🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:36:12 UTC No. 16160382
Engine inspection day edition
previous: >>16158571
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:39:34 UTC No. 16160392
>>16160382
Ok, this one has the right template, but why have this edition instead of, idk, Polaris spacesuit edition?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:40:43 UTC No. 16160396
>>16160392
are you retarded? spelling spaceflight as one word is newfag shit
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:42:22 UTC No. 16160401
>>16160396
it's been that way for as long as I can remember (wasn't here for the earliest threads) and it makes more sense to just use spaceflight instead of forcing the acronym.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:42:47 UTC No. 16160403
bad thread, use this one instead
do not indulge the threadsplitter spamfaggot
>>16160366
>>16160366
>>16160366
>>16160366
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:45:53 UTC No. 16160413
>>16160401
you can check the archives if you want
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:46:34 UTC No. 16160416
>>16160413
no, I mean I wasn't here for the earliest threads where it was a thing, so I'm not attached to it.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 09:48:19 UTC No. 16160421
>>16160392
Yeah probably should've been polaris spacesuit edition. I concede that. Feel free to post spacesuits though.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:04:43 UTC No. 16160440
>>16160437
>>16160421
>>16160415
>>16160394
do you have fun talking to yourself, all alone in your faggot thread?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:07:50 UTC No. 16160444
>>16160440
you seem angry.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:20:51 UTC No. 16160453
You will now remember mechanical counterpressure space suits.
It's really sad that nobody bothers with these, since they seem (theoretically) outright superior to gas pressurized suits. I wonder if NASA and everyone else just forgot about them.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:45:53 UTC No. 16160481
>>16160480
>Scott Fagley
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:50:31 UTC No. 16160488
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
Small Rockets
>German rocket arrives at Scottish spaceport.
>Arianespace wins ESA launch contract
>Update on ABL's second launch.
Medium Rockets
>Galileo satellites ride with SpaceX.
>Ariane 6 is on the launch pad.
>Astroscale chases down a dead rocket.
>China preps to launch Chang'e 6
Heavy Rockets
>Questions remain about Artemis II.
>Starship refueling plans come into focus.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 10:53:26 UTC No. 16160492
Something I missed from the spaces
> The spacewalkers will go through a “test matrix” to collect data on the performance of the EVA suits. “This is looking at mobility, movement in this microgravity environment, how the suit is performing,” she said. “There’s a whole series of test questions that will be stepped through for the time outside the spacecraft.”
overall a good summary of the spaces if you didn't listen to it
https://spacenews.com/spacex-reveal
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 12:12:51 UTC No. 16160547
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 12:14:03 UTC No. 16160549
>>16160547
based
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 12:17:08 UTC No. 16160554
>>16160382
SpaceX is literally nothing without NASA lmao
All the computations, modeling and optimizations are done by Marshall Flight Center.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 13:56:24 UTC No. 16160667
>>16160550
Shuttle nostalgia is devil worship. Repent
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 13:59:54 UTC No. 16160670
nuclear > solar
what will solarfags do at night?
woops, looks like your spacecraft needs to conserve energy until daytime, suck to suck solarfags!
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 14:17:58 UTC No. 16160695
this is a fag thread for fags
join the real thread (not you, OP. stay here in your retard chamber)
>>16160366
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:13:36 UTC No. 16160765
>>16160453
>gives your armpits, palms, back of your elbows, asscrack, and crotch edema
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:22:18 UTC No. 16160772
>>16160437
The AxEMU is indeed happening. It's being put through training.
https://youtu.be/qBXX8SNQM2k
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:30:39 UTC No. 16160783
Hey OP, Im sorry I missed staging this time. I know I usually do it with the time stamps and all but I appreciate you covering for me like usual, I can tell from the format its you. Its unfortunate that the other OP is griefing this hard, would never have happened if I hadnt or been sleeping or if janny actually woke up and did his job. Ill try to get these on time in the future so /sfg/ isnt griefed this hard again.
I apologize to /sfg/ at large for being tardy on staging.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:32:21 UTC No. 16160784
>>16160783
Post that in this thread
>>16160366
>>16160366
>>16160366
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:32:38 UTC No. 16160785
>>16160783
>the gayest post I've ever seen
To think you made so many OP's, I threw up a little in my mouth
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:41:49 UTC No. 16160793
>>16160783
stupid nigger
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:45:07 UTC No. 16160796
>>16160792
>the scorch mark
Fear.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:45:07 UTC No. 16160797
>>16160793
You dont have to keep replying and samefagging here you know. You could just... go back to what (You) think is the correct thread and wait for janny to clean it up if you think its in the right.
But you wont, because that wasnt the purpose of this entire situation. The purpose was to grief /sfg/, and that was made pretty obvious by how much you spammed this thread. I hope that once this is all over you got this spergery out of your system and we can go back to normal.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:46:20 UTC No. 16160799
>>16160797
I'm not the one who split the threads lmao
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:46:41 UTC No. 16160801
>>16160796
What was the cause of that also? I remember seeing it in a previous thread but nobody ever told me what it was/was from.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:47:45 UTC No. 16160804
>>16160799
And neither am I. Go back please.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:51:31 UTC No. 16160807
>>16160415
Why is one row way dirtier than the others
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:53:40 UTC No. 16160808
>>16160772
I know a couple people in the spacesuit sector and apparently collins aerospace is shitting the bed and the lunar suits won't be ready until 2029. They are actually considering remanufacturing the original apollo suits.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:56:46 UTC No. 16160810
Does anyone know whats going on with the Chang'e 6 mission? I read a little bit about it earlier in that Berger article but how long is it going to take and whats the method theyre using to launch back, is it like previous MSR where they use some rocket or are they returning the entire landing probe.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:57:55 UTC No. 16160813
>>16160808
Kek wtf, at this point if the SpaceX EVAs work why not just buy those out. This is also a pathetic show for 60 year old tech at this point.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 15:58:35 UTC No. 16160814
>>16160808
what has Collins Aerospace got to do with this?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:03:53 UTC No. 16160820
>>16160814
NTA but maybe theyre contracted?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:08:57 UTC No. 16160827
>>16160820
Collins Aerospace was contracted to make the replacement EMU (picrel) for the ISS EMU. They have nothing to do with the development/certification/productio
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:12:01 UTC No. 16160830
>>16160827
Ah I see thanks.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:13:56 UTC No. 16160835
>>16160421
What is your favourite spacesuit, anon? Mine is probably always going to be the Shuttle EMU.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:15:44 UTC No. 16160836
>>16160835
The new ones just have too much sovl. Theyre perfect in every way, and actually look like they belong in this era.
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:23:40 UTC No. 16160842
>>16160810
stupid frogposter
🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 16:43:11 UTC No. 16160860
>>16160842
Forgot fairy award again... starting to doubt youre the fairyposter
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:12:40 UTC No. 16160886
>>16160860
stupid frogposter
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:21:50 UTC No. 16160890
https://x.com/ryanhansenspace/statu
Big thread on the quick disconnect if you ever wanted to know how they fuel and cut away during launch.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:28:23 UTC No. 16160893
>>16160813
the artemis EVA suits have way more mobility than the SpaceX ones and operate at a highter internal pressure with less air leakage. Thatbeing said though SpaceX could probably make a functional lunar excursion suit by the time starship HLS is ready. it would also be insane kino if they could fly private customers to the lunar surface in SpaceX excurison suits
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:30:11 UTC No. 16160897
>>16160681
If it's Boeing...
