 16117366
>>16117222
Yeah total crew death does stick in one's mind
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:21:46 UTC No. 16117368
>>16117250
Drug production in zero g. Not sure it would ever need to be manned though
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:25:00 UTC No. 16117371
>>16117301
so slightly better $/kg to orbit (through a better mass fraction) and a bigger payload bay, higher max payload
but the question is, how much of an improvement is it going to be in $/kg? its not going to be orders of magnitude anymore
something like 20% perhaps?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:25:26 UTC No. 16117373
where dafuq do you download all the nasa & friends sonification of celestial objects
all the links I've seen on their site are 404
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:26:32 UTC No. 16117374
>>16117355
so raptor 3 is going to be reusable but non-repairable, thrown in the trash when it starts wearing out
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:26:39 UTC No. 16117376
>>16117371
The more important thing is having more spare drymass to add systems that mitigate operational risks. Raptor 3 is simultaneously increasing thrust and adding Mass Autism at the cost of increased manufacturing complexity because they don't have enough dry mass to play with to actually meet their payload goals.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:27:57 UTC No. 16117378
>>16117376
Furthermore, making the booster wider would give them more inter-engine space to work with, which would let them increase the nozzle diameter and increase specific impulse; Raptor 3 is under-expanded almost as much as Merlin.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:29:25 UTC No. 16117380
>>16117378
so just expand the engine section portion then?
oh wait, then they'd need to expand the hotstage ring, and the booster, fuckk
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:45:19 UTC No. 16117393
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:47:32 UTC No. 16117394
>>16117374
>implying
the only reason i'd even see the need to take merlins apart is to clean them of soot, this should be a non-issue on raptor and repairs can be done without doing that.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:50:23 UTC No. 16117396
>>16117068
~1000+ prior colonists
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:51:56 UTC No. 16117397
>>16117271
they xray this sort of thing
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 19:56:31 UTC No. 16117404
>>16117378
what if they just removed some engines
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:00:04 UTC No. 16117407
>>16117396
just go in the second wave, then :^)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:04:14 UTC No. 16117412
>>16117068
They should do it like they do in Blade Runner, living on mars sucks but everyone gets their own sex bot.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:09:15 UTC No. 16117414
>>16117132
>several minutes of lag,
It's a 40 minute round trip when mars is at its furthest away from earth.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:12:11 UTC No. 16117416
>>16117414
hey zoomer I know you leave 1 star if your doordash takes longer than 10 minutes but that's basically nothing. functionally real time. faster than the first telegraphs across the atlantic
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:14:12 UTC No. 16117417
>>16117200
We dont deserve her.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:15:25 UTC No. 16117418
>>16117416
I was just pointing out it wasn't several minutes retard.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:15:44 UTC No. 16117419
>>16117417
Fuck Deserving. Greatness is built by applied intelligence, sheer willpower and the desire to make things happen.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:19:48 UTC No. 16117423
>>16117418
40 minutes is several minutes, illiterate nigga.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:19:55 UTC No. 16117424
>>16117417
fat
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:21:22 UTC No. 16117426
>>16117424
THICK!!
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:22:45 UTC No. 16117427
>>16117423
wtf is it with retards on this site that don't know basic fucking english, is it esls or have people just got way more retard recently?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:25:16 UTC No. 16117430
>>16117363
> but with kuiper coming online at some point
Kek. Where's the launch capacity jeff?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:30:28 UTC No. 16117435
>>16117417
IFT's wide, soft hips!
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:32:12 UTC No. 16117437
>>16117068
Gf.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:33:57 UTC No. 16117438
>>16117237
>forcing satellite buyers to equip the satellite with deorbiting mechanism is LE BAD
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:35:09 UTC No. 16117440
>>16117427
i feel like people in general, even in my personal life, have thrown reality to the wayside these past couple years.
it's like the veil of sanity is slowly dissapearing on most people because they relied on some facade of normalcy to have a veil to begin with.
that and the fact that millions of subhumans from third world countries are taking the world by storm, compared number of internet users from shitholes like china, india, brazil (and smaller shitholes ETC) from 10 years ago to today.
