🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:06:20 UTC No. 16217311

no

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:07:33 UTC No. 16217316

>>16217311
Yes because fuck the janny who stickied the previous thread that was at page 7 or thereabouts at the time.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:07:44 UTC No. 16217317

Yes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:08:32 UTC No. 16217321

>>16217307
So, when is SLS getting deep sixed?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:08:48 UTC No. 16217324

The little flap that could.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:08:58 UTC No. 16217325

>>16217307
here i just wanted to post this. im going to back to the /comfy/ thread

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:09:11 UTC No. 16217327

>>16217321
>you don't get to bring flaps

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:10:00 UTC No. 16217329

>>16217307
>pottery

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:10:40 UTC No. 16217333

>spamming / flooding
Report submitted! This window will close in 3 seconds

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:10:41 UTC No. 16217334

So no way they use starliner for reentry right?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:10:52 UTC No. 16217336

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:11:30 UTC No. 16217340

>>16217307
gentlment, a toast
>to starship
>to starliner
>to the jannies

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:12:07 UTC No. 16217343

oh thank god we have images again

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:12:24 UTC No. 16217345

>>16217333
>>16217319
Exceeded expectations

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:13:32 UTC No. 16217349

>>16217336
Cute!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:13:41 UTC No. 16217350

>>16217321
Why tho? SLS is made for deep space manned missions, starship is made for desploying starlinks in LEO

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:13:53 UTC No. 16217352

>>16217334
If the astronauts have a say I doubt it. Butch sounded fucking pissed during docking

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:14:55 UTC No. 16217355

>>16217349
I want one of those starship blowtorches.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:15:04 UTC No. 16217356

Uncanny, isn't it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:15:14 UTC No. 16217357

>>16217334
they wouldn't risk killing two astronauts to prove a point, right?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:15:39 UTC No. 16217360

i just woke up what's going on

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:15:56 UTC No. 16217361

>>16217356
Got some work to do to fix those expendable flaps though.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:07 UTC No. 16217363

https://twitter.com/mcrs987/status/1798775316648956068
>Exact coordinate within a hundred or so meters.
>25°58'8.19"N 96°30'45.47"W
>65km downrange

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:15 UTC No. 16217364

>>16217350
starship is designed only for low energy high payload launches. its not like they could just use it for low payload high energy launches

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:16 UTC No. 16217365

>>16217360
flap-chan never gave up

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:22 UTC No. 16217366

>>16217360
Thunderfoot is on suicide watch.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:24 UTC No. 16217367

>>16217350
>SLS is made for deep space manned missions
SLS is made to suck up NASA's entire budget and nothing else. Starship was made to do everything cheaply and inefficiently

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:28 UTC No. 16217368

>>16217360
boeing saved face and are back on top of the space race

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:16:33 UTC No. 16217369

>>16217334
They need 6 thrusters to dock but how many to return to earth?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:17:18 UTC No. 16217371

>>16217307
Okay, kids. Here we go...rather than sit on the sidelines potshotting Musk and SpaceX, here's the full rundown of where Starship stands in relation to the Artemis HLS, as I see it. Will update as the mission progresses, of course.

Feel free to comment.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:17:20 UTC No. 16217372

I hope we get pics of the ship if there’s a recovery effort
Display her in a museum!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:18:28 UTC No. 16217374

>>16217371
common now. half that list will be completed on IFT5.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:18:35 UTC No. 16217375

I still can't believe the flap held on. What an accomplishment.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:18:47 UTC No. 16217379

Anyone got a link to a download of the full stream? I wanna make some VP9 webms.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:19:51 UTC No. 16217380

>>16217350
SLS will cost a fortune for every launch, and it can only be used once. The technology is massively behind the curve.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:20:01 UTC No. 16217381

>>16217360
You missed. EVERYTHING.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:20:10 UTC No. 16217382

>>16217367
Yeah but why are you guys comparing a rocket to get to moon to a LEO deliver?, I dont understand

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:20:32 UTC No. 16217383

>>16217371
A long way to go, but to be fair NASA chose private landers really, really late—so ANY lunar lander provider would have needed a ton of time and work.
And it’s not like HLS Moonship is holding the program back in any additional way when you factor in space suits having the same problem and SLS literally not being able to maintain 1 or more flights a year right now

Artemis will happen, it’s just happening with slips and delays moving all the timetables down the road by 5, 6, 7 years at worst

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:20:52 UTC No. 16217385

>>16217371
How does this checklist compare to SLS?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:20:56 UTC No. 16217387

Did the second stage blow up or land?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:21:27 UTC No. 16217390

>>16217387
Landed in the drink. Rather toasty though.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:21:34 UTC No. 16217391

>>16217375
I can't believe the ship managed to stay steady with large parts of its control surfaces missing.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:21:40 UTC No. 16217392

>>16217382
I don't think we fully know what starships capabilities are yet and it could very well exceed SLS, right?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:21:51 UTC No. 16217394

>>16217360

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:22:14 UTC No. 16217395

>>16217387
It was the wildest reentry I've ever seen, straight from a movie, flap almost melting off but in the end a perfect landing. Signal all the way down.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:22:40 UTC No. 16217396

>>16217382
The SLS has parts from the 60s. It's just an outdated way to do it. If you have a fully reusable ship that's really good at LEO then it can also go anywhere with refilling. In the real world, efficiency is measured in dollars, and science fags have a hard time understanding that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:22:44 UTC No. 16217397

>>16217387
Flaps failed and it burned up.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:22:49 UTC No. 16217398

>>16217368
>>16217394
what this about boo-urns

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:23:05 UTC No. 16217400

>>16217371
>Successful booster recovery

No, to be a successful recovery the booster should be captured by mechazilla

>Successful starship recovery

No, starship was totally destroyed, and it should land on land

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:23:33 UTC No. 16217402

>>16217324
That flappy, he's just such a trooper
Got such a strong... one hinge...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:23:43 UTC No. 16217405

>>16217400
Go home wine aunt Phil, you're drunk.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:23:49 UTC No. 16217406

>>16217395
signal all the way down is crazy. how come they lose coms on dragon but starship gets hd video the whole way down?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:23:51 UTC No. 16217407

>>16217397
And then it landed successfully.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:13 UTC No. 16217410

Hey I don't actually know anything!
Would starships payload bay big enough to say like, idk deliver apollo's CM and LM to orbit? Theoretically?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:14 UTC No. 16217411

>>16217395
>straight from a movie
>Signal all the way down.
Even more hollywoodesque, it lost sigal for a fez seconds at some point making everyone think that was it, but it came back

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:16 UTC No. 16217412

>>16217360
Kino and Dread.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:24:52 UTC No. 16217414

>>16217406
Big wale in the plasma

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:25:21 UTC No. 16217416

>>16217392
I dont think so, elon told me current starship could get 150T to LEO but it turned out to be 40T

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:03 UTC No. 16217417

>>16217406
3 starlink antennas, one pointing away from the toasty side. Plus it's a fairly big chonker.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:03 UTC No. 16217418

>>16217414
but then shuttle should have had comms then no? i guess they didn't have starlink then and it was all ground based

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:18 UTC No. 16217419

>>16217387
One of the flaps was destroyed by aerodynamic stress live on stream so of course it still managed to achieve a soft landing in the ocean.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:23 UTC No. 16217420

>>16217411
I was literally shaking

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:25 UTC No. 16217421

>>16217406
Big wake in the plasma

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:32 UTC No. 16217422

>>16217416
Spic faggot the prototype can do that because they aren't optimizing for mass yet

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:26:56 UTC No. 16217423

>>16217405
Tell me about what I said its wrong

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:27:04 UTC No. 16217424

>>16217418
>i guess they didn't have starlink then
No shit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:27:23 UTC No. 16217427

>>16217406
Starship is fucking big it leaves a hole in the plasma for the signal to get through

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:27:39 UTC No. 16217429

why is there no ship in the landing zone taking footages

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:28:07 UTC No. 16217431

>i-it's a successful landing I guess
sparkpaw coping for two hours straight

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:28:25 UTC No. 16217432

>>16217429
Because it's not fucking safe to sit in a boat if the FTS goes boom?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:28:34 UTC No. 16217433

NASA: it's impossible to communicate when the plasma bubble is around the spacecraft
also NASA: it's impossible to survive reentry if you lose parts of the spacecraft
astronauts died cuz NASA lied. murder investigation NOW!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:28:35 UTC No. 16217434

>>16217416
>>16217422
So then Starboi could legit just be like a CM in itself and drop a lander while in lunar orbit yeah? Like it clearly has the capability to completely replace SLS in all regards yeh? Yeh??