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:30:27 UTC No. 16160899
>>16160897
you are dying
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:39:57 UTC No. 16160910
>>16160908
nah
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:49:45 UTC No. 16160927
>>16160901
The A7L was so ahead of its time that even modern "advanced" spacesuits end up returning to designs championed by the A7L (namely the cable-assisted dual-plane shoulder joints)
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 17:57:22 UTC No. 16160943
>>16160927
>airborne lunar gravity simulation, no harnesses needed
Neat. How long are the spells of lunar gravity? It's got to be much longer than the zero g spells, which are on the order of tens of seconds.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:09:43 UTC No. 16160960
>>16160943
Hm, I'm actually not sure at all! I think it's a matter of minutes?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:13:30 UTC No. 16160967
>>16160943
as far as I understand it, you get a similar amount of time to zero g, since they actually use a slightly different trajectory than a zero g sim would.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:21:32 UTC No. 16160976
>>16160975
https://twitter.com/rookisaacman/st
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:23:42 UTC No. 16160984
>>16160976
https://twitter.com/Cmdr_Hadfield/s
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:25:02 UTC No. 16160985
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:25:48 UTC No. 16160987
>>16160975
Mister Hadfield, half of these questions have already been answered
>what pressure is inside the suit?
5.1 psi
>how supple is range of motion when pressurized?
this we actually don't know, but we have best guesses based off what we do know about the mobility architecture (bearings for the scye, wrist)
>where does the umbilical attach?
Right thigh, as with the IVA suit
>can you see/access the umbilical to tend it?
If you can see your thigh, then yes. Airflow control is also located here
>spark sources in 100% oxygen?
unknown, but we should hope there are none
>diaper?
also unknown, but for a two hour EVA it may not be needed
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 18:59:32 UTC No. 16161038
>>16160991
Ohhh so theres no detaching for Dawn? Thats kind of unfortunate but I guess expected. I wonder what suits the Vast Haven-1 station will use, you think in house made or theyre gonna pay SpaceX again?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:02:03 UTC No. 16161041
>>16160987
how does living at 0.34 atm work? wouldnt you like die
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:02:11 UTC No. 16161042
>>16161038
umbilical nigga, this is iterative development
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:05:24 UTC No. 16161049
Bridenstine would already have two space tugs in orbit
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:09:15 UTC No. 16161057
>>16160985
So the IVAs were basically just an early iteration of what the EVAs are supposed to be
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:21:48 UTC No. 16161088
>>16161041
top of Mount Everest has about 0.3 atm
you can survive but you want to have higher oxygen level than normal air to be comfortable
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:25:55 UTC No. 16161101
>>16161088
Oh I see. How does 100% oxygen work also? Dont we usually need a mix of nitrogen or something or is it because the pressure is so low that 100% is required to get the same amount.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:26:14 UTC No. 16161104
>>16161041
The human body needs about 2 psi of air pressure to just barely survive. Any less than that, and your lungs wouldn't work, and you'd start to suffocate. So, 5.1 psi is more than enough
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:27:29 UTC No. 16161107
>>16160960
>>16160967
I got nerd sniped by this. Assuming that the plane's horizontal speed is the same in the lunar sim case as it is for the zero g case (which it would be if vertical velocity at trajectory exit is the governing parameter), that's about 30 seconds of sim time. If instead the absolute speed at trajectory exit is the governing parameter, then that stretches to 41 seconds. I was kinda hoping for more than that looking at how chill the observers are in the photo.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:32:13 UTC No. 16161121
>>16161101
It's the partial pressure of O2 that matters. Plus without all that nasty nitrogen around, the bends are not a problem.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 19:38:18 UTC No. 16161133
>>16161121
I see. Thanks for the info
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:13:36 UTC No. 16161207
>>16161057
yes and these EVA suits are also just part of the iterative process towards surface suits, though if you need a jetpack and backpack for life support I would imagine this system will be somewhat modular
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:22:23 UTC No. 16161227
>>16161207
I'm skeptical, but imagine if SpaceX manages to make suits which work for all purposes and don't require prebreathe in the future
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:26:50 UTC No. 16161239
>>16161227
I think that was an explicit goal that they talked about in the spaces, probably quite a long term goal though
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:36:08 UTC No. 16161253
pro tip: Mars is free real estate
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 20:37:15 UTC No. 16161255
>>16161250
>Business case?
>I'm not doing this to make money.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:19:38 UTC No. 16161308
What happenedto those NASA development suits which were fully made from metal plates like a suit of armor?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:36:05 UTC No. 16161317
>split threads with equal replies
yup general is dead. totally done for. it's been fun
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:36:09 UTC No. 16161318
>>16160772
Spacesuits seem like the right niche for a government agency to do. Very little profitable demand for them.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:50:19 UTC No. 16161340
>>16161323
just listen to it on xitter it was pretty boring though
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 21:51:39 UTC No. 16161344
>>16161308
Somewhere along the line it was decided that they were too bulky, heavy, and expensive.
I think they were also more limited in supporting a range of wearers with above or below average heights.
xEMU went with a hybrid design. The torso is a hard shell, but the arms and legs are soft.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:00:00 UTC No. 16161354
>nearly 6 months since last starship test
We are NOT going
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:01:23 UTC No. 16161356
It's insanse that nobody has tried mcp suits since the 60s.
The results they got then were good.
The upside is huge someone needs to do it
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:02:26 UTC No. 16161360
>>16161354
>baiting
kill yourself
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:03:09 UTC No. 16161362
>>16161356
Some tenured femoid is sitting on patents
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:03:34 UTC No. 16161365
>>16161354
is this bait?
it hasn't even been two months, IFT-3 was on March 14
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:04:15 UTC No. 16161366
>>16161362
>patents
nobody cares about that. that is not the reason
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:04:58 UTC No. 16161370
>>16161365
Its pretty obviously bait, dont know why youre replying to it considering that the likely culprit is the same person thats been doing this for a month atp.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:05:36 UTC No. 16161371
>>16161366
>nobody cares about that
Patent law is pretty important, if she doesn't sell you can't do shit.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:06:09 UTC No. 16161372
>>16161371
patents can be circumvented or licensed
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:08:28 UTC No. 16161377
>>16161344
Is that the one on the right youre talking about?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:10:52 UTC No. 16161386
>>16161362
>Some tenured femoid
May I see the BioSuit vacuum chamber test?
It's been 20 years surely you must have tested it
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:11:22 UTC No. 16161387
>>16161253
Is it really free though? Its cost is the cost of transportation
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:13:53 UTC No. 16161393
>>16160810
Pls someone help me out here
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:17:49 UTC No. 16161402
>>16161386
QRD? Ive literally never seen this suit in my life
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:23:53 UTC No. 16161417
>>16161402
its the suit from da marshan
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:24:24 UTC No. 16161419
>>16161402
It's one of the 3 entries on the Wikipedia page for MCP designs.
And it's the only one of them that has not really been tested despite being in development for literally 20 years due to being a shitty do-nothing university project.
I cannot fathom why nobody serious has tried to make one despite the Paul Webb suit proving its feasible and has way better mobility than pressurized suits.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:28:32 UTC No. 16161424
>>16161419
Well the mobility thing might change soon with the SpaceX suits. Maybe the risk adverse NASA just didnt even want to bother trying and paying for new suits when they can just reuse what they already had? Idk
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:38:51 UTC No. 16161440
>>16161419
How would they do thermal management with the skin in contact with the suit? An overcoat I imagine?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:46:07 UTC No. 16161449
>>16161377
All 3 are the same suit. Just different views and colors.
The latest iteration is the AxEMU being built by Axiom. Pic related.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 22:50:10 UTC No. 16161451
>>16161440
Yeah you can still have liquid cooling / heating channels and an insulation layer.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:02:59 UTC No. 16161464
>>16161227
A zero-prebreathe suit would be difficult but certainly not impossible for SpaceX. Combined with the necessary added mobility joints to meet mobility demand for surface activities, such a suit would likely end up much more complex and bulky. There's a reason the AxEMU (which was specifically designed to operate at zero-prebreathe pressures) is so massive.
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:04:11 UTC No. 16161466
>>16161464
what if you added some powered joints, some quasi exoskeleton?
Anonymous at Sun, 5 May 2024 23:18:28 UTC No. 16161485
>>16161466
that's always an option, and a popular one, at that. Of course, that introduces several new sets of complexities, challenges, and risks posed to the astronaut. A powered exoskeleton would require you to design an entirely new mobility architecture atop the architecture of the pressure garment. That could get quite bulky and heavy. You'll also have to worry about power, both in terms of consumption and storage. Batteries are heavy. Then there's the issue of keeping those joints working in vacuum without overheating. Do you use your water cooling loop to cool all these electronics? Now you've doubled your water consumption. Also, let's hope that literally none of this malfunctions, lest your astronaut get turned into a gimp mid-way through his EVA.