nowadays when you're on the internet, you can't be sure whether or not you're talking to an actual civilised person that poops in a toilet.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:42:23 UTC No. 16117449
>>16117373
Wayback machine is single-handedly preserving all the information from NASA. Shameful really
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:45:20 UTC No. 16117452
>>16117393
Off topic kys.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:50:51 UTC No. 16117459
>>16117363
Fully operational is closer to end of decade than now, maybe latest 2032. But ultimately post 2026 timeframe, absent of any major market retraction, SpaceX becomes self-funded for all its goals. They become the next NASA of the 50s and 60s, which is ironic in the grand scheme of things. It's also reasonably to assume that revenue will grow around 30% (conservative estimate) YoY until the end of the decade. So at $2.97Bn (generic 110mo services all inclusive (easy math))/yr means that by 2026 they'll bring in:
2024: $2.97Bn << today
2025: $3.86Bn
2026: $5.02Bn
---
2027: $6.53Bn
2028: $8.45Bn
2029: $10.99Bn
2030: $14.29Bn >> fully operational
If SpaceX achieves say $10M per launch (max cost), I know Elon said they want to aim for $1-3M, but let's assume worse case scenario, which is approximately 2x that of Falcon 1, that's still insanely cheap for 2 magnitude orders more mass to orbit with full reusability. Having the capability to do 2x SLS to orbit at that price would be such a massive humiliation of the entire planet's aerospace capabilities, its staggering.
SLS is priced to be around $2Bn for optimized launch costs. $10M for Starship V3 would mean that you'd get a performance ratio of 200:1. No wonder all the politicians are absofuckinglutely livid of how they can't control Elon and tow the party lines. When the best launch program the Senate can do is 100T to orbit for $2Bn and the industry leader can do 40,000T to orbit for $2Bn. That's scary as fuck.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:52:38 UTC No. 16117460
>>16117426
If you think about it. Elon probably looked at the carbon fiber roller that made the initial tank section and then realized its made of steel, then looked up the cryogenic benefits of 304 Stainless Steel with rockets and realized that he could make Starship/SuperHeavy of the same size for fractionally less and went all in. Why buy ultra massive spinning rollers to make big things when you can just make the rollers, spin them in orbit, and call it a day.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:53:54 UTC No. 16117462
Future is looking grim
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:54:29 UTC No. 16117463
>>16117452
>Bigelow
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 20:54:58 UTC No. 16117464
>>16117374
When you take the bad engine out, you put it in line for repair later, there's no need to hold up an entire rocket for one bad engine.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:01:47 UTC No. 16117472
>>16117374
If you can print engines that can do say 50 flights and over 150 light/relight sequences before a potential failure case, and it costs you <$100k to make them, its easier to swap out the engine and investigate the engine for cause while your ships and boosters keep flying with new engines that are unlikely to have that failure case. Then whatever lessons you learn from the failed engine, you incorporate into your production line to improve reliability and safety. The damaged or failed engine, you dismantle and melt down what's useful and recycle it, and what isn't, you send to be melted and recycled out into the broader metallurgy economy, which still has use in the material science economy but doesn't need the extreme tolerances that rocket engines do. It's a win win.
$100K or less production cost with 50 flights means the amortized cost of the engine is actually $2000 per flight. For a ship putting 200T to orbit per launch, worrying about a $2,000 engine is pointless. Just swap it out and stop worrying about the issue. This is how cars are serviced. If a bolt fails, you swap it out with a new bolt and send the damaged bolt back for analysis and investigation--but you don't stop making cars because a single bolt failed. That's the idea behind Raptor3 and beyond.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:05:14 UTC No. 16117476
>>16117262
They won't be printed though
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:32:30 UTC No. 16117502
funny how they have no idea why their engines blow up because they got rid of all the instruments to simplify
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:35:44 UTC No. 16117507
>>16117502
>raptor reliability schizo still seething
Hilarious
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:43:54 UTC No. 16117516
>>16116925
/pol/ is full of fucking tankies these days.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:45:06 UTC No. 16117519
>>16117516
keep me posted
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:46:13 UTC No. 16117521
>>16117237
"Need mo money fo dem programs" t. Arianespace
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:51:45 UTC No. 16117532
>>16117516
The main problem is the vast majority of /pol/ is no longer people from civilised countries with drinking water, and if they are it’s because they’re immigrants
Anyone who responds to this post trying to deny this is likely one of said buttmad niggers.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:51:59 UTC No. 16117533
>>16117502
On both IFT-2 and IFT-3 all 39 engines performed flawlessly on ascent, none of the failures on either flight were caused by the engines.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:00:12 UTC No. 16117540
>>16117533
>>16117507
total nonsense. booster CLEARLY failed due to engines on all missions. Ship failed on IFT3 due to engines (an engine detonated and caused the spin, which also caused the outgassing of the tanks which meant there was no hot gas for rcs)
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:02:14 UTC No. 16117542
>>16117540
>CLEARLY
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:03:43 UTC No. 16117548
>>16117540
>an engine detonated and caused the spin
>This was revealed to me in a CSS fanfiction that Hillary Clinton transmitted into my brain via HAARP
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:06:11 UTC No. 16117551
>>16117540
>more seething
Nobody treats you as a person anymore, you’re fighting an argument that nobody else is fighting anymore because they already won, you’re still pretending there’s anything left to discuss.