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:28:54 UTC No. 16217435

>>16217422
A 375% increase in payload? hmmm...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:29:11 UTC No. 16217437

Are the grid fins for f9 are also so spastic? They looked like they worked incredibly hard for starship booster

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:05 UTC No. 16217439

>>16217435
but unironically

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:07 UTC No. 16217441

>>16217432
Think of the odds of getting hit in the middle of the ocean. It's a perfectly acceptable risk.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:14 UTC No. 16217442

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:20 UTC No. 16217443

>/sfg/ getting more grouchy as the excitement fades

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:36 UTC No. 16217445

>>16217434
Starship cant even get to the moon, so I dont get it why muskrats keep comparing it to SLS

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:30:59 UTC No. 16217446

>>16217441
Yeah, I wouldn't be out in the middle of the fucking Indian Ocean at night getting pelted with stainless steel rings and heat tiles.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:31:20 UTC No. 16217447

Schizos are gonna have a field day with this one.

Artemis3 at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:31:29 UTC No. 16217448

Namefagging as "Artemis3" for clarity.

>>16217374
Next four could, if it lives up to the hype.

>>16217400
Changed second one to "re-entry" so I didn't ding them, but you're right. Also changed "chopsticks" to "Mechazilla".

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:32:12 UTC No. 16217452

>>16217445
it would just need refuel which is as of now part of the plan yeh?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:32:14 UTC No. 16217453

>>16217437
They do bump around somewhat on F9 but this was way harder.
It doesn't do an entry burn and it can't glide in like the ship so it just hits the lower atmosphere like a brick wall

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:32:33 UTC No. 16217454

>>16217442

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:32:51 UTC No. 16217457

>>16217447
What?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:33:08 UTC No. 16217459

>>16217433
>also NASA: it's impossible to survive reentry if you lose parts of the spacecraft

And they were right, or are you stupid enough to think people would survive in a reentry like starship did?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:33:45 UTC No. 16217460

>>16217446

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:34:06 UTC No. 16217461

>>16217447
you need the webm to make your point sir

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:34:06 UTC No. 16217462

God DAMN, flap-chan that GANBATTE the shit out of everything despite being completely beaten up, never giving up, is straight out of a shonen animu. Pure Kino.
You'll, never be forgotten, flap-chan.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:34:13 UTC No. 16217463

>>16217416
The rocket is not even filled to the top for these launches.
You're coping
Once there is tanker ships focus will shift to min-maxing the upmass

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:34:45 UTC No. 16217466

>>16217432
you don't have to man the ship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:35:50 UTC No. 16217471

>>16217452
Yeah only 20 LMAO

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:36:01 UTC No. 16217474

>>16217462
its just like one of my japanese animes!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:36:06 UTC No. 16217475

I just realized something, once humanity fucks off into space, nobody will care about /pol/ or politics anymore.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:36:13 UTC No. 16217477

Ok I kneel. I'm rebuying all my SpaceX stock rn

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:36:13 UTC No. 16217478

>>16217432
starhopper has sat through many ruds and its perfectly fine. dont make excuses.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:36:48 UTC No. 16217479

>>16217477
god I wish spacex had public stock

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:02 UTC No. 16217481

>>16217434
>drop a lander while in lunar orbit
Outdated
>>16217445
>$3bil for ten tons in lunar orbit
Kill yourself
>>16217459
Yeah they would've lived

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:21 UTC No. 16217482

>>16217479
I don't
No Mars that way

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:30 UTC No. 16217483

>>16217475
It'll be great

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:43 UTC No. 16217484

>>16217479
Fuck that. Then they'd be responsible to shareholders and would fall into oldspace complacency.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:51 UTC No. 16217486

your honest odds for a succesful landing the moment you saw this?

for me it would have been like 1/100 lol

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:37:57 UTC No. 16217487

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:38:44 UTC No. 16217488

>>16217486
I was expecting Scheduled Disassembly from hitting the water before launch, so didn't clench anything. Extremely surprised when it moved though.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:38:47 UTC No. 16217489

I told you bare steel can handle reentry

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:38:58 UTC No. 16217490

Anyone have a comprehensive list of future starship customers?

There is Vast
Sierra space
Airbus
Nasa hls
There is like one satellite company

Those are all the ones i am aware of.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:39:08 UTC No. 16217492

>>16217479
>>16217484
Public stock only available after a period of vetting by /sfg/ autists and a knowledge test.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:39:21 UTC No. 16217493

>>16217471
I don't think we really know that anon

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:39:23 UTC No. 16217494

>>16217486
odds?
I just thought "It's over, we're about to lose feed"
I guess 1 in a million.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:40:09 UTC No. 16217497

>>16217482
I'd make so much money though

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:40:28 UTC No. 16217498

>>16217486
Everyone at my job today was standing around watching it, and when that happened we were like
>yeah it's over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:41:17 UTC No. 16217499

>>16217486
I went "It's over". But then we were back.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:41:21 UTC No. 16217500

>>16217486
You should have more faith in flap-chan, she never gave up.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:41:24 UTC No. 16217501

>>16217479
I'm jumping on it the second it goes public (if it does).

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:41:32 UTC No. 16217502

>>16217477
When the FUCK is he making Starlkink go public

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:41:45 UTC No. 16217503

>>16217452
Refueling is the easy part. Trying to land starship on non-ideal terrain is the hard part. They really need to construct a landing pad on the moon first

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:42:36 UTC No. 16217504

>>16217486
0%

Why is it taking them so long to go and pick the ship off the ocean?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:42:43 UTC No. 16217505

>>16217490
The DoD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:15 UTC No. 16217506

>>16217504
They are at the bottom of the sea anon.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:17 UTC No. 16217507

>>16217502
After the way Tesla is treating him, I doubt he'll ever do it. It would just be another opening for them to come get him

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:21 UTC No. 16217508

bros starship actually fucking works
if the catching works then starship works
it fucking works bros.....

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:42 UTC No. 16217509

>>16217502
>Sept 29, 2020

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:43 UTC No. 16217510

Odds on the residue killing or incapacitating ISS crew?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:47 UTC No. 16217511

>>16217360
The astronauts have not died yet but now they have to find a way home.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:43:50 UTC No. 16217512

WHO IS MATT?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:22 UTC No. 16217513

>>16217490
me when i build my lunar resort

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:34 UTC No. 16217515

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:35 UTC No. 16217516

Does Elon really have enough money to do this another ten times before they're read to start catching it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:38 UTC No. 16217518

>>16217490
Once costs are down and flights are normal, I'm betting on Marriott. Look at what a new hotel on Earth costs.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:45 UTC No. 16217519

>>16217512
sir please stop goofing on the comms

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:48 UTC No. 16217520

>>16217512
hi

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:52 UTC No. 16217521

i feel tps is dead tech as it's right now without hope becoming better and suited for reuse

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:44:52 UTC No. 16217522

The Changs also succeeded last night in the next step on their sample mission

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:45:03 UTC No. 16217523

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:45:13 UTC No. 16217524

>>16217479
If it did I would be rich as hell. The moment I saw Elon's first SpaceX tour from like 2006 I knew he and SpaceX were the real one.
I've never had that sense with another space CEO. They are all grifters, even the stoke space and RFA guys. Stoke space guy is an unremarkable tech CEO and RFA guy is pulling a forced imitation of Elon. They would be happy to sell their companies if they got rich, and if the going got very hard they would liquidate it and move on. Musk won't unless he's dead.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:45:39 UTC No. 16217525

>>16217486
>well they made it through max heating, it’s over but they met their goals for the flight
>well they made it though max q, they won’t make the flip but it’s cool that the ship survived all that
>holy shit the flap is still moving, they stuck the landing!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:45:40 UTC No. 16217526

>>16217506
If they just close the valves they should both float

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:45:59 UTC No. 16217527

>who is matt
ok now this is getting creepy.

Artemis3 at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:08 UTC No. 16217528

>>16217482
No Mars until Moon. Eat your vegetables first.

>>16217487
I fully agree with Mr. Thunderf00t that Musk has ended up duplicating the Space Shuttle and all the Moon and Mars talk is hype, but if that's all, it's still quite a lot. If this thing's up to 100T or more that's a ridiculous leap in capabilities for the US. They'll forgive him for walking off with the HLS money once the military leaps to his defense...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:12 UTC No. 16217529

>>16217522
Why don't they just design space docking around violent impacts like this?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:16 UTC No. 16217530

>WHO IS MAT?
>SIR PLEASE STOP SAYING THAT
>WHO IS MAT?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:23 UTC No. 16217531

BREAKING!