In the end, I'd say it's much cheaper, safer, and more reliable to just design a more robust pressure garment. In my opinion, the AxEMU is effective, but overkill. I believe you can get similar performance out of a much lighter weight EMU.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:14:31 UTC No. 16161532
>>16161531
finally being put out of its misery
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:15:50 UTC No. 16161533
>>16161531
its over. 6 months til next launch.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:24:06 UTC No. 16161536
>>16161464
Polaris Dawn literally is zero prebreathe though.
They reduce the capsule pressure slowly over several days.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:26:47 UTC No. 16161537
>>16161402
>Ive literally never seen this suit in my life
Exactly
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:39:23 UTC No. 16161548
how did the threads get split?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:41:18 UTC No. 16161549
>>16161536
Yes, only because of the reason you've mentioned. That does not make the suit a zero-prebreathe suit by definition, since you could not jump from 1 Atm to the suit's pressure of 5.1 psi without prebreathing first. The technique of gradually dropping the pressure within the spacecraft to reduce or eliminate prebreathe time has been used since way back, and allows you to use spacesuits with relatively low operating pressures without needing to put hours aside for prebreathing before each EVA.
Zero-prebreathe suits are desirable for contexts where you're jumping from and to high pressure (so, at or near 14.7 psi, one atmosphere), such as the ISS.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:44:36 UTC No. 16161552
>>16161548
someone made a new one because the other one was shit. who cares? the activity in this thread is higher quality and im getting new info so i use this one
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:49:55 UTC No. 16161554
>>16160810
>>16161393
Heres changes profile
8 may: gets into lunar orbit
2 june: lands on the moon
25: brings back to earth the sample
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 00:55:28 UTC No. 16161558
>>16161554
ok so it does have a part that separates off i see
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:07:45 UTC No. 16161571
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:12:28 UTC No. 16161574
>>16161570
I got accused of being a troll for pointing out the tile thing. Starship can avoid most debris strikes on ascent due to not being side mounted like shuttle, but acoustics were a major cause of tile damage on shuttle and clearly cause dozens to fall off on starship launch. And even if that is fixed I don't see the shield being fully reusable. They will have to replace loads of tiles every mission which will prevent rapid reuse. I think peak heating on starship is higher than shuttle, and shuttle typically had to replace a few tiles from heat damage every mission.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:14:44 UTC No. 16161576
>>16161570
we wont know until the next flight when they get the orientation correct throughout the entire reentry. once thats done we will see if they were right or not.
id like to take this opportunity to remind you that the watercooled plate doomers were wrong, the separation doomers were wrong, the hot stage ring doomers were wrong, and the envirotroon doomers were wrong. the tile doomers will also be wrong.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:17:15 UTC No. 16161578
>>16161574
the shuttle used 1980s tech that had no reason to innovate under government funding and is not a good comparison.
youre not a troll for having tile concerns, in fact as of now thats the most pressing issue and should be acknowledged. however it will be a temporary issue just as every other issue of the program that got solved so far has been.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:20:38 UTC No. 16161579
>>16160554
I don't think that is correct
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:28:31 UTC No. 16161584
>>16161578
starship tiles are made from the exact same material shuttle tiles are made from. there is no new tech.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:34:23 UTC No. 16161592
>>16160554
what's their arrangement? I wonder what kind of money spacex pays for nasa services
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 01:56:06 UTC No. 16161601
>>16161570
Hmmmm
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:00:48 UTC No. 16161604
>>16161584
Apart from being like 10x as thick so they don't break when a bird looks at them
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:04:01 UTC No. 16161607
>>16161570
Surely they've looked into using a magnetoshell, right? RIGHT?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:12:15 UTC No. 16161619
>>16161607
This is a no schizo zone
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:19:30 UTC No. 16161621
>>16161604
reminder that if the wing leading edge under the tiles on the Space Shuttle had been made of titanium instead of aluminum (wtf) the Columbia wouldn't have been lost
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:42:27 UTC No. 16161632
>>16161621
Titanium was very hard for America to source in large quantities during the cold war as most titanium ore was found in Russia. The CIA had to set up a complex string of dummy corporations to buy stock from Soviet exporters so Lockheed would have enough metal to build the SR-71. Something like that was probably impractical for the Shuttle given how public and high profile the project was.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 02:56:50 UTC No. 16161641
>>16161619
Based
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:00:36 UTC No. 16161644
>Chinese plan on landing humans on moon 2029
>Artemis 3 no earlier than Sep 2026 (Elon musk calender)
Why did no one tell me there was going to be a nech-and-neck space race to the moon
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:05:56 UTC No. 16161650
>>16161644
No one really thought through the consequences of SLS having such an absurdly low flight rate or considered the possibility that Lockheed could put together a capsule that was just as bad as Starliner.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:07:48 UTC No. 16161651
>>16161644
It's not. America already beat everyone back in 1969.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:26:39 UTC No. 16161668
>>16161632
I knew some retard would say that, so here goes, every single one of the hundreds of F-15 fighters made in the US during the 1970s had a titanium main spar joining the wings, along with every single one of the hundreds of A-10 ground attack planes having a titanium tub to protect the pilot, and these, along with many other industrial and military programs in the US that required titanium, used hundreds of tons of it per year, and that which was in excess of what South Africa could provide, originated in the Soviet Union, which used to sell large quantities of titanium to shell companies in the West, who were largely buying for the military/industrial complex, so don't tell me the FOUR space shuttle frames constructed by Rockwell in the late 70s couldn't have made the spar that runs the length of the wing from titanium, as it would have been trivial in quantity compared to the total amount being used every year by aerospace manufacturers in the US, and NO, using it on the civilian NASA shuttle wouldn't have been "problematic", no matter where the origin, as using it in the construction of weapons/spy planes was.
>Something like that was probably impractical for the Shuttle given how public and high profile the project was
shut the fuck up, retard, don't ever spill your stupid gay "I gotta say something that sounds smart" opinion at me again
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:35:32 UTC No. 16161675
>>16161651
And yet they are unable to replicate it...
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:36:32 UTC No. 16161678
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:47:40 UTC No. 16161688
>>16161668
>it would have been trivial
So why didn't they?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:48:36 UTC No. 16161689
>>16161651
This isn't even the same country anymore dude.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:49:57 UTC No. 16161691
>>16161632
(protip: Rockwell making the wing leading edge out of anything but aluminum, as a "just in case" measure, would have been basically admitting that the TPS could conceivably fail, which was a big no no during the selling of the STS to the mil and NASA, but in hindsight, especially after the 2003 wing burn through and loss of Columbia, it seems a rather obvious flaw in their design now)
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:54:06 UTC No. 16161698
>>16161675
amazing what you can do with 10x the budget
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 03:58:51 UTC No. 16161700
>>16161698
SpaceX has more than 10x less budget yet seems to able to do perfectly fine. Curious.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 04:10:08 UTC No. 16161710
>>16161570
why don't they just do a spray of whatever the tiles are made out of in layers instead. probably incredibly toxic but use a robot or something.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 04:12:23 UTC No. 16161712
>>16161710
Not replaceable fir any damaged or worn parts short of getting a hundred beaners taking scraping tools to the rocket and redoing the whole thing.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:32:44 UTC No. 16161765
thread is very comfy... feels like old /sfg/ when we didnt have any baiters around for weeks and everyone just wanted to learn/discuss more about space. i remember the december era when we also had a split thread that the quality of posts also went up.
also speaking of guess we were wrong about picrel kek
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:35:18 UTC No. 16161767
>>16161765
oops nvm those threads were still doo doo caca. still this one is very nice
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:37:42 UTC No. 16161769
>>16161767
>>16161765
Threads have been shit for a very long time.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:38:19 UTC No. 16161772
>>16161769
yes i am just misremembering thats my bad
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:47:09 UTC No. 16161780
>>16160801
Cargo culting Apollo.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:49:48 UTC No. 16161785
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 05:53:38 UTC No. 16161791
>>16161785
Banan
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 06:11:57 UTC No. 16161816
>>16161688
partly the air force wanted all the titanium for themselves and they were going to object if nasa used it for anything (this is in heppenheimer, i'm not making it up), partly cost-cutting on nasa's part because titanium is a huge pain in the ass to work with compared to aluminum
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 07:07:14 UTC No. 16161851
>>16161592
Nothing, actually, although it certainly isn't free. Without any public details though the scope of the assistance is unknown. Griffin is on record as being absolutely furious that NASA can't meddle in HLS/Starship because it isn't a cost-plus structure that lets NASA continually review the work and make change orders. That said, they're more than happy to provide "advice and expertise" but it'd take an official disclosure from the OIG to find out how that work is tracked and billed. This is the kind of thing that makes the scientists anxious as hell that Artemis is stealing money from other directorate budgets.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:26:57 UTC No. 16162022
>>16161761
Don't forget to set the clock this time, guys!