You’re just a form of entertainment for us now bud, better get used to being a lolcow.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:08:21 UTC No. 16117554
>>16117548
what was the explosion at the back of the ship then? and what caused the spin? and why as it not corrected? : )
other explanations make them look worse btw.
>>16117551
projecting. youre clearly made that ive chargedyour favourite dildo company with exploding engines.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:08:23 UTC No. 16117555
this has to be bait
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:17:53 UTC No. 16117566
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZC
For tonight's ignored stream, SpaceX will continue to drag it's balls across the smallsat launch market as it launches eleven payloads to a 45.4d mid-inclination orbit.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:33:33 UTC No. 16117580
>>16117566
Mods should perma ban all falcon 9 spam at this point like ja/ck/ threads lol
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:34:03 UTC No. 16117581
Looking forward to the Starbase eclipse photos. That's if it's not ruined by the fucking clouds.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:39:13 UTC No. 16117589
>>16117566
Based
>>16117580
Kys
>>16117581
Its not in the path of totality nothing exciting will happen tard
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:40:17 UTC No. 16117591
>>16117476
how are they going to be manufactured then? some metal vapor deposition thing?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:45:59 UTC No. 16117598
>>16117589
I know it's not on the path of totality. Eclipse photos are cool as fuck.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:46:55 UTC No. 16117600
>>16117554
what explosion?
the main idea that I've seen floated around is that the RCS system didn't work for some reason (could be due to many reasons), nothing about engines exploding
in fact this is the first time I've seen engines being mentioned as being an issue on the ship, where did you get this from?
I don't see how that would be worse especially if its something like a valve getting stuck which happens all the time in spaceflight
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:50:26 UTC No. 16117602
>>16117554
>what was the explosion at the back of the ship then? and what caused the spin? and why as it not corrected? : )
>other explanations make them look worse btw.
The tank valves probably froze over from simple gas expansion. I don't know what it's like to live in the world where that's somehow "worse," but I fortunately don't suffer from Elon Derangement Syndrome and a compulsive desire to let the people I hate live rent free in my head all day.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:53:34 UTC No. 16117606
what?
classified payloads can fuck off from rideshare missions. I want to see payload deployments.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:54:14 UTC No. 16117608
>>16117602
>but I fortunately don't suffer from Elon Derangement Syndrome and a compulsive desire to let the people I hate live rent free in my head all day.
people who suffer from derangement syndromes are not people that you can ever reason with. there's nothing they can teach anyone, they are trained barking dogs and will do so at anyone their masters point at, for the rest of their miserable lives. there's nothing more to it.
also all kinds of derangement syndromes. I just don't engage with any
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:08:46 UTC No. 16117620
>>16117580
kek
/sx/ for spacex threads when?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:09:45 UTC No. 16117621
>>16117620
Permabans for gaslighting oldspace-fags and chicoms when
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:11:38 UTC No. 16117624
live https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:13:15 UTC No. 16117626
>>16117624
this is a LZ1 landing, worth a watch
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:14:15 UTC No. 16117628
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH FALCON 9
THIS IS SO EXCITING
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:17:37 UTC No. 16117631
LUNCH
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:18:31 UTC No. 16117635
max-qute!
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:19:45 UTC No. 16117638
you are now imagining a fat middle aged japanese man using a voice changer
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:22:01 UTC No. 16117643
come on home gralcon nine
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:25:49 UTC No. 16117649
another happy landing
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:25:52 UTC No. 16117650
Legs deployed barely in time
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:25:56 UTC No. 16117651
landed
welcome to the club, SpaceX
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:26:56 UTC No. 16117654
>>16117650
they always do.