>SpaceX found to have enabled cheats during Starship Flight Test 5
>FAA officials investigating
>FAA mishap report and fines imminent

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:42 UTC No. 16217532

>>16217515
jej

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:51 UTC No. 16217533

>>16217531
lel

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:54 UTC No. 16217534

>>16217526
They most likely cracked open when falling over.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:46:58 UTC No. 16217535

>>16217522
Lewd

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:47:05 UTC No. 16217536

>>16217490
>>16217505
To add to this it doesn't even have to be an SDI reboot, Star-Shield is already ramping up

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:47:12 UTC No. 16217538

>>16217486
if you mean splashing down intact, i was thinking 30%, since it was already past peak heating

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:47:38 UTC No. 16217540

I'm Matt. The fuck do you want from me Boeing?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:48:23 UTC No. 16217542

>>16217536
Are they also looking at cargo anywhere in 90 minutes or less?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:48:34 UTC No. 16217543

>>16217540
THEN WHO WAS PHONE?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:48:47 UTC No. 16217544

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:48:53 UTC No. 16217545

>>16217534
If they did they would have exploded, even empty there's still quite a bit of pressure + flammable gases

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:49:13 UTC No. 16217547

>>16217540
stop shitposting and open the hatch already

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:49:18 UTC No. 16217548

>simulated arm catching
>pez dispenser
>engine relight in LEO
what else will be tested on IFT-5?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:50:16 UTC No. 16217550

>>16217548
They will catch the booster on flight 5

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:50:29 UTC No. 16217551

It won't sink or anything will it? They should be able to get the cameras eventually for an uninterrupted view?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:50:55 UTC No. 16217553

>>16217442
looks better at 1280

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:51:09 UTC No. 16217554

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:51:16 UTC No. 16217555

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:51:46 UTC No. 16217556

>>16217548
Not burning through critical hardware

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:52:33 UTC No. 16217557

>>16217551
Chinese already towed it away if it floats

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:52:37 UTC No. 16217558

>>16217522
>bonk

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:53:03 UTC No. 16217560

>>16217402
good reference
>>16217523
need more images of starliner, since we couldn't post them last thread

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:53:15 UTC No. 16217561

>>16217547
Give me a few minutes. I want to see if I can make them come out with high helium voices.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:53:42 UTC No. 16217565

>>16217560
>need more images of starliner
You're gonna have to wait, since Boeing seemingly charge extra for actual bandwidth.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:00 UTC No. 16217566

>>16217548
landing in hawaii

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:10 UTC No. 16217567

i didn't know they could take pets to iss

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:22 UTC No. 16217568

>>16217442
>>16217553
Damn, look at that steel flowing like candle wax

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:26 UTC No. 16217569

>>16217442
god the way it INFLATES

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:40 UTC No. 16217570

>>16217486
0

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:54:53 UTC No. 16217571

>>16217544
I doubt he'll make a separate video on this launch. Starship sexually abused Thunderf00t today.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:55:23 UTC No. 16217573

>>16217568
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qXja6MEsdE
Plasma does not give a fuck.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:56:07 UTC No. 16217576

>uh shitliner this is houston - save those poop filled undergarments for the ride back please
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybaWL0J-Tbw

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:56:33 UTC No. 16217580

>>16217548
lithobraking tests in tel aviv

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:56:36 UTC No. 16217581

Everything is proceeding exactly as predicted by our scenario.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:56:49 UTC No. 16217582

>>16217544
I used to watch him back in the day. He became a total clown, what happened to him?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:15 UTC No. 16217585

>>16217576
Designated space shitters.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:17 UTC No. 16217586

>This NASA stream
>I NEED MORE UNDIES HOUSTON

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:25 UTC No. 16217587

Unironically what happens if Boeing fucks the space station? This would be one of the most pivotal moments this decade

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:36 UTC No. 16217588

kek houston just told them they have to wear their pissy poopy undergarments back. butch is pissed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:40 UTC No. 16217589

>>16217560
I'm going back through my timeline and most of what I'm seeing is just the standard Starliner front view from various different distances. That's the big reason why I posted the centaur detach clip; we actually get to see the capsule from a different angle for once.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:57:47 UTC No. 16217590

>>16217582
looks like he began balding. clear sign is brain is rotting

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:58:47 UTC No. 16217593

>>16217576
>Those are the only set you got.
>OK, thanks... I think.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:59:48 UTC No. 16217596

>>16217588
>>16217593
uh oh
stinky

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:59:54 UTC No. 16217597

were there any planes over indian ocean?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 18:59:55 UTC No. 16217598

>>16217486
maybe 1% yeah, I expected the feed to cut suddenly at any time.
In the other view (before it stopped) we could see a lot of sparkles coming from the bottom, so i guess the rest of the heat shield also suffered, even if was much less. I really wonder what the complete exterior looked like before splashdown.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:00:27 UTC No. 16217601

>>16217587
pic related could have happened with dragon if they'd had that capsule explosion docked rather than on the ground.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:01:58 UTC No. 16217604

>>16217601
Why would they blast the abort system while docked to the ISS you fucking idiot

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:02:43 UTC No. 16217605

NAPPY

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:02:53 UTC No. 16217607

>>16217542
Is there any ground to ground payload that would warrant the cost of Starship launch?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:03:59 UTC No. 16217609

>One of the fags abord is acting like a NEETfag
I fucking love it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:04:17 UTC No. 16217610

>>16217371
Neither booster nor Starship reuse is strictly necessary though booster reuse is probably a good idea due to needing 33 raptors each

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:04:23 UTC No. 16217611

did they post any new footage from the SF4 flight? any new angles, new data etc?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:04:45 UTC No. 16217612

>>16217522
Why the fuck is no-one talking about this?
>>16217597
I need to find my MH370 saves spaceflight fan fiction

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:05:20 UTC No. 16217615

>>16217607
atomic bombs

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:05:25 UTC No. 16217617

>>16217371
and also, didn't Starship vertical landing happen?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:05:31 UTC No. 16217618

dey got muh cocoa shea butter on dat sturrrrliner?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:06:18 UTC No. 16217621

>>16217612
>Why the fuck is no-one talking about this?
Who fucking cares what China is doing.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:06:26 UTC No. 16217622

>>16217607
I think they're banking on the utilization rate being better than a plane because the flights are shorter. That would theoretically bring costs down. Exclusively passengers. I don't see it. Just use it for Mars.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:07:00 UTC No. 16217624

>>16217387
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798718549307109867

soft landing in the ocean

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:08:12 UTC No. 16217625

>>16217553
The indomitable American industrial spirit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:08:30 UTC No. 16217626

I still can't get over that flap, that was the GOAT of that test.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:08:42 UTC No. 16217627

DO NOT LET THE UNDIE SHITTERS ABOARD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:09:11 UTC No. 16217629

>>16217607
Maybe organs that need to go to patients in a very short time?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:09:19 UTC No. 16217631

>>16217615
anon we already have that part figured out, i was referencing ground to ground in one piece

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:09:38 UTC No. 16217633

>>16217624
so I guess it was just the one flap

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:09:50 UTC No. 16217634

Another L for Musk fanboys.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:10:37 UTC No. 16217635

>>16217371
this is already a lot more than what thundercock and common cuck skeptic were thinking lmao
to the mooooooooooon!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:10:57 UTC No. 16217637

>>16217631
Now that you mention it...

https://twitter.com/Diver2441/status/1798657932575567885
>While waiting for starship I managed to catch tonight's Minuteman III ICBM test launch from Vandenberg SFB streaking through the sky, incredibly impressive sight. Worth noting this test was planned months ago and is not carrying a live warhead.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:11:27 UTC No. 16217638

>>16217553
That would happen to the entire ship if a single heat tile got loose and fell during launch

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:11:38 UTC No. 16217639

>>16217634
who the fuck is this guy

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:11:53 UTC No. 16217641

>>16217486
It was fucking over lol

I was so close to give up the stream until I remembered this was something American that might as well been built on a picnic table, it's going to do something even under extreme duress

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:12:04 UTC No. 16217642

>>16217634
spacex sisters our response???? im feeling very btfo by Boeing™ right now...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:12:36 UTC No. 16217644

>>16217639
an extremely based individual obviously

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:12:50 UTC No. 16217645

>>16217587
Both burgers and slavs would flip their shit when over 20 years of work goes down the drain fully. The countries that would be receiving orbital debris would also want Boeing hung.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:13:10 UTC No. 16217646

>>16217642
fuck boeing lmao
what a bunch of clown losers
1 whistleblower dead every month lmao

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:13:26 UTC No. 16217647

>>16217642
I'm middle aged. I have a functional sarcasm detector.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:13:44 UTC No. 16217648