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:38:05 UTC No. 16162037
>>16161816
So youre telling me that Columbia would have not disintegrated if it had a titanium spar?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:39:42 UTC No. 16162039
>>16161604
Buddy.... They are THINNER.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:42:18 UTC No. 16162044
>>16161761
haven't done one of these before, but I remember there was one for artemis 1, so:
1: complete success, /sfg/ and musk cultists btfo
2: mostly a success, some teething issues: the toilet breaks, astronauts complain, issues on docking with ISS.
3: Mission control loses contact with starliner for extended period, commence panic. Turns out it was a nothingburger and everything is fine.
4: similar issues to last time, jeetcode forces astronauts take control and earn their paycheck, other than that, things go to plan. Boeing was right all along.
5: starliner does the thing NASA predicted it would do if it made it to the ISS last time. minor collision event.
6: Atlas V shits the bed. abort on launch. Unjust end for starliner.
7: depressurization event ala soyuz 11. IVA suits save the crew and flight is aborted.
8: flight is aborted, but parachutes fail catastrophically, severely injuring the crew.
9: total failure, loss of life due to some stupid mistake. starliner goes in the bin and after a news cycle and a period of mourning everything goes back to normal.
0: complete failure and total loss, possibly involving the ISS, internationally publicized spaceflight travesty. US gov temp bans all spaceflight for investigation into NASA contract policy.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:43:26 UTC No. 16162048
>>16162044
The International Space Station will crash into the Three Gorges Dam.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:49:31 UTC No. 16162058
>>16161644
>>16161651
I've said it before and I will say it again. China beating American to the moon this century (which they will) will be a major bifurcation point in perceptions of world history. The moon landings will become one of the primary indicators of your political alleigance. 70% of people today in Russia think America faked the 69-72 landings. They are primed to rewrite history when China lands, and it will become canon in the eurasian bloc (as well as for MIGAtards) to say that China was the first country to ever land a man on the moon.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:50:48 UTC No. 16162060
about 15h to starliner launch
some videos from ULA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOS
>Atlas V Starliner CFT: Passing the Torch
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnY
>Atlas V Starliner CFT Mission Profile
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:53:03 UTC No. 16162064
>>16162060
ongoing livestream from launchpad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGR
>LIVE! ULA Boeing Starliner CFT Countdown
livestream from NSF that starts in 11h (didn't find a official stream from ULA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI1
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:55:17 UTC No. 16162067
>>16162058
What do you mean the recordings from the moon don't have a chain of custody?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 10:55:48 UTC No. 16162068
>>16161579 >>16161592
I think it comes with the contract, SpaceX isn't writing a check to NASA for the service. NASA is simply a part of a lot of technology verification work, for them and other companies like ULA.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:00:22 UTC No. 16162074
>>16162058
It's possible I guess, but all you have to do to prove otherwise is go visit an apollo landing site. You'd have to actively destroy the evidence to maintain the lie past a certain point.
>>16162044
rolling
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:03:12 UTC No. 16162079
>>16162044
rolling
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:07:55 UTC No. 16162087
>>16162074
>all you have to do to prove otherwise is go visit an apollo landing site
all you have to do to disprove flat earth is to fly away from the planet in any direction, or work in any industry that requires you to navigate long distances. Yet flerfers exist, and if the government was pushing it as the official narrative then 90% of normies would believe it even if they had cognitive dissonance to do so. I don't think the chink government will officially come out and say they were the first to land men on the moon, but they will dogwhistle and push that message through alternative media. Within our lifetimes we wont reach a point where anyone can visit an apollo landing site to prove for themselves, so there will be enough plausible deniability. And they could just shift the goalposts and say sure the landings happened but they were done by computer and the spacewalks were filmed in hollywood.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:22:19 UTC No. 16162107
>>16162079
The guy on the right is destroying my country
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:25:28 UTC No. 16162117
>>16162107
*fixing your country
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:28:05 UTC No. 16162122
>>16162058
What landing on moon will prove now? Whats even the point of going to the moon? Robots do job just fine, sending humans there is useless and dangerous. We have barely enough tech to survive there.
>The moon landings will become one of the primary indicators of your political allegiance.
Again, whats the point of landing on moon? To prove that commies are not retarded pieces of shit? Great, what do i say.
>They are primed to rewrite history when China lands, and it will become canon in the eurasian bloc (as well as for MIGAtards) to say that China was the first country to ever land a man on the moon.
Alright, they destroyed all US robots and equipment, whats then? "Very good china, you landed on moon!"
About russia, they had like 50 years to land on moon and yet they ruined country and started wars, they have lots of resources and they are wasted on new lambo of new corrupt piece of shit.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:32:20 UTC No. 16162130
>>16161644
>>16161688
beautiful digits, salient points
>>16162122
ugly digits, newfag poster, wasted dubs
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:42:42 UTC No. 16162144
>>16162064
daylight
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:49:01 UTC No. 16162152
>>16162058
>70% of people today in Russia think
So what? Those people think all kinds of wrong shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 11:51:26 UTC No. 16162155
>>16162122
>Whats even the point of going to the moon?
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
FUCK YOU
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:05:32 UTC No. 16162164
>>16162058
>70% of people today in Russia think America faked the 69-72 landings.
There's no fucking way that's a real stat.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:08:57 UTC No. 16162169
>>16162164
I wouldn't be surprised. We know that Rogozin is a skeptic.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:13:11 UTC No. 16162175
>>16162164
It's probably real that 70% of Russians say that they think that. But the Russian is a pathetic, slimy creature who has been trained to not ask too many questions nor think too hard and, if he does come to a truth that's inappropriate to his masters, will deliberately lie and dissimulate.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:24:51 UTC No. 16162186
chang'e-6 has a rover now, apparently
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:26:04 UTC No. 16162188
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/sta
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
>So what happened? How did Boeing, the gold standard in human spaceflight for decades, fall so far behind on crew? This story, based largely on interviews with unnamed current and former employees of Boeing and contractors who worked on Starliner, attempts to provide some answers.
its a pretty long article
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:40:40 UTC No. 16162197
>>16162188
I kind of skipped it because it looked like something I'd seen before, is there anything actually interesting in it?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 12:52:43 UTC No. 16162205
>>16162188
paraphrasing
>no single unified flight software team, but two teams, one in florida and one in texas, the teams didn't trust each other or talk to each other much
>Boeing didn't run a single integrated flight software test end-to-end, but divided it into chunks, if they had they would have probably caught the errors that made OFT-1 of starliner fail
>not being vertically integrated meant everything that passed silos lines took a long time, an example given was that if a rocketdyne engineer working on propulsion wanted to connect to the service module with some widget, it might mean a dozen people in different companies and departments would have to get involved
>an anomaly in 2018 during a hotfire test that dumped 4000 pounds of monomethylhydrazine on the test stand was at least partly caused by bad communication between boeing and rocketdyne due to the companies hating eachother (why? boeing saw rocketdyne as a partner, rocketdyne saw itself as a contractor and asked a change order fee after some system specs were changed)
Quotes from the article
>Boeing's best people were focused on the aircraft crisis, and the experienced space hands were leaving [or retiring in a accelerated way due to the pandemic].