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:31:25 UTC No. 16117658
landing never gets old
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:31:44 UTC No. 16117660
>>16117652
Nope
meters vs centimetres
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:31:49 UTC No. 16117661
>>16117654
But more barely than previously
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:37:43 UTC No. 16117667
>>16117665
you could just post a webm from one of the other 380 landings and hardly anyone here would notice lol
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:45:33 UTC No. 16117684
>>16117665
Waste of bandwidth
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:53:18 UTC No. 16117697
>>16117696
because it was a waste of time
the payload would have been to small
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:54:51 UTC No. 16117699
>>16117652
falcon 9 and starship have different landing regimes
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:56:47 UTC No. 16117702
>>16117698
>suborbital
>wasn't mentioned on /sfg/
Gee I wonder why?
Anonymous at Sun, 7 Apr 2024 23:57:06 UTC No. 16117703
>>16117698
Right here >>16116226 in the last thread.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:01:20 UTC No. 16117706
>>16117702
but it was mentioned and talked about
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:01:27 UTC No. 16117707
>>16117698
bloody basterd benchod bich
I posted about it extensively
I will shit in a toilet to curse you
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:02:14 UTC No. 16117708
>>16117702
and yet we're still talking about ift 3
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:09:39 UTC No. 16117712
Nigger (derogatory)
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:10:15 UTC No. 16117713
>>16117708
>and yet we're still talking about ift 3
Turns out that size and horizontal velocity matter a lot.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:11:53 UTC No. 16117715
>>16117712
umm, based
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:13:55 UTC No. 16117717
>>16117713
my question is why the baiter has been posting for 8 hours straight now. he should get a job and take a shower
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:18:29 UTC No. 16117720
>>16117566
FYI, one of the payloads depicted there is completely wrong.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:20:31 UTC No. 16117724
>>16117721
Places we'd all be foolish to invite randos to.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:21:05 UTC No. 16117726
>>16117721
I mostly avoid the discord, but check in sometimes when the thread gets slow.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:21:19 UTC No. 16117727
>>16117721
NSF 24/7 live chat. nowhere else because im not allowed to say the nigger word and also nearly nobody cares.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:22:44 UTC No. 16117729
>>16117726
the NSF discord is actually just awful. everything is conflicting nobody knows whats right, usually just better to ask in the Ringwatchers one since they are pretty consistent and have more info.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:32:21 UTC No. 16117740
>>16117720
Eleven rideshare payloads seems a bit light for a Falcon 9 launch, even if it's an RTLS one. They also didn't show payload deployment "at the request of our customers." That always makes me suspicious at this point.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:35:02 UTC No. 16117744
>>16117721
Nowhere. This is the only place to have a decent conversation without the usual basedniggery from the current outsider that likes space stuff.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:36:04 UTC No. 16117746
>>16117744
damn it, not even the Cyrillic alphabet works now with those retarded filters.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:38:18 UTC No. 16117751
>>16117740
The Korean satellite was explicitly a spy satellite, and there's plenty of reason to think that some other clandestine agency might want to tag along on an already secret ride.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:41:38 UTC No. 16117755
>>16117721
I just talk to myself
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:44:10 UTC No. 16117756
>>16117746
я нe люблю нeгpoв
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:45:05 UTC No. 16117757
>>16117756
russhits get the airlock until rogozin is gulaged
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:47:30 UTC No. 16117762
>>16117757
seethe about Russia somewhere else, you fucking retard
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 00:56:40 UTC No. 16117770
>>16117762
i seethe about rogozin not russia
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:03:37 UTC No. 16117772
>>16117721
At work, because ITAR
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:11:09 UTC No. 16117777
>>16116950
Like the new ablative heat shield.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:15:24 UTC No. 16117780
>>16117724
kek correct
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:24:57 UTC No. 16117786
>>16117783
yeah whatever, it's a skyscraper that flies and lands itself. we've all seen it before, it's played out at this point.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:26:54 UTC No. 16117789
>>16117786
t. seething netizen fail-space nation like Russia
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:27:38 UTC No. 16117793
>>16117789
youre responding to the baiter hes been at this for almost 2 full days now how can you not realize that youre feeding him exactly what he wants
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:29:27 UTC No. 16117794
>>16117793
Oh I know, but at the same time, I'm bored, and new people are really bad at telling the difference between shit-stirring and genuinely held positions.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:32:02 UTC No. 16117799
>>16117797
i could believe that if i wasnt >>16117793
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:34:42 UTC No. 16117800
>>16117797
That'd be a special kind of autistic, since our writing styles are nothing alike.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:36:08 UTC No. 16117801
>>16117777
checked
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:41:34 UTC No. 16117803
>>16117797
>>16117799
>>16117800
still me by the way
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 01:44:48 UTC No. 16117805
>>16117803
der Untermensch
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:41:29 UTC No. 16117868
>>16117652
Falcon 9's TWR is more insane than Starship's. So SpaceX does hoverslams with those boosters. Otherwise, if the booster kept burning for another 1-3 seconds beyond where its engine gets cut off, the reversal would launch the booster on a lateral trajectory--which would be very bad.
