Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:10:25 UTC No. 16118390

>not in the path of the eclipse
why are we here, just to suffer?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 11:30:53 UTC No. 16118421

>>16118390
thats the final nail in the coffin of starship.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:34:42 UTC No. 16118496

>>16118390
>Too poor to be able to afford travel and a day off.
FTFY

Is there any modeling that SpaceX Starship has a chance at success?
Why is Elon wasting everyone time with a rocket that will never work?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:37:16 UTC No. 16118500

>>16118496
This is my favorite dumb video of Starship, I can’t believe SpaceX removed it from their channel yet.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 13:42:35 UTC No. 16118575

SpaceX Starship’s next explosion is set for May.
Why don’t they just build good vehicles from the beginning?
What do they learn from causing so many rockets to explode?
https://www.space.com/spacex-starship-fourth-test-flight-possible-may-2024

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 13:46:48 UTC No. 16118580

Falcon Heavy
>”Rapidly Reusable”
>introduced in 2018
>9 launches in 6 years
>Less than two launches per year
What’s the point of making a rocket system “rapidly reusable” when no one has any payloads for it?

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:34:59 UTC No. 16118644

Is space a dumb meme?
Shouldn’t every rocket company be successful?
If not, are they trying to monetize space too early?
SpaceX - losing money
Rocketlab - down 90% since ATHs, basically a scam/rugpull.
Virgin Space - completely laughable failure
Boeing/ULA - would be bankrupt if not for taxpayer funded projects
Blue Origin - 2023 revenue was around $43 Million, which is basically nothing since Bezo’s sold around $1 Billion worth of Amazon stock per year to fund his dumb pet project

Basically the only people who are winning this dumb “space race” are the employees who are making a salary paid for from the coffers of billionaires.
Everyone else is losing out.

sage at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:35:13 UTC No. 16118646

>Do not post in this split thread
Do not post in this split thread
>Do not post in this split thread
Do not post in this split thread
>Do not post in this split thread
Do not post in this split thread
>Do not post in this split thread
Do not post in this split thread
>Do not post in this split thread
Do not post in this split thread
>Do not post in this split thread

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 14:38:07 UTC No. 16118648

>>16118580
only reason for falcon heavy to exist is to launch DOD payloads to geostationary orbit. They dont use it for starlink because starlink is volume limited rather than weight limited. I dont know why they never came up with an expanded faring for falcon heavy, especially since starlink v3 requires a larger faring. It's also somewhat unsettling that Musk promsied fheavy would fly to mars every launch window once it was done, yet theyve flown zero misisosn to mars. makes youwonderif hewas ever serious and if starship will ever go.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Apr 2024 15:08:58 UTC No. 16118687

>>16118648
I don’t think it’s possible for Falcon Superheavy to fly payloads to Mars.
We have no way of *landing* more than 2,000lbs worth of scientific equipment on Mars in any given launch.
So what’s the point of sending a multi-million dollar space habitat, drilling equipment, mining equipment, “fuel creating” equipment (which is impossible for other reasons) to Mars when it will likely not even survive the trip at all in the first place?
I have yet to see a feasible proposal to land more than 2,000lbs on Mars.
A human lander on Mars that weighs around 10,000lbs (like Apollo 11) is currently impossible, and of course anything heavier than that is pure science fiction.