>The surprise is not that Boeing lost to a more nimble competitor in the commercial space race. The surprise is that this lumbering company made it at all. For that, we should celebrate Starliner’s impending launch and the thousands of engineers and technicians who made it happen.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:32:26 UTC No. 16162249
>>16162236
Well if its with msm its going to be very surface level. Probably what some boomer thats only ever heard about the shuttle can understand
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 13:36:10 UTC No. 16162252
>>16162205
In theory none of this should have prevented Starliner from being built. Indeed a lot of space projects are handled that way
The fact that vertical "silos" gets name-dropped means Starliner had no leadership involved across the whole program and people were content with their fiefdoms -- nobody noticed or cared about the whole project. This shows when you think about the issues they had: leaks in valves that were impossible to service, the parachutes not working properly (literally the number three most important system after life support and the heat shield) and the flammable tape that was known long before assembly. These problems were discovered basically on the pad, weeks from launch, probably because it was the first time they were all in one place.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:05:22 UTC No. 16162277
>>16162122
>Whats even the point of going to the moon?
To build a permanent base
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:06:55 UTC No. 16162279
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crQ
>Stage 0 Testing In Full Swing! | SpaceX Starbase Update
high resolution satellite images
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:10:42 UTC No. 16162289
>>16161632
are you retarded? titanium ore is THE most common pigment in paint (titanium dioxide white) and is found all over the world, the issue is that only the Soviets had bothered to refine it
fucking retard
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:11:44 UTC No. 16162290
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:12:50 UTC No. 16162291
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:13:38 UTC No. 16162294
If i owned a little piece of property at starbase I would refuse to sell
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:14:34 UTC No. 16162297
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:16:43 UTC No. 16162301
>>16162297
location of upcoming rec center and sushi restaurant
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:17:45 UTC No. 16162302
>>16162301
upcoming tower 2
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:21:11 UTC No. 16162308
>>16162294
If I owned a little piece of property at starbase I would happily collect the 10million dollars for a 20k plot of land and go somewhere else.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:24:23 UTC No. 16162310
>>16162308
I'd put a little house there and live in the Starbase. Do you think they'd make me leave on launch days? I'd rather stay and watch from close up.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:30:48 UTC No. 16162315
>>16162310
be like the three little pigs and build your house under the launch ring
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 14:33:38 UTC No. 16162318
>>16162186
Yeah its a mini rover with a movil camara
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:02:02 UTC No. 16162339
How long until Blartliner launch?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:05:13 UTC No. 16162343
>>16162339
Unfortunately Boing is too full of gay niggers from outer space, so they can't launch because of Shadow President Trump
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:05:35 UTC No. 16162344
>>16162339
Stream goes live in 7 hours, I'm not sure how much longer after that.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:05:50 UTC No. 16162345
>>16162339
0234 may 7 GMT or 2234 may 6 EDT
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:07:47 UTC No. 16162347
>>16162339
11h 26min >>16162064
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:11:41 UTC No. 16162350
>>16162346
you can't just drop this in my lap without explaining why.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:11:49 UTC No. 16162351
>>16162347
looks like a cock, many such cases
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:23:06 UTC No. 16162366
>>16162351
>unwittingly reveals the shape
Nice pencil, loser
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:25:31 UTC No. 16162368
>>16160480
it doesnt bend at elbows and knees
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:28:20 UTC No. 16162372
>>16162350
Even the most basic metal enclosure can protect electronics from solar flares.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:34:29 UTC No. 16162381
>>16162122
If you want to do missions farther than earth orbit, having fuel production on the moon is really useful.
If you want to do any kind of industrial scale mining and production, having a human there is really useful.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:43:37 UTC No. 16162393
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1y
Starlink in less than an hour.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:44:38 UTC No. 16162395
>>16162393
We live in an age where rockets fly ever other day or so. few years back, it was every other month or so.
How times changed
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 15:54:12 UTC No. 16162400
>>16162372
which means the real threat is to exposed solar panels and poorly shielded crew modules in orbit
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:02:25 UTC No. 16162413
I've come around to the idea of settling the moon before Mars.
Settlement of another world has never been done and there inevitably are an immense number of failure modes which are not immediately lethal, but would slowly kill the Mars crew over months while we wait for the transfer window and for supplies to arrive from Earth. That would be even worse than a catastrophic instant death failure and is mostly avioidable on the Moon.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:04:34 UTC No. 16162418
>>16162413
That's why Elon's plan is to make the first Martians live with absurd kiloton scale supply surpluses while they bootstrap ISRU.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:06:32 UTC No. 16162420
>>16162393
Oops, got my times wrong and it's actually in a little over two hours now.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:09:12 UTC No. 16162425
>>16162418
I hope it happens, but point is I was opposed to Artemis but now I think it's a positive. It gets NASA working on things which will be directly transferrable to Mars, and the Moon is more viable from an Earth economics persective since it's easier to get to LEO from the surface of the Moon than from the surface of Earth
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 16:14:18 UTC No. 16162430
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:10:47 UTC No. 16162484
>>16162464
lol musk deleted this
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:13:49 UTC No. 16162488
maybe the 7 years faster is incorrect?
the first crewed dragon flight was Demo-2 which was in May 30 2020
so Boeing would be 4 years later than SpaceX, not 7
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:16:10 UTC No. 16162491
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:19:35 UTC No. 16162497
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO-
To tide you over until the main event, here's another Starlink launch
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:23:33 UTC No. 16162504
> Did you know that today's CFT will be a numerous of number ones?
- 1st crew launch from cap canaveral since 1968
- 1st ever crewed launch of the entire Atlas family
- 1st ever crewed launch from SLC-41
- 1st ever crewed flight of Starliner
First times a charm!
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:24:22 UTC No. 16162506
>>16162497
Unfortunately I have developed a tolerance to starlink launches; they simply don't do it for me anymore.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:29:47 UTC No. 16162511
>>16162504
first failure for ula
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:32:22 UTC No. 16162517
>>16162504
>- 1st crew launch from cap canaveral since 1968
but that means it's not actually a first
>- 1st ever crewed launch of the entire Atlas family
anon...
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:34:08 UTC No. 16162523
>>16162488
Remember when it was a race between SpaceX and Boeing?
>>16162485
How come it's structurally inefficient when the whole capsule was milled out of a solid block of aluminium into a isogrid structure?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:35:11 UTC No. 16162527
>>16162516
Damn she looks like hell. She looked like 30 in her ISS tour video around 2010. Now she looks 60.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:36:01 UTC No. 16162529
>>16162517
First crew launch powered by a engine from the RD-170 family. Been waiting decades for that to finally happen.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:38:05 UTC No. 16162534
>>16162464
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status
he reposted it
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:53:26 UTC No. 16162545
>>16162529
>weird Russian engine
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 17:58:58 UTC No. 16162555
STAND BY FOR A ZUBRIN POST
THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION THAT A ZUBRIN POST IS INCOMING
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:00:47 UTC No. 16162557
>>16162555
make sure you put it in the right thread (you're in the wrong thread)
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:01:26 UTC No. 16162558
>>16162555
Thanks for the warning, I hope it's not another "NUKE RUSSIA RIGHT NOW" post.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:02:04 UTC No. 16162562
mars
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:02:26 UTC No. 16162564
>>16162543
for what possible reason would they fixate onto this?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:03:11 UTC No. 16162567
>>16162552
Haha what the fuck they mentioned flammable tape and anxiety
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:03:36 UTC No. 16162569
>>16162552
>@SpaacceX
how the fuck does this have 8.7 million subscribers?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:04:45 UTC No. 16162572
>>16162569
I just realised, wtf is this shit
they also have million of views on stolen videos
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:05:21 UTC No. 16162576
>>16162552
>SpaceX x ULA in the corner
Yep lawsuit incoming
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:06:04 UTC No. 16162578
>>16162572
I think they are actually linking to the real SpaceX videos, but this channel itself has not videos at all
just this livestream
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:06:39 UTC No. 16162582
>>16162576
if lawsuits worked against pajeet scam channels they wouldn't be so prominent.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:07:02 UTC No. 16162583
>>16162578
Youtube should stop this scam
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:08:30 UTC No. 16162586
>>16162497
https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1y
T-6:00
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:09:15 UTC No. 16162587
>>16162552
it's impressive how elaborate youtube scams are getting
apparently you can feature videos from another channel on your own?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:11:08 UTC No. 16162593
>>16162058
>(as well for MIGAtards)
Super ULTRA mega MAGA here, I think I speak for all MAGA supporters when I say we love this country and its great historical achievements. Believing that the Apollo moon landings didn't happen is completely unAmerican and unpatriotic. You have a nice day.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:13:04 UTC No. 16162595
>>16162586
t-1:10
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:13:22 UTC No. 16162596
>>16162587
no they should be easy to strike
spaceX has just not done it yet
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:13:37 UTC No. 16162598
>>16162497
Bet this launch will be a success.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:13:46 UTC No. 16162599
>>16162566
Spoiler: Earth Direct MAV with liquid propellants.