>>16217486
I thought it was about to burn through everything at that point

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:14:41 UTC No. 16217650

>>16217486
I knew it was fucking over, but that one bit inside my left nut knew it wasn't over. And it was right.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:15:19 UTC No. 16217651

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:15:54 UTC No. 16217652

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:06 UTC No. 16217653

>>16217651
I will never get over how fucking AWESOME the shockwaves are.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:08 UTC No. 16217654

>>16217507
yeah, though ron baron said spacex would ipo soon (probably meant starlink)
SpaceX might have got some funding rounds with the promise of IPOing starlink at some point so the investors can cash out easier, but who knows if those are enforceable in any way

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:11 UTC No. 16217655

>>16217650
would get that checked out if i were you

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:14 UTC No. 16217656

I saw a video of japs in vr sperging out to the flap moving and the splashdown but I can't find it now.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:29 UTC No. 16217658

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:34 UTC No. 16217659

>>16217324
That little flappy just would not give up!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:40 UTC No. 16217660

>>16217486
I was watching with my GF, I said at least 5 times "Well it's over"

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:16:58 UTC No. 16217661

>>16217651
And they're going to just let it sink and we'll never know why that single engine failed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:17:05 UTC No. 16217662

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:17:09 UTC No. 16217663

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798792222743122164

Artemis3 at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:17:22 UTC No. 16217664

>>16217610
Reuse of both is essential for HLS, if the refueling estimates are correct (somewhere between 6 and 20 tanker missions, depending on who you ask).

>>16217617
I'm defining it as complete when it's a bona fide launch and return to dry tarmac.

>>16217612
>Why the fuck is no-one talking about this?
Starship and Starliner hogging the Western press, but yeah, that's pretty fucking neat.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:17:41 UTC No. 16217665

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:10 UTC No. 16217666

>>16217664
>Reuse of both is essential for HLS, if the refueling estimates are correct (somewhere between 6 and 20 tanker missions, depending on who you ask).
No it isn't, Starship is made to be mass produced

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:11 UTC No. 16217667

>>16217647
picrel

>>16217522
>>16217523
I loathe the Chinese, but I am absolutely cheering for their efforts in space. Please hold the candle under my faggot government's nutsack so we can start putting more actual effort into spaceflight, Chang.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:16 UTC No. 16217668

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:22 UTC No. 16217669

>>16217658
look at how much prop the booster had, landed on fumes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:27 UTC No. 16217670

>>16217490
every university ever
once starship is motoring, the cost to put their own satellites up becomes entirely viable for the bulk of them, rather than just the aristocratic ones

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:18:52 UTC No. 16217672

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:19:59 UTC No. 16217674

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1798789555342200964

https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=starship-flight-4

there is a writeup already

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:20:09 UTC No. 16217675

>>16217669
Don't think that takes header tanks into consideration.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:21:00 UTC No. 16217680

>>16217674

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:21:07 UTC No. 16217681

>>16217486
Like 10%, was honestly expecting it to blow up due to the onboard fires during descent below 10km or rip itself apart during the flip manoeuvre.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:21:11 UTC No. 16217683

>>16217674
And it's already linked to in this very thread.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:21:18 UTC No. 16217685

>>16217674
no word on the dead engine?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:21:47 UTC No. 16217686

SHE MADE IT

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:22:02 UTC No. 16217687

>>16217516
if they start deploying starlinks soon then they don't have to, these test flights might be actually profitable in that case
they can deploy starlinks and then still test the landing procedures of both stages

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:22:06 UTC No. 16217688

>>16217582
unironic mental illness
he's one of the sorts that is mentally incapable of handling being proven wrong
this is on top of him also being one of the sorts to base his entire personality around being a smarmy contrarian
He thought spacex would be an easy mark, got owned for it, and death spiraled into impotent ass rage ever since

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:22:21 UTC No. 16217689

https://x.com/vast/status/1798761232482357287
Looks like Vast was serious when they said foreign government organizations would be a major market for them.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:24:07 UTC No. 16217691

imagine the smell when the hatch opens

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:25:01 UTC No. 16217692

>>16217686
oh no, stinky

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:25:16 UTC No. 16217693

>IFT4 LANDING
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FwXUuC_REk

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:25:24 UTC No. 16217694

>>16217691
ISS has been marinating in farts for over 20 years. I don't think they'll notice.

Artemis3 at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:25:57 UTC No. 16217696

>>16217666
Have it your way...technically, the tankers could be disposable. Note the asterix. ;-) One last edit for the day.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:26:31 UTC No. 16217697

>>16217639
A war criminal

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:26:48 UTC No. 16217698

>>16217661
They're chockfull of sensors anon, this flight was great because not only did it validate redundancies and the upgrades they did but the data was uninterrupted throughout

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:26:57 UTC No. 16217699

>>16217691
helium leak made boeingnauts sound like mickey mouse

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:27:13 UTC No. 16217700

>>16217634
Not sure why people are posting a fake tweet.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:27:23 UTC No. 16217701

>>16217479
Only as a desperate last resort. Shareholders only care about short term profits so any project related to Mars and beyond will be scrubbed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:28:22 UTC No. 16217705

>>16217696
They should make a crew dragon tugboat and launch it with a falcon heavy

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:28:33 UTC No. 16217706

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:29:01 UTC No. 16217708

>>16217604
if they need to, i dinno, abort???? idiot.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:29:34 UTC No. 16217710

>>16217696
>starship deploys payload
how is that required for artemis?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:29:46 UTC No. 16217711

>>16217696
reuse is obviously critical for the Starship programme to be the paradigm shifting launch vehicle its supposed to be, but reusing starships isn't strictly necessary for HLS so they might do expendable refueling flights just to get on with it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:30:30 UTC No. 16217712

>>16217698
Yeah but that isn't better than looking at the thing and seeing a loose screw blocking a valve or something like that

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:30:38 UTC No. 16217713

>>16217691
Still not as bad as MIR.
From the wiki
>On a 1998 visit to Mir, bacteria and larger organisms were found to have proliferated in water globules formed from moisture that had condensed behind service panels

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:32:05 UTC No. 16217715

>>16217629
don't need a yuuuge vehicle for that, just build picrel

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:32:55 UTC No. 16217717

>>16217683
make it more obvious next time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:33:44 UTC No. 16217718

>>16217717
I didn't post it and it's not my fault you can't use ctrl-f.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:33:54 UTC No. 16217719

>>16217307
So if it made a soft splashdown, are they going to try to retrieve the stages?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:35:08 UTC No. 16217724

>>16217689
based

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:35:42 UTC No. 16217725

>>16217607
You could deploy soldiers and military equipment aywhere in the world within 30 minutes

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:36:28 UTC No. 16217727

>>16217607
next day delivery sex dolls

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:36:40 UTC No. 16217728

im bored

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:36:48 UTC No. 16217730

>>16217719
youre an idiot.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:36:53 UTC No. 16217731

>>16217719
Most likely
It's a bad idea to have all that tech floating around ripe for the taking, nevermind the environmental drones being considerably butthurt

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:36:57 UTC No. 16217732

>>16217587
>haha station go boom

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:37:20 UTC No. 16217733

>>16217607
A 2million dollar starship launch is comparable to a cargo plane operating for however long it takes to get to the destination but its also faster.

https://youtu.be/exdMdgfzQqk?t=761

Artemis3 at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:37:42 UTC No. 16217735

>>16217710
My way of saying that it's demonstrating that 100T lift capacity, but yeah, not an Artemis requirement. Final, final edit to merge that goal with "Orbital refueling demonstrated".