One of the key design decisions made with Starship and SuperHeavy is that both ships have the capability to hover. Which will be necessary for the booster and ship to stay in place long enough for the tower to catch and latch onto both vessels.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:45:46 UTC No. 16117873
>>16117868
Lol sure, until it runs out of fuel or a raptor inevitably eats itself
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:47:06 UTC No. 16117877
>>16117873
As is the case of any other booster and ship ever. If you had a point, it was lost in the void that is your brain.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:48:30 UTC No. 16117880
>people still replying to the obvious anti-spacex bait
is it still the same fag that said he was bored
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:49:51 UTC No. 16117886
@16117873
these are two of the easiest problems to solve for a hover scenario, retard
writing the control loop to be able to reliably translate a giant fucking booster while interfacing with another moving part (chopsticks) is more difficult
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:56:45 UTC No. 16117894
>>16117886
If you're going to call someone a retard, learn to quote someone properly so you don't undercut your own insult.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 02:58:38 UTC No. 16117897
>>16117894
>>16117886
New fags for different reasons
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:02:55 UTC No. 16117905
>>16117899
btw this is the trainer. I now get why Anatoly Zak made fun of it for being disingenuous, kek
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:05:21 UTC No. 16117906
>>16117899
>Nono we need to keep making hamster maze space stations forever because that's all Atlas and Delta can launch!!!
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:15:10 UTC No. 16117919
>>16117721
nowhere, because I like this general better
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:21:01 UTC No. 16117921
>>16117899
holy shit you have to be strapped to type in space
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:26:39 UTC No. 16117926
>>16117921
Mag boots?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:29:22 UTC No. 16117929
>>16117921
I just type with my neuralink
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:47:15 UTC No. 16117944
>>16117921
I like the old XX-century concept art where the space stations were fitted out with desks and chairs and bunks, even though they were meant to be zero g
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:48:58 UTC No. 16117945
B11 on its way back to prod. site as we speak. There has always been a massive multi-month gap between Booster SFs and launches, but they think they will launch next month. Is this Elon time or is it really dropping time to test by that much.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 03:52:13 UTC No. 16117950
>>16117945
flight 2 to flight 3 required additional hardware changes on the ship and booster to account for the failure modes encountered in flight 2 (more baffles in booster, additional fire suppression on ship)
flight 3 to flight 4 has a very small list of hardware changes https://ringwatchers.com/article/s2
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:02:19 UTC No. 16117957
>>16117899
why do they have arms and legs?
future esatronauts were supposed to be gay retarded cripples
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:04:17 UTC No. 16117962
>>16117957
pic related
it's all a joke tho, since euros cannot into space
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:05:26 UTC No. 16117965
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:06:30 UTC No. 16117968
>>16117965
has mass autism gone to far?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:09:10 UTC No. 16117970
>>16117965
He put his feet on backwards, what a retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:19:21 UTC No. 16117977
>>16117899
ripping off the chinks is a new low for yurropeens
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:23:00 UTC No. 16117980
>>16117950
do you think thats because theyre saving up changes for v2 starship and just launching what they have left to get as much data as possible ready for that versions modifications?
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 04:32:31 UTC No. 16117999
Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:42:52 UTC No. 16118132
>>16117554
>STOP MAKING FUN OF ME
no lol.