NASA Earth Guard planetary protection zealots would never allow that.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:20:05 UTC No. 16162607
good to see the old engine bell rats are still sticking around
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:27:41 UTC No. 16162619
>>16162569
>>16162572
they hacked some turkish guy's account i guess
you can still see the old pfp if you search for the vid sepreatly
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:29:03 UTC No. 16162620
>>16162619
*separately
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:29:43 UTC No. 16162621
>>16162593
the american right has quite a diverse spectrum of thought within it (so much so that it makes the two party system look ridiculous), and I'd be surprised to find a ML denier that would vote dem (sounds like a really strange type of person).
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:31:04 UTC No. 16162624
>>16162619
usually these accounts are hacked and then sold.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:31:43 UTC No. 16162625
>>16162060
why is their cgi so bad?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:33:47 UTC No. 16162626
>>16162625
it looks like it's based on real-time telemetry just like we saw on Vulcan's flight
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:33:56 UTC No. 16162627
>>16162625
they made it when they started the starliner program
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:35:17 UTC No. 16162630
>>16162625
My guess is that it's made by boomers using the ancient software that they're used to.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:35:44 UTC No. 16162632
>>16162627
kek
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:38:19 UTC No. 16162638
reminder the limiting factor why we cant get more people to the iss is a lack of docking ports. adding another port could get us a dozen manned commercial missions a year.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:40:48 UTC No. 16162642
>>16162638
the ISS is about to be obsolete, pointless to upgrade it now
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:41:21 UTC No. 16162643
>>16162624
Why can't youtube shut it down?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:42:53 UTC No. 16162646
>>16162638
I don't even see the point of the ISS since they're doing no plant reproduction or insect breeding experiments.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:43:14 UTC No. 16162647
It stumbled due to shittle, but the ISS did ACTUALLY kickstart commercial LEO in the end of the day. Will Gateway do the same for TLI?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:44:44 UTC No. 16162648
>>16162643
Why would they make more than a token effort? Eyeballs watching ads are eyeballs watching ads. As far as they're concerned adblockers and edgy content are much more of a issue.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:45:35 UTC No. 16162650
>>16162646
they need to bud off the axiom station
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:49:06 UTC No. 16162656
>>16162643
they don't take down the dozens of fake streams that pop up during Starship launches so why would they do it for Starliner?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:51:01 UTC No. 16162661
>>16162647
>tli
stands for trans lunar injection. thats the transfer path, not an orbit like leo. learn your orbits newfag
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:51:38 UTC No. 16162662
Does anyone have the video of Starliner spinning around when its thrusters decided it would be a cool trick?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:54:21 UTC No. 16162664
>>16162648
Edgy content as in prank videos?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 18:54:58 UTC No. 16162667
>>16162662
it's already in here
>>16162022
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:02:11 UTC No. 16162680
Does anyone have the video of Crew Dragon doing a test firing in Kennedy when its thrusters decided it would be a cool trick?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:02:39 UTC No. 16162681
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:04:06 UTC No. 16162686
>>16162677
>>16162681
that oldspace butthole licking grifting nigger should drive off a cliff
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:05:04 UTC No. 16162689
https://twitter.com/ulalaunch/statu
>Say LIFTOFF in 3...2...1!
>@NASASocial stopped by SLC-41 to see #AtlasV and #Starliner this morning and were joined by surprise guests @torybruno and @NASAArtemis II @NASA_Astronauts Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover and @CSA_ASC Jeremy Hansen! #NASASocial
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:06:35 UTC No. 16162692
>>16162677
Loser loser loser loser loser
>wahhhhh why not just overlook these glaringly obtuse facts that Boeing and Starliner sucks
How about you suck… a dick, Mr. Combs! (His friends call him Combover becuase his estrogen supplements are wreaking havoc on his hairline)
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:06:44 UTC No. 16162693
https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/sta
>Today’s #Starliner #AtlasV launch is an instantaneous launch — meaning the rocket must launch at a precise moment to get Starliner on the path to meet the@Space_Station
in orbit.
>Watch the moment of liftoff at 10:34 p.m. ET
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb3
3h 25min until official stream starts
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:08:06 UTC No. 16162696
>>16162692
>>16162686
the old space stans really dislike berger
https://twitter.com/ThePrimalDino/s
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:10:08 UTC No. 16162699
>>16162693
Beautiful tropical Floridian marshes
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:17:43 UTC No. 16162716
>>16161570
can someone explain why transpiration wouldn't work, aside from the additional weight and complexity?
I hate tiles
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:23:36 UTC No. 16162728
>>16162661
I know retard.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:25:20 UTC No. 16162731
>>16162710
you mean starliner? and that needs interstellar music.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:25:24 UTC No. 16162732
>>16162710
what's this from?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:27:27 UTC No. 16162737
>>16162732
iss-sim.spacex.com/
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:27:28 UTC No. 16162738
>>16162664
anything that advertisers don't want to be associated with (including in the comments) or that the powertripping youtube jannies arbitrarily decide.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:28:03 UTC No. 16162741
>>16162681
>>16162677
Why is this zogbot bootlicker piping up now?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:30:26 UTC No. 16162747
>>16162737
reminds me a bit of the 6 axis robot arm at work
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:31:20 UTC No. 16162748
>>16162747
of course the newfag thread has never heard of the SpaceX ISS docking sim lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:32:09 UTC No. 16162750
>>16162748
Nobody cares about your drama. Go back.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:32:51 UTC No. 16162752
>>16162750
no you, fucking tourist scum
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:37:20 UTC No. 16162766
>>16162754
Alright, but is that really water?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:39:14 UTC No. 16162773
>>16162766
no, but this is
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:42:43 UTC No. 16162780
>>16162768
looks like an ancient engine block
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:45:11 UTC No. 16162792
>>16162773
I'm guessing that's one of those martian plains where there's a thin layer of dirt covering a permafrost like substance that occasionally gets exposed.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:48:53 UTC No. 16162806
>>16162792
exposed by engine exhaust in this case
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 19:55:13 UTC No. 16162821
>>16162792
It's really interesting how variable mars is, it has a lot of different landscapes and features depending on where you are. It's actually very far from just a boring rock, as some would have you believe.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:00:37 UTC No. 16162838
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:16:04 UTC No. 16162860
Terra/Luna/Sol when?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:21:36 UTC No. 16162867
I remember seeing erebus montes in a human landing site study for mars and really liking the look of it. I sometimes think about what it would be like to stand amongst these hills/mountains? sad there are only sat images.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:23:27 UTC No. 16162868
>>16162543
*poos
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:24:18 UTC No. 16162870
>>16162860
When the average IQ goes above 120 (never)
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:24:29 UTC No. 16162871
>>16162860
People will never call earth terra. The other two are unlikely.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:24:33 UTC No. 16162872
>>16162821
Tis is honestly sad how youa re so interested in a dead rock on the other side of the universe.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:26:38 UTC No. 16162873
>>16162872
naisu baito
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:29:14 UTC No. 16162877
>>16162860
we don't speak spanish here
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:37:37 UTC No. 16162884
>>16162685
>>16162689
>he shaved
What does this mean?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:49:58 UTC No. 16162893
https://x.com/ulalaunch/status/1787
ULA deathtrap has also just begun fueling
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:53:50 UTC No. 16162900
>>16162893
does it fuel before crew board?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:55:47 UTC No. 16162904
>>16162900
It probably has to. ULA's never been nearly as fast as SpaceX when tanking up their rockets
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:56:13 UTC No. 16162905
>>16162893
When is it launching?