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:37:49 UTC No. 16217736

>>16217725
are any soldiers really that valuable?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:39:03 UTC No. 16217739

>>16217522

meanwhile Russia killed some villagers!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:39:11 UTC No. 16217740

>>16217725
im gonna deploy my seed down your throat

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:39:26 UTC No. 16217741

>cleaning up after herself?
pajeeta made a stinky?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:40:10 UTC No. 16217745

>>16217735
Didn't Starship do a vertical landing during the soft water splashdown? they had to do a flip manuever i.e. vertical landing to land softly on the water

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:40:24 UTC No. 16217746

>>16217741
>open the hatch and a torrent of shit floods in

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:41:07 UTC No. 16217749

>>16217741
>butch and suni both shit themselves on the way up
i don't blame them

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:41:11 UTC No. 16217750

>>16217745
and they also did this a few years ago while doing starship hop tests, they did the same flip now

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:42:04 UTC No. 16217752

>>16217740
Not if I drop mine in yours first

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:42:24 UTC No. 16217753

>>16217733
Starship will not cost $2 million a flight

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:42:44 UTC No. 16217756

>>16217745
It's not a landing unless it's on land.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:43:42 UTC No. 16217758

>>16217753
>t. thundercel

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:43:58 UTC No. 16217759

>>16217756
What we had today was a watering

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:44:29 UTC No. 16217762

>>16217725
It'll be shot down during descent and landing unless you already have significant enough presence at the destination to clear and hold the area, at which point you don't need such an express delivery. You'll also get nuked in response because its flight profile up until reentry is identical to icbm and nobody's gonna sit and wait to see what it is. And if you're against someone without nukes you again don't need anything like that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:44:39 UTC No. 16217763

>>16217756
I doubt they are going to do that

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:45:21 UTC No. 16217765

>>16217753
it will cost 20k a flight. you cant prove otherwise.
if you have 100 employees on 60k a year just fly it 300 times a year.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:45:27 UTC No. 16217766

>>16217746

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:46:55 UTC No. 16217770

>>16217765
Do yourself a favor and look up the going rate of bulk lox and lng, then look up the wet mass of ss/sh

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:46:55 UTC No. 16217771

she looks like a witch kek

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:47:22 UTC No. 16217774

>>16217765
20k is a nonstarter. It needs to be 2k.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:47:36 UTC No. 16217776

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:47:41 UTC No. 16217777

Sunni's hair is insane. Medusa offspring?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:47:56 UTC No. 16217778

>>16217770
just synthesize the lox and methane like you would on mars. make it make sense.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:48:53 UTC No. 16217782

>>16217771
>>16217776
I don't think there are any children on board so she might go hungry for a while

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:48:58 UTC No. 16217783

>>16217774
it will cost 20 dollars in the future with starship version 3.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:07 UTC No. 16217784

Can anybody explain if thunderf00t is just acting a role so he can suck out money from the anti musk reddit crowd or does he genuinely believe all he says? Because he sure as fuck acted so utterly petty and pathetic on his stream that I would be hard pressed to believe he was acting.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:12 UTC No. 16217785

>starliner didn't depressurize itself and the ISS
genuinely surprised

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:31 UTC No. 16217786

>>16217771
>>16217776
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNdOMcbuiiA

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:49:37 UTC No. 16217787

>>16217771
You think there's aerospace-grade eyes of newt?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:50:00 UTC No. 16217790

>>16217379
yeah, id like to get all the footage from launch to LOS, and then the descent of the Ship because i could stream at 224p. pliz help

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:50:09 UTC No. 16217791

>>16217771
I hope she dosn't lay any eggs up there.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:50:48 UTC No. 16217792

>>16217771
la goblina

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:50:56 UTC No. 16217793

>>16217784
Who cares? Don't let some retard on YouTube live inside your head.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:52:07 UTC No. 16217798

>>16217793
I'm genuinely curious, used watch him like a decade ago.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:53:00 UTC No. 16217801

>>16217776

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:53:38 UTC No. 16217802

>>16217790
I got Twitter & X Video Downloader for my browser and I was able to download the broadcast from spacex's feed page.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:54:05 UTC No. 16217803

>>16217725
I think the US can already do that lol

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:54:46 UTC No. 16217805

fr fr why they spend government money on blowing up Musk's rocket instead of feeding the poor?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:55:13 UTC No. 16217808

>>16217486
I am a natural optimist and thought it still had a chance

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:55:18 UTC No. 16217809

You now remember KSP2

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:55:58 UTC No. 16217811

>>16217471
it will need quite some fuel but look at the difference between what SLS will put on the lunar surface V what starship can. SLS/Orion probably wont be doing much more in terms of payload than Apollo was, while starship will be dropping 100 ton per landing. Its all fine, i like that theres multiple systems being developed.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:56:11 UTC No. 16217813

>>16217725
now I'm imagining pez dispensed odst pods

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:56:25 UTC No. 16217814

>>16217801
damn if she has any boys they're gonna be giga-chinned chads

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:56:30 UTC No. 16217816

was last thread sfg with most replies ever?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:57:00 UTC No. 16217819

>>16217805
>calling the woman's daughter lame
damn newspapers were racist as fuck back in the day

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:57:31 UTC No. 16217820

>>16217816
nope, the simultaneous booster landing thread was probably the biggest

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:57:54 UTC No. 16217822

>>16217809
>tfw starting up RSS KSP with literally +100 mods making it take half a hour to get past the loading screen
Still prefer it over KSP2

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:07 UTC No. 16217824

>>16217712
Even though it was a soft landing, super heavy did land in the sea and salt water would fuck up a lot of stuff.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:12 UTC No. 16217825

>>16217334
>>16217352
Boeing has the families of the astronauts hostage. They cannot refuse.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:58:47 UTC No. 16217826

>>16217822
>half a hour to get past the loading screen
Fucking hell are you on an nvme?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:59:02 UTC No. 16217827

I genuinelly cant wait for the common sense skeptic BANGER about IFT4. will be a great watch.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 19:59:48 UTC No. 16217831

>>16217824

the goal isn't to land in salt water.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:00:00 UTC No. 16217832

>>16217827
won't he just ignore it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:00:17 UTC No. 16217835

>>16217824
But it's stainless steel, not toilet paper

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:00:24 UTC No. 16217836

>>16217528
>Mr. Thunderf00t that Musk has ended up duplicating the Space Shuttle
thats a pretty lame way of describing it, because SS is fully reusable and wont take 6 months to cycle for another launch, which will itself be WAAAAAY cheaper than each shuttle launch. And of course, the moon and mars talk is what they're making it for.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:00:44 UTC No. 16217837

>>16217827
There won't be one unless he finds some shoddy article about endangering schools of vulnerable sardines or something to "back it up" with.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:00:46 UTC No. 16217839

>>16217827
Once everyone has neuralink Elon Musk will become a trillionaire as he lives rent free in the heads of these mongs and can get ad revenue.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:01:35 UTC No. 16217840

>>16217839
>rent free
They'll be paying rent

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:01:45 UTC No. 16217841

>>16217528
>I fully agree with Mr. Thunderf00t
Trolling outside /b/ is against the rules.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:01:47 UTC No. 16217842

>>16217835
>he doesn't know
It's balsa wood with a tin foil covering

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:01:58 UTC No. 16217843

How do Elon fanboys cope now that Boeing has proven its superiority?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:01:59 UTC No. 16217844

>>16217826
Nah, I'm using an old as shit SSD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:02:28 UTC No. 16217845

>>16217680
Why did they jettison the hot stage adapter? I didn't realise that was a thing.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:02:36 UTC No. 16217847

I like to call him tendertoe sometimes

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:02:56 UTC No. 16217849

>>16217688
never heard of him before todays test flight thread. im glad about that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:03:40 UTC No. 16217850

https://x.com/maxfagin/status/1798747577694978120

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:03:58 UTC No. 16217851

>>16217694
International Stench Station

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:04:15 UTC No. 16217853

>>16217809
I am now playing KSP1. I started messing around with Kerbal Konstructs recently and I'm improving my Laythe colonies with runways and shit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:04:50 UTC No. 16217855

>>16217850

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:05:51 UTC No. 16217857

>>16217855

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:06:23 UTC No. 16217858

>>16217843
We cope by remembering spaceX has been delivering cargo&crew to ISS for years now for a fraction of the cost that boeing does.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:06:30 UTC No. 16217859

>an American invasion of Lebanon is likely before the end of the year
Space Force about to get it's first real war as Iran knocks out American satellites

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:06:49 UTC No. 16217863

Can somebody explain to me what the point of fuel transfer even is if you're not going to do it ass-to-ass?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:06:52 UTC No. 16217864

>>16217857

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:07:53 UTC No. 16217866

>>16217864

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:08:19 UTC No. 16217867

>>16217802
i'll have to try it with one of those online downloaders. if you can choose the time frame to grab it should work with the filesize limits etc.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:08:42 UTC No. 16217868

>>16217859
Well, if it happens I hope it won't affect SpaceX.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:09:47 UTC No. 16217871

>>16217832
>>16217837
>>16217839
He's already got plenty of material for the next video
>burnthrough on the flap
>two engine losses on the booster
>both vehicles being lost at end of mission
that is all he needs to spin it as another catastrophic loss. Then mix in stuff about how it's far behind on the schedule unlike starliner which SUCEEDED first mission.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:11:33 UTC No. 16217878

>>16217522
>all that clanging around
they have no style, they have no grace.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:11:54 UTC No. 16217880

>>16217336
>>16217349
Fuck off pedo

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:12:33 UTC No. 16217881

>>16217849
iirc he's been pissing and shitting over Musk for well over a decade now
I am still to this day amazed his heart hasn't detonated like a hand grenade from the stress

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:13:01 UTC No. 16217883

>>16217845
its like, you know, heavy man

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:14:18 UTC No. 16217886

>>16217548
>simulated
He doesn't know

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:14:59 UTC No. 16217887

>>16217880
Lol, are you still here?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:15:47 UTC No. 16217892

>>16217849
he first got "internet famous" for making about fifty thousand youtube videos dunking on the stupidest christian creationists he could find; basically picked the easiest possible target to make himself look smart. He was doing this when internet atheism was on the rise, so he rode that trend and in years sense has been trying to ride the anti-elon trend too. Chasing the dragon, looking for more dregs of relevance and success.

He's honestly pitiful.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:16:39 UTC No. 16217893

>>16217881
why would he be under stress?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:20:01 UTC No. 16217898

>>16217324
This was such a thrill, when it started coming apart I was just expecting the ship to blow up at any moment, but then it went and completed the flight

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:21:17 UTC No. 16217902

>>16217638
no it wouldn't

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:21:46 UTC No. 16217906

>>16217881
weird. did they reject his job application or something?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:22:25 UTC No. 16217907

>>16217639
please leave the internet if you cannot get irony

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:22:52 UTC No. 16217909

>>16217892
oooh ok i understand better now thanks. imagine not letting go of your initial skepticism once you see things working well. definite character issues.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:23:12 UTC No. 16217910

>>16217857
Spaceplane

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:25:48 UTC No. 16217912

>>16217902
those tiles werent where the fuel tanks are.
There was clearly burnthrough and im astonished the engines relit at the end. the sensors on them were fucked which is why it never said they were lit on the diagram.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:28:34 UTC No. 16217920

/g/ here

Can someone explain why you all hate thunderf00t now? I haven't seen him in a while but his debunk of popular scam science shit like solar roadways was cool. Did he go woke or something to piss you all off?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:28:54 UTC No. 16217921

>>16217912
I gurantee you one tile fell off the fuel tank too.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:29:15 UTC No. 16217923

https://x.com/UltraSafeNuke/status/1798758017300922853

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:30:38 UTC No. 16217929

>>16217920
look at his YouTube channel

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:30:50 UTC No. 16217930

>>16217921
no way bro. how would they have any liquid propellant if the fuel was superheated?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:32:01 UTC No. 16217934

>>16217920
he has been whining about spacex forever and completely clueless to boot

https://x.com/GoodwinHig30984/status/1798724936690794952

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:32:27 UTC No. 16217938

Lucky Number 4
magic is real.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:32:31 UTC No. 16217939

>>16217771
>she's floating
witch confirmed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:32:53 UTC No. 16217940

Ok, we have the launch vehicle now
LUVOIR-A when?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:33:02 UTC No. 16217942

>>16217934
also

https://www.youtube.com/live/Rn2EzfllTwA?t=3308s

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:33:08 UTC No. 16217943

>>16217920
He's a decent chemist who should stay in his fucking lane of chemistry because he's consistently wrong about every space and rockets.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:33:30 UTC No. 16217946

>>16217753
Not at first no. But once they start successfully reusing boostsers and ships it could
>>16217920
Turns out "skeptics" are all retards who think they know more than they actually do. Just wait till the aliens show up and reveal they have been here for a bajillion years or whatever they will all collectively commit sepuku out of shame

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:33:48 UTC No. 16217947

>>16217930
It has a lot of thermal mass

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:33:54 UTC No. 16217948

>>16217923
>pylon
man the future is going to be filled with so many fucking references

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:34:09 UTC No. 16217950

>>16217943
*everything space and rockets.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:34:37 UTC No. 16217952

>>16217923
Solarfag on suicide watch

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:35:12 UTC No. 16217954

>>16217943
What's the most perfect rocket according to a chemist again?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:36:10 UTC No. 16217956

>>16217920
https://twitter.com/peterrhague/status/1798737066009805162
>He once tried to do transfer orbit calculations without taking into account the fact that planets move.
>He tried to argue Falcon 9 was more expensive than Shuttle because he didn’t understand the figures he was pulling from Wikipedia
>He made a spreadsheet claiming that re-use wouldn’t be viable before 10 flights (which SpaceX now exceeded) but even with his toy model had to lie about what it said to make that case

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:36:21 UTC No. 16217957

>>16217954
Don't ask me. I'm not a fucking chemist. Phil is still like an electrician giving unwanted advice on plumbing because he also did trades.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:37:03 UTC No. 16217961

>>16217920
The problem is that /g/ is just as gay and retarded as he is
Being an “intellectual” isn’t a lifestyle; it’s a faggy, pretentious peacock act to look smart and seek validation. And in his case, he leans too far into the grift. Yeah you can point out flaws in tesla, or make fun of the hyperloop idea. But phil mason acts like SpaceX itself is some sort of scam act who are laundering money and burning the books and making up numbers and figures despite the more-than-obvious success of the company

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:38:50 UTC No. 16217964

>>16217961
I don't think he's actually that stupid but he knows his audience is.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:40:24 UTC No. 16217967

>>16217954
Scifi books seem to favor metallic hydrogen

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:41:02 UTC No. 16217969

>>16217964
Yeah I think that as well, to an extent. I think he found out where the money is. And you can’t blame a man for a hustle.
But my goodness he has said some VERY obliquely stupid things about rocketry and spaceflight and I have to question where the scam ends and where his actual lobotomized reasoning skills starts

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:41:16 UTC No. 16217970

>>16217923
>Pylon is a standalone power generator that transmits electricity wirelessly
how long until we unlock zerg tech too?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:42:32 UTC No. 16217973

>>16217954
>the most perfect rocket
Whatever reactionless drive that uap use to propel themselves.

Propellant is for suckers

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:43:29 UTC No. 16217975

>>16217967
I was thinking about that infographic about what the perfect rocket is for each of the disciplines. Can't seem to find it.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:43:52 UTC No. 16217976

>>16217970
You need to CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS first.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:44:03 UTC No. 16217977

>>16217923
Nuke chads... we won...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:45:33 UTC No. 16217983

I think they should just use disposable solid fuel rockets to launch starship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:46:02 UTC No. 16217985

>>16217973
Chemists would hate a reactionless drive.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:46:30 UTC No. 16217986

>>16217983
And I think you should go in the pisslock, but here we are.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:48:03 UTC No. 16217988

>>16217920
newfag

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:49:43 UTC No. 16217990

>>16217983
Well i think you're a fucking retard. What part of fully and rapidly reusable do you not get?
>>16217985
Good. Chemistry is gay. physics is chad and based. Instead of using gay chemical reactions where particles fuck each other in the ass to produce a meager propulsion, reactionless drives harness the power of physics exploits to achieve superluminal speeds.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:51:04 UTC No. 16217992

>>16216171
BUMP

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:52:19 UTC No. 16217993

As kino as flight 4 was, imagine how cool it’s going to be watching a first person flip maneuver from a camera that isn’t smudged with flap and a cracked lens.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:54:21 UTC No. 16217997

>>16217993
didn't they have another camera or did it go bust which somehow I doubt it considering what this camera has survived.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:54:26 UTC No. 16217998

>>16217993
Just more things to look forward to

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:54:46 UTC No. 16217999

>>16217993
Watching the catch is going to be surreal

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:56:22 UTC No. 16218004

>>16217997
I think the other one was directly on the side rather than slightly on top.
There's no way it survived.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:56:39 UTC No. 16218005

>>16217993
Remember when we got the first video of a Falcon 9 landing on the ocean except the video was corrupted and it took great effort to reconstruct anything from it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:57:19 UTC No. 16218007

>>16217912
why was there clearly burnthrough

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 20:58:51 UTC No. 16218009

>>16218007
sparks and green shit flying off the back of the ship, same as what was happening on the flap but less severe. that was metal melting and burning away btw

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:00:03 UTC No. 16218011

>>16217805
I think this woman could stand to be a little bit hungry.
Or maybe at least share some food with her kids.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:00:06 UTC No. 16218012

>>16217956
>>He tried to argue Falcon 9 was more expensive than Shuttle because he didn’t understand the figures he was pulling from Wikipedia

he's not wrong Musk has probably swindled billions from tax payers, look at hyperlool

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:00:18 UTC No. 16218013

>>16218009
so sparks don't happen at all if everything is intact? makes some sense

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:00:53 UTC No. 16218014

https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/1798815425452818821

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:01:48 UTC No. 16218016

Did SpaceX or Musk release some images/info we didn't get from the stream?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:01:54 UTC No. 16218018

>>16218014
https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/1798817384364724654

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:02:55 UTC No. 16218020

https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/1798818335485989156

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:03:46 UTC No. 16218023

>>16218014
>>16218018
>>16218020
This has to be thundercuck himself shilling his latest xeets
Nobody cares

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:05:05 UTC No. 16218025

>>16218020
https://x.com/WMNarmer/status/1798822378035921107

basically living in an alternate reality, I think you could call this dogmatic, ironically almost religious
like has been often joked here, I'm pretty sure these people are still going to be whining and talking in the same way when there is a mars colony and just say that it was 10 years late or something, only had 10k people at some deadline instead of 25k that musk said or whatever

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:05:13 UTC No. 16218026

>>16217997
Wasn’t that camera mounted to the fin that got fucked?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:05:26 UTC No. 16218028

>>16218020
>muh timeline estimate from 10 years ago
Holy shit he has fallen off

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:06:10 UTC No. 16218029

>>16218020
Can someone remind him of the time his country launched a satellite, in which his own country cucked themselves from the launch so needed austrailia to launch it, and it failed after 5 minutes of sending any data.