Europoor needs to sleep.
Also you guys are fucking retards for still having split threads.
You're killing the general
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 20:57:11 UTC No. 16162906
>>16162904
before you say some arrogant statement, its because they are cautious and quality focused.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:03:26 UTC No. 16162915
>>16162906
they do cautious and quality things like force a bunch of ground crew to be near a half fueled rocket while they load astronauts on board
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:04:46 UTC No. 16162919
>>16162906
Or because speedy operations aren't really a concern for an LSP that's never launched more than twelve rockets in a single calendar year
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:06:05 UTC No. 16162921
>>16162905
Why are you taking this out on me Im not the one that split the threads or made an ass OP.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:07:31 UTC No. 16162922
>>16162569
>>16162552
Hacked account shilling crypto scam shit
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:16:25 UTC No. 16162930
>>16162887
so neutron is actually happening
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:17:31 UTC No. 16162931
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:19:38 UTC No. 16162932
>>16162906
yet they are probably more dangerous and have worse quality anyway
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:20:53 UTC No. 16162934
>>16162931
tubular
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:23:34 UTC No. 16162937
>>16162931
Way more interesting than the starliner launch desu (unless something goes hilariously wrong during launch)
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:26:43 UTC No. 16162941
>>16162932
nasa estimates them as safer, and nasa knows all about unsafe rockets.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:32:30 UTC No. 16162950
>>16162941
bullshit
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:36:51 UTC No. 16162956
>>16162954
ehh, this one's a miss. dissimilar redundancy is a good thing, even if the backup is kinda shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:37:24 UTC No. 16162957
>>16162887
I didn't believe it, but we may actually see neutron fly.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 21:40:27 UTC No. 16162963
>>16162950
unironically.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:12:53 UTC No. 16163009
>>16162956
That money given at NASAs expense couldve gone to an ice giant probe instead of this shitty capsule thats about to kill 2 astronauts. Not to mention that company assassinates anyone that speaks out. The Dragons have already proven that they work, there is no need to spend another $5b on a shitty and unsafe ripoff from a black company
>inb4 sunk cost fallacy argument
No. Cost plus contracts have been a fucking disaster in every place they were put in. We cant keep funding this cycle of misuse.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:18:27 UTC No. 16163017
4hr remain until Starliner launch.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:20:30 UTC No. 16163020
>>16163017
I'll be going to sleep. Hope it's a nothingburger and I don't miss kino.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:21:38 UTC No. 16163024
>>16163020
What type of kino are you not hoping for? The Challenger type or the Starship type
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:23:14 UTC No. 16163027
>>16163024
the challenger type of course, with cloud included.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:24:50 UTC No. 16163029
Umm guys
Where is the launch escape system?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:24:57 UTC No. 16163030
>>16163027
Personally I think that the concerns would happen at reentry more than anything. On the way up it would be the rocket that would cause an accident and that probably wouldnt happen with an Atlas
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:26:04 UTC No. 16163031
>>16163029
stop being anti semitic.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:26:18 UTC No. 16163032
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:26:26 UTC No. 16163033
>>16163029
we've seen it, it's a pusher like dragon. It lost a parachute and created a smelly hydrolox cloud on touchdown.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:28:12 UTC No. 16163035
>>16163033
>hydrolox
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:28:38 UTC No. 16163036
>>16163029
Is this what they call concern trolling?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:29:58 UTC No. 16163038
>>16163035
nothing gets past you guys huh, there goes my Boeing paycheck.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:32:07 UTC No. 16163044
>>16163033
*hydrazine
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:35:00 UTC No. 16163052
>>16163024
I think Atlas IV will work fine. The horror will be Soyuz 11 / Columbia style.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:37:51 UTC No. 16163057
>>16163052
At least they have IVA suits to handle a depressurization event.
I'm worried about the batteries expanding/exploding.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:39:51 UTC No. 16163059
Someone, somewhere, will be gooning to Starliner launch. Whether it explodes or not is up to God
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:44:41 UTC No. 16163067
>>16163059
hate that word
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:46:15 UTC No. 16163071
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:46:59 UTC No. 16163072
>>16163067
Would you rather me say 'will be tugging on their meat' instead
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:48:08 UTC No. 16163075
ohhh I'm whackin it to starliner rn
atlas gets me so hard. just jerkin my chode
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:52:18 UTC No. 16163080
>>16162677
>Noooo it's not nice to say bad things about oldspace companies!
Reminder that SpaceX has been having to fly Boeing's missions for years now. The real question is if Boeing will complete the rest of their contract, but I'm sure they aren't going to extend it.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:57:20 UTC No. 16163089
>>16163072
yeah, or:
>beating their bishop
>choking their cock
>polishing their bellend
>sharpening their pencil
>mingling with ms. right
>self-abusing
>practicing onanism
>having self knowledge
etcetera etcetera
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:57:38 UTC No. 16163091
Gooning to the thought of dead crispy astronauts and the boeing assassins next victim
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 22:59:27 UTC No. 16163096
>>16163091
>>16163093(you)
lol mfw anon really does it
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:01:48 UTC No. 16163104
yeah can these "traditions" move along
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:02:46 UTC No. 16163108
>>16163104
What? Is this a B*rkun post?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:03:53 UTC No. 16163111
>>16163108
watch the starliner stream
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:04:02 UTC No. 16163112
>>16163108
not watching the stream?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:06:14 UTC No. 16163118
>>16163112
No Im waiting until launch
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:07:10 UTC No. 16163122
the van!!! It has TV!!
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:07:44 UTC No. 16163125
>>16163093
*USA stuck like this
thanks 1960s
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:15:47 UTC No. 16163128
>they have a backup driver
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:16:25 UTC No. 16163130
corpses on their way to the grave
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:20:17 UTC No. 16163135
>>16163122
TOP GUN
O
P
G
U
N
oof
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:21:14 UTC No. 16163137
>>16162963
there is no fucking way starliner is safer than dragon right now
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:26:30 UTC No. 16163141
Something about this broadcast makes it feel like it is from the past. Like this is another shuttle mission. There is almost something quaint about it.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:27:18 UTC No. 16163143
>grissom
have you ever heard the tale of the man who should've been the first to walk on the moon?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:29:39 UTC No. 16163145
>8-9x more people watching the scamx stream
grim. although a large percentage of those are probably bots/indians
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:31:41 UTC No. 16163148
Barrel roles around the isis>>16162710
More likely then you think
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:32:57 UTC No. 16163150
>one of the most reliable rockets
lol
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:37:50 UTC No. 16163154
>oscillations
uh oh...
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:39:00 UTC No. 16163157
>>16163151
a fucking hearse
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:40:26 UTC No. 16163161
>>16163151
Is that actual infrastructure in the background, or a plastic wrap of an image on a wall?
I feel like I’m going insane here
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:43:26 UTC No. 16163166
>in collaboration with NASA
Absolute hubris lmao
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:43:32 UTC No. 16163167
>>16163143
Hoosier here, I'm sad it was never to be. In fact I live quite close to his hometown, I should visit the memorial museum and check out the Gemini 3 capsule.
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:44:16 UTC No. 16163170
spacex ninjas
boeing ______?
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:45:38 UTC No. 16163174
>>16163170
whistleblowers
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:46:40 UTC No. 16163176
I am unironically nervous, I feel like it could go wrong just sitting on the pad
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:47:45 UTC No. 16163178
>>16163164
thats just the visor schizo
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:47:48 UTC No. 16163180
I'm going to sleep
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:48:49 UTC No. 16163182
>>16163178
its over
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:52:39 UTC No. 16163188
>>16163185
Not spaceflight fuck right off
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:52:46 UTC No. 16163189
>>16163185
dangerously based
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUY
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:52:58 UTC No. 16163190
>>16163170
Not going
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:55:30 UTC No. 16163195
>click on top starliner stream 163k CCV
>Elon Musk AI voice
>"We have a great interface where you can send any amount of Bitco-"
>Close stream
Total pajeet death, how do they afford so many bots
Anonymous at Mon, 6 May 2024 23:56:12 UTC No. 16163197
>>16163188
afuera
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:04:05 UTC No. 16163207
>>16163148
>isis
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:12:07 UTC No. 16163210
>>16162838
that poor alligator!
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:13:29 UTC No. 16163211
>Calypso
why don't dragon capsules get such cool names?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:14:17 UTC No. 16163212
>>16163211
sounds like an ice cream brand
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:14:45 UTC No. 16163213
>>16163180
Good night, friend
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:17:26 UTC No. 16163214
>>16163089
sharpening the purple hippo
(but surely, there must be a rocket-related term)
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:27:00 UTC No. 16163224
>>16163185
argentina needs jobs right? maybe they should invest in a spaceflight industry.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:27:20 UTC No. 16163225
>>16163218
SCRUUUB INCOMING
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:29:38 UTC No. 16163228
>>16163170
faggots
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:30:07 UTC No. 16163229
Cant stand on the floor for real!
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:31:54 UTC No. 16163233
More sovl in the sendoff than crew dragon
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:33:06 UTC No. 16163235
>>16163218
Catastrophic Starliner failure is both good and bad. I want to see Boing go down but those astronauts don't deserve to die for it.
Best scenario is they get to the station and then some critical system failure aboard Starliner means they have to jettison it and wait for an emergency Dragon.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:33:39 UTC No. 16163237
>>16163218
scrub
c
r
u
b
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:33:42 UTC No. 16163238
HOLY SHIT THEY FUCKING SCRUBBED LOLOLOLOL
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:33:57 UTC No. 16163239
>>16163225
Called it!
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:34:48 UTC No. 16163242
ACK
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:34:58 UTC No. 16163244
>scrub at 2 hours
what the actual fuck
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:35:51 UTC No. 16163246
VALVE
>VALVE
VALVE
>VALVE
VALVE
>VALVE
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:36:47 UTC No. 16163247
>>16163246
salty humid air again?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:37:08 UTC No. 16163250
Lol they almost fucking killed them. Boing, not going, etc...
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:37:55 UTC No. 16163252
>>16163247
Spacex sabotage
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:38:35 UTC No. 16163255
SpaceX sniper
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:42:54 UTC No. 16163260
Another Starliner attempt, another scrub.
Bets on this being a failure that causes months of setbacks? Or just the usual valve shenanigans?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:45:23 UTC No. 16163261
>>16163260
apparently, it had something to do with centaur, not starliner
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:47:12 UTC No. 16163263
kek scroob. i was right that this thing was a death trap, they wouldve died if they went up.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:50:01 UTC No. 16163266
>>16163264
It's very reliable because it's very successful on the times it gets to T-0.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:50:43 UTC No. 16163267
>>16163264
It's not that easy in reliabilitery
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:51:42 UTC No. 16163270
Is this thing just never going to launch? Erectile dysfunction?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:53:01 UTC No. 16163271
>Blue team hears a potential leak
>'Lets continue'
>Valve failed
>SHUT IT DOWN
Really makes you think.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:53:53 UTC No. 16163273
>>16163271
Imagine how reliable a valveless rocket would be
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:54:08 UTC No. 16163274
>>16163271
What are you implying?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 00:55:30 UTC No. 16163276
>>16163271
They really are going to kill these poor bastards aren't they
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:00:57 UTC No. 16163283
>>16163273
those are called SRBs
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:02:30 UTC No. 16163285
>>16163283
Yes. Lets do that.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:06:39 UTC No. 16163289
SRBs are ugly. I dont care what you try and force yourselves to believe, this is truth.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:08:18 UTC No. 16163291
>>16163289
couldn't possibly be any worse than atlas with starliner on top
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:11:29 UTC No. 16163295
>>16163289
I think Ares looked cute.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:11:52 UTC No. 16163296
>>16163285
S T R U T S
T
R
U
T
S
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:13:57 UTC No. 16163300
>>16162318
>movil camara
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:14:30 UTC No. 16163301
looks like the crew will live for a little longer
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:26:10 UTC No. 16163321
>>16163301
not on boeings watch, they already have the hitmen working overtime
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:27:14 UTC No. 16163324
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:33:16 UTC No. 16163330
>>16163255
>>16163252
Careful elon, wouldn't want to fall afoul of a sudden deadly illness, would you?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:33:45 UTC No. 16163332
>rocket launch livestream
>look inside
>woman yapping about inane shit
why does this always happen
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:34:44 UTC No. 16163334
>>16163332
>yapping
go back to twitter zoom zoom.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:35:54 UTC No. 16163335
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:36:49 UTC No. 16163338
>>16163334
I hate this gay earth and the """""people""""" i have to share it with.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:36:52 UTC No. 16163339
>>16163334
Millennials are cringe and are probably tied with the boomers in ruining spaceflight
Trying to blame someone for being young is crazy fr
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:41:50 UTC No. 16163347
>>16163338
Wow people are using word, the west has fallen
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:43:40 UTC No. 16163352
>>16163347
I was going against the guy complaining about the word, you fucking tard. What the actual fuck is wrong with this place and why is it filled with so many retards?
Again, I hate this gay earth. Fuck you fuck you fuck you please kill yourself.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:45:31 UTC No. 16163353
>>16163352
Spaceflight?
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:46:36 UTC No. 16163354
>>16163353
>t. tiny black pecker haver
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:52:12 UTC No. 16163359
Skimming through this thread this is what I have pieces together:
>launch about to happen
>telemetry for some valve comes back bad
>damn launch cancelled, give us a week to fix the issue
>HOLY SHIT FAIL OF THE YEAR, RELIABILITY SCORE PLUMMETING AS WE SPEAK
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:53:09 UTC No. 16163360
>>16163359
all of those statements are true, so yes!
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 01:59:38 UTC No. 16163368
>>16163359
The ground crew were also hearing rattling from a possible LOX leak.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:12:29 UTC No. 16163385
didn't hear the musk worshippers crowing when demo 2 scrubbed because dragon's weather control valve broke
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 02:15:38 UTC No. 16163387
>>16163385
I have double standards and I think Boeing Space is COMPLACENT and GAY
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:10:25 UTC No. 16163427
>>16163396
fr fr no cap ong cuh
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:33:17 UTC No. 16163448
time to get back to the real thread already
>>16160366
>>16160366
>>16160366
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:36:21 UTC No. 16163453
>>16163448
Nobody cares. Not even page 10 anyways. Just leave us alone.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:39:25 UTC No. 16163458
>>16163427
fr fr no capsule on orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:41:09 UTC No. 16163463
>>16163448
>clear post
>off topic zoophile post
>anti anime post on anime website with rocker related vtuber
>reposting something from here
>concern trolling
Great thread bro. Definetly not a containment thread in anyway, totally had way better discussion than this one.
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 03:42:10 UTC No. 16163464
>>16163458
Kek thats a good one
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:01:17 UTC No. 16163493
>>16163468
Phone background
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:06:26 UTC No. 16163500
Forgot to mention this but S30 SF tomorrow
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:35:29 UTC No. 16163550
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 04:35:51 UTC No. 16163551
>>16162677
lol
Anonymous at Tue, 7 May 2024 06:23:27 UTC No. 16163629
>>16162236
Flying on the SpaceX DragonX?