Imagine the space debris and trash up there!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:06:16 UTC No. 16218030

>>16218020
What a douche. Everyone knows that elon's timeframes are unrealistic. We've known this since day 1. What matters is they still manage to get things done even if it takes 5-6 years longer than elons overly optimistic ideas of how long it will take

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:06:48 UTC No. 16218032

>>16218020
https://x.com/WMNarmer/status/1798822378035921107

basically living in an alternate reality, I think you could call this dogmatic, ironically almost religious
like has been often joked here, I'm pretty sure these people are still going to be whining and talking in the same way when there is a mars colony and just say that it was 10 years late or something, only had 10k people at some deadline instead of 25k that musk said or whatever

>>16218023
people were talking about him and he seems to be doubling down

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:06:59 UTC No. 16218033

>>16218014
>>16218018
>>16218020
The man can't take an L, but he also has some points at times. Broken clock and all that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:08:22 UTC No. 16218035

>>16218013
there should not be the firework show we actually got. the tiles arent supposed to react with the plasma like that

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:08:46 UTC No. 16218036

>>16218032
>nasa did way better

Nasa never returned a 40 story tall booster from space

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:09:20 UTC No. 16218037

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:09:30 UTC No. 16218038

>>16218036
Yeah but they got to the moon. That has to count for something.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:10:47 UTC No. 16218041

>>16218035
Shuttle reentry had tons of sparks too.
The bright green is concerning though

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:11:13 UTC No. 16218042

Starship hasto become fully and rapidly reusable. with all the shit flying off the booster idk if they could have reused it.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:11:32 UTC No. 16218043

>>16218032
Do these people think that the government awards contracts to the first that happens to pass by? Dear if they won those contract is because they brought results on the table, if they weren't sucessfull no one would have awarded them anything.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:12:51 UTC No. 16218044

>>16218038
And spacex and other commercial companies will help colonize it. Something nasa alone will never be able to do

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:13:05 UTC No. 16218045

>>16218028
Far as i'm aware of the 4 Artemis missions that have flown so far (Artemis 1, the launch of the CAPSTONE satellite by Electron (success), the launch of Peregrine by Vulcan (failure), and then the launch of Odysseus by SpaceX (partial Success? It landed on the moon and fell over). There are 2 Falcon Heavy and 3 Falcon 9 missions until Starship will do a lunar landing sometime next year (which we'll see if that actually happens) There's also the Artemis 2 launch in September next year which will involve a crewed lunar flyby.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:13:49 UTC No. 16218046

>>16218020
can someone splice together all of his best copium scenes from his livestream
I dont want to comb through it myself

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:14:07 UTC No. 16218047

https://twitter.com/astroferg/status/1798824583740665982
>Here is Starship shutting down at the end of the second stage burn as seen from Tampa, Florida this morning! Be sure to click the link for the full 4K video and the main telescope view, but here's a clip from the refractor riding piggyback on the scope!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acNMoITLei8

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:15:50 UTC No. 16218049

>>16217827
Well that was unnecessarily mean-spirited and uncalled for.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:15:53 UTC No. 16218050

>>16218043
its just a cope mythos to explain away what Musk has accomplished
Musk is dumb, but this just by itself would be in contradiction to his companies being as successful as they are, so they need some explanation (emerald mine money, given money from the government and actually not successful, somebody in the companies is actually responsible for the success etc take your pick)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:15:59 UTC No. 16218051

>>16218044
It's not NASA's fault that Congress is giving their budget away to Wall Street

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:16:16 UTC No. 16218052

>>16218038
By giving unlimited money from an unlimited budget to various private companies.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:18:07 UTC No. 16218054

>>16218052
the engineers did still do it, but the original diversion is kind of moot anyway
NASA doing something 50 years ago is kind of irrelevant, what matters is what they are doing now (SLS) compared to private entities (SpaceX)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:20:01 UTC No. 16218057

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:21:32 UTC No. 16218058

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1798827111454827003

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:23:18 UTC No. 16218060

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798826109011734889

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:23:37 UTC No. 16218061

>>16218051
NASA pisses away over 20 billion per year achieving next to nothing. The Starship program in 6 years hasnt even hit 10 billion

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:23:44 UTC No. 16218062

>>16218058
just glad the astronauts made it to the ISS safely at this point

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:24:19 UTC No. 16218063

https://x.com/ns123abc/status/1798546887764779229

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:25:10 UTC No. 16218065

>>16218050
To be honest i find Elon Musk to be quite annoying and attention seeking, but we need to give credit where it's due Spacex is doing the work of the lord.
In the span of a single year they passed from having a rocket that explodes mid-air to have a nearly perfect landing and we are not talking about some extremely small probing rocket that weighs 10 kg, we are talking about one of the heaviest rockets ever made.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:28:05 UTC No. 16218069

>>16218061
>The Starship program in 6 years hasnt even hit 10 billion
SpaceX is a private company and doesn't have to tell you how much they spend on anything

>>16218041
Why is the bright green concerning?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:28:12 UTC No. 16218070

>>16218065
>one of
Pretty sure it's got everything else beat on just about every metric.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:28:50 UTC No. 16218071

>>16218069
You can do the math yourself, all the hardware is plain to see

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:30:19 UTC No. 16218072

>>16218071
I don't want to do the math myself. I want you to tell me what those raspberry pis cost. Clearly they were too expensive for Boing.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:30:21 UTC No. 16218073

At this point, why should we even bother funding NASA, Boeing, etc. anything and just give it all to SpaceX? I guess DoD can keep their money.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:31:04 UTC No. 16218074

>>16218073
SpaceX doesn't own any senators currently.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:31:29 UTC No. 16218076

>>16218073
It would look bad.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:33:16 UTC No. 16218081

>>16217969
It's an ego thing with him. Just listen to his voice and the way he talks - some form of narcissism there. He's unable to understand criticism of himself or his mistakes. Same for most of the people who actually watch his videos too I think, some amount of his fans are just bog standard boomers who have no idea about space yet hate Musk for whatever reason, but the rest of them clearly have a screw loose. Go argue with them on youtube and you'll see what I mean, they are incapable of accurately observing reality at all. Low-IQ and leftism is a repulsive combination

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:34:17 UTC No. 16218085

Are beans good food for a mars colony?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:35:57 UTC No. 16218089

>>16218076
Bullshit. If they dropped all money from big aerospace and gave it all to SpaceX, everyone would mostly cheer.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:36:33 UTC No. 16218091

>>16217686
about fucking time, boing

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:36:58 UTC No. 16218093

>>16218085
Methane ain't gonna produce itself.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:38:28 UTC No. 16218095

>>16218085
rice and beans are rich eatther food. martians get the bug paste.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:41:10 UTC No. 16218100

>>16218095
banana leg bugs...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:43:29 UTC No. 16218104

>>16218073
NASA should focus on science missions
but yes giving money to NASA to build SLS is retarded

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:43:52 UTC No. 16218106

>>16218073
So where does all the infrastructure to make the actual missions that goes on rockets, go to?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:45:19 UTC No. 16218107

space sex

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:45:29 UTC No. 16218110

Earth her? I barely even know her!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:46:18 UTC No. 16218112

>>16218106
>confused_cat_saying_huh.gif

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:47:27 UTC No. 16218113

>>16218106

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:48:11 UTC No. 16218114

So no faa nigger investigation right?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:49:16 UTC No. 16218118

>>16218114
Shouldn't be one, no. Not a lawyer nor do I work for the FAA.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:50:22 UTC No. 16218121

>>16217850
nice

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:52:33 UTC No. 16218124

how do you solve the flap gap problem?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:53:03 UTC No. 16218125

>>16218114
What's the mishap?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:54:02 UTC No. 16218127

>>16218061
buddy elon said they spent 2 billiona year running starbase, this was before any orbital launch attempts and didnt even inclue cost of vehicles and cost of starship things from outside of starbase. its definitely exceeded the nasa yearly budget at this point.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:54:18 UTC No. 16218128

>>16218124
Going to need at least two more launches to get the necessary data.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:55:04 UTC No. 16218130

>>16218114
they need to investigate impact on life in the ionosphere. please understand!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:55:13 UTC No. 16218131

>>16218127
no

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:55:59 UTC No. 16218134

>>16218114
FAA commendation for landing that shit with holes in its control surfaces

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:56:06 UTC No. 16218135

>>16218124
I propose a fixed delta wing. maybe even mount the starship fuel tank externally for greater performance in orbit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 21:56:58 UTC No. 16218137

>>16218128
Flaps will work flawlessly next flight in following the pattern that every step they fail one flight is trivial the next

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:01:21 UTC No. 16218140

>>16218073
I didnt know spaceX can build mars rovers, telescopes, interplanetary plobes.

And btw, falcon 9, crew dragon and starship exist thanks to NASA money

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:05:21 UTC No. 16218142

16218140

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:05:23 UTC No. 16218143

>>16218140
yes that was what he posted you subhominid

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:06:47 UTC No. 16218145

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798837571226657001
>Starship reentering like a meteor

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:07:49 UTC No. 16218147

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1798837841319141829
>Starship separates from booster

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:08:41 UTC No. 16218148

Ground views of either craft while they're coming back when?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:09:22 UTC No. 16218150

>>16218145
>>16218147
He's back

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:10:24 UTC No. 16218151

>>16217486
how the fuck do they recover from this? is there an actual fix for the flaps melting?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:11:17 UTC No. 16218152

>>16218151
add more flaps

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:11:28 UTC No. 16218154

>>16218151
No. It’s over, starship reusability in shambles.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:12:30 UTC No. 16218155

>>16218151
It's over for Elon.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:12:47 UTC No. 16218156

>>16218151
Move them leeward, bleed methane at the interface, stuff it full of glass fiber insulation.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:13:21 UTC No. 16218157

>The night before #Starship's 4th flight, @elonmusk described one of the main concerns about Starship's heat shield. He turned out to be right as it was the exact spot that burned through. More video to come!

https://x.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1798839719964618998

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:13:32 UTC No. 16218158

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:14:29 UTC No. 16218159

>>16218157
HINGE GAP

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:14:39 UTC No. 16218160

>>16218157
he thicc

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:14:54 UTC No. 16218162

>>16218151
work on why the plasma flow seemed to concentrate there. add extra heat shielding. get drunk, cry, give up etc. take your pick

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:16:00 UTC No. 16218164

big chungus

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:16:08 UTC No. 16218166

>>16217686
How hyped was she during the Starship flight test?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:17:23 UTC No. 16218167

>>16218160
>>16218164

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:18:09 UTC No. 16218168

Spacenews says an environmentalist group is going to try and sue SpaceX over the wastewater thing

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:18:39 UTC No. 16218169

We've all been saying it for years. Flaps are an insurmountable problem in space.
They'll never solve it. It's over.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:18:40 UTC No. 16218170

>>16218168
of course they are

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:18:41 UTC No. 16218171

>>16218166
she came

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:19:28 UTC No. 16218176

I used to watch this guy a long time ago. Now it would be really funny to watch his seeth empire crash if the Starship is successful

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:19:42 UTC No. 16218177

>>16218168
Total
Environmentalist
Death

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:20:25 UTC No. 16218178

>>16218177
Ted!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:20:45 UTC No. 16218179

GUYS. does anyone have a youtube video of the official spacex launch stream? i wanna download it in HD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:21:13 UTC No. 16218180

https://x.com/thesheetztweetz/status/1798834723915264264

not a software problem, not a hardware problem
what the fuck is it then?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:21:38 UTC No. 16218181

why put the flaps on the side? just put them on the back and make them a little wider to reach more air

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:21:55 UTC No. 16218182

>>16218180
user error :)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:22:15 UTC No. 16218184

>>16218180

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:22:16 UTC No. 16218185

>>16218180
Morality problem

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:22:59 UTC No. 16218187

>>16218180
it means they didn't design the software to expect the values they're feeding it. It's not "broken" they just didn't design it right

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:23:13 UTC No. 16218188

>>16218155
They look like bouncers at a club lol

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:23:52 UTC No. 16218189

>>16218187
that sounds like a problem
something can not be broken but still be a problem

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:24:14 UTC No. 16218190

>>16218185
Heheh

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:24:59 UTC No. 16218191

>>16218187
Do not redeem RCS thrusts

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:25:15 UTC No. 16218192

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:26:14 UTC No. 16218195

>>16218187
>it means they didn't design the software to expect the values they're feeding it.
>It's not "broken" they just didn't design it right

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:27:36 UTC No. 16218197

>>16218157
>>16218160
>>16218164
>takes ozempic
>still fat as fuck
wat da fak

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:27:59 UTC No. 16218199

>>16218085
this is so disgusting

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:29:04 UTC No. 16218200

>>16217553
>Flap-Chan being gaped by hypersonic plasma
Sir this is a family board

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:29:43 UTC No. 16218203

>>16218113
I'm all for spending money into engineering AIs that will manifest in flesh as sexy artificial beings. And catgirls, of course.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:30:20 UTC No. 16218205

>>16218197
He has tweaked spine and a huge rib cage for some reason. It's not all fat

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:30:57 UTC No. 16218209

>>16218200
If you think about it, it's basically pitfucking.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:31:56 UTC No. 16218212

>>16218209
There is not supposed to be an actual hole in the pit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:32:21 UTC No. 16218214

>>16218205
some fused disks due to trying to throw a sumo wrestler and weak back/core due to never exercising make it probably more pronounced

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:32:39 UTC No. 16218216

>>16218106
assuming this isn't bait, there are quite a few Starship based startups right now working towards the mass production of cheap space hardware.
JPL is really good at spending 50 billion dollars developing around constraints that will shortly no longer exist.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:34:02 UTC No. 16218217

...

well?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:34:52 UTC No. 16218218

>>16218217
I liked the part where rogget went up.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:35:07 UTC No. 16218219

>>16217771
>>16217786

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:35:23 UTC No. 16218220

>>16218217
Humans on mars was really cool so I’m going to have to say that one

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:35:39 UTC No. 16218222

>>16218205
look at the video in the xeet, he's fat as fuck

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:37:57 UTC No. 16218226

>>16217486
Thought the flap would get cut clean off followed by the ship tumbling out of control and loss of signal soon after. I didn't even think of the possibility it might have held together until we got below like Mach 2

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:38:47 UTC No. 16218228

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:39:02 UTC No. 16218229

>>16218222
Elon dying of obesity before he gets to Mars would be peak American

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:39:34 UTC No. 16218230

>>16218228
god damn he is seething lmaooo

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:40:45 UTC No. 16218231

>>16218095
eggs>beans

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:40:51 UTC No. 16218232

>>16218164
el cretura! dios mio...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:40:55 UTC No. 16218233

>>16218228
this nigga havin a meltdown

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:43:21 UTC No. 16218237

>>16217713
>a large, opaque mass of water the size of a basketball was found behind an avionics panel
ground control found the cum closet

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:44:29 UTC No. 16218240

>>16218228
As if falcon 9 didn't need multiple flights before they got the hang of landing and reusing it
What an absolute clown

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:46:19 UTC No. 16218243

>>16217713
>and larger organisms
such as?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:46:28 UTC No. 16218244

>>16218217
why is he in denial?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:47:11 UTC No. 16218247

>>16218243
Xenomorphs

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:47:50 UTC No. 16218248

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:48:13 UTC No. 16218249

>>16218243
molds that could potentially eat metal glass and rubber

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:48:22 UTC No. 16218250

>>16218180
They need more money, please understand.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:49:26 UTC No. 16218253

>>16217371
some of those aren't needed for artemis even if they will be achieved first

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:50:27 UTC No. 16218255

>>16217397
the flap never failed, it worked until splash down

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:50:28 UTC No. 16218256

>>16217550
Or kill a thousand beetles trying.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:50:40 UTC No. 16218257

>>16218216
I doubt places like the NRO is going to give their projects to startups of all things.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:51:07 UTC No. 16218258

>>16218255
No shit sherlock.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:51:28 UTC No. 16218259

https://x.com/MoonManX22/status/1798837134142402646

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:51:36 UTC No. 16218260

>>16217402
the heawt of a champeun

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Jun 2024 22:52:31 UTC No. 16218262

>>16218248
kek