Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:22:57 UTC No. 16223081

>>16223077
give me one reason why that planet isnt habitable.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:23:06 UTC No. 16223082

>>16223077
A very feminine planet.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:24:09 UTC No. 16223084

>>16223081
there's acid everywhere so even the "le habitable upper atmosphere" is just going to kill you.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:24:16 UTC No. 16223085

>>16223081
It is habitable tho
Just not on the surface.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:24:32 UTC No. 16223086

>>16223077
beautiful, but your pic made me wonder:
why do you fags never post pics from NASA's APOD?
https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:24:48 UTC No. 16223087

>>16223084
But my blimps

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:25:05 UTC No. 16223089

Can we just take a moment to depreciate the image in the OP? The biggest thing in spaceflight in decades just happened and the best image this absolute basement dwelling perma-online neckbeard could come up with is a photograph of a brapoid planet rotating.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:25:44 UTC No. 16223092

>>16223077
I HATE FALSE COLOR ASTRONOMY PHOTOS
I HATE FALSE COLOR ASTRONOMY PHOTOS

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:26:34 UTC No. 16223094

>>16223089
It's such a shit planet it barely even rotates to begin with

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:26:54 UTC No. 16223097

>>16223081

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:28:12 UTC No. 16223099

>>16223097
starship could make it down there

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:28:18 UTC No. 16223100

>>16223092
here you go anon

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:28:46 UTC No. 16223101

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:28:50 UTC No. 16223102

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1799580281508122994

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:28:56 UTC No. 16223103

>>16223100
thank you I am calm now

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:30:48 UTC No. 16223104

>>16223087
blimps? You are like a little baby.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:31:32 UTC No. 16223106

>>16223068
I used eyes on the solar system as a reference; I exaggerated the rings

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:31:39 UTC No. 16223107

>>16223094
not even trying, lazy ass planet!

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:31:59 UTC No. 16223108

>>16223099
Actually I think Starship would float

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:32:55 UTC No. 16223110

>>16223104

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:34:00 UTC No. 16223112

>Starship is the modern N1
You can't prove me wrong

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:34:23 UTC No. 16223114

>>16223102
He's right. We cant get to mars with DEI hires. The lifeblood of aerospace is autistic white guys and they are quickly going extinct

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:34:30 UTC No. 16223115

https://x.com/RGVaerialphotos/status/1799501649360420891

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:35:19 UTC No. 16223116

>>16223112
N1 attempted launch only 4 times, so they're already tied.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:35:27 UTC No. 16223117

>>16223112
Yeah, and the N1 would have worked if they just tested it more.
Soviets didn't have the cohones.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:35:34 UTC No. 16223118

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:35:37 UTC No. 16223119

>>16223112
N1 never made it to orbit, idiot

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:36:17 UTC No. 16223121

>>16223112
it's been proven.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:36:20 UTC No. 16223123

>>16223119
Neither has Starship

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:36:43 UTC No. 16223124

>>16223094
>It's such a shit planet it barely even rotates to begin with
we will change that

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:36:50 UTC No. 16223125

>>16223106
well youre an idiot.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:37:01 UTC No. 16223127

>>16223112
Dude leave. The launch was 2 days ago. There’s nothing left for you here

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:37:42 UTC No. 16223129

>>16223106
cool OC anon.
Are you the guy who used to draw rockets here?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:38:12 UTC No. 16223131

>>16223115
The mount takes longer, why dont they start on that?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:38:21 UTC No. 16223132

>>16223123
got him

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:39:59 UTC No. 16223135

>>16223131
because they've already started shipping over the tower pieces, plus maybe they want a dedicated catch tower

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:40:01 UTC No. 16223136

>>16223116
Starship did way more in 4 launch attempts though

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:40:04 UTC No. 16223137

>>16223101
>>16223102
>le twitter screen caps
75% catastrophic failure rate. 0% recovery rate. No attempt at making reusable second stage boosters. Only "successes" are LEO comm satellite launches that had already been done by numerous companies. "Cost saving" all comes from making engineers work 80 hours a week for standard pay. Take Elon's peepee out of your butthole my guy, Space Shuttle was superior and the Chinese are the future of space exploration

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:40:42 UTC No. 16223138

>>16223131
they can finish the tower first and use it to catch the booster without risking damage to the already-finished pad maybe?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:41:24 UTC No. 16223139

Falcon 9 was even worse and that turned out pretty well.
Chinese are a decade plus behind in reusable rocket technology.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:41:27 UTC No. 16223140

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:43:20 UTC No. 16223144

>>16223137
>0%recovery rate
So what, you think elon is faking booster recoveries? What next? Space is fake? Earth is flat? World is 6000 years old?

Thats some damn good bait if that's what this is

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:43:33 UTC No. 16223145

BRILLIANT PEBBLES

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:44:12 UTC No. 16223146

>>16223136
You're right, it exploded 3 times instead of once

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:44:27 UTC No. 16223147

>>16223137
fully and rapidly reusable shitposts

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:44:39 UTC No. 16223148

>>16223145
we're about to enter a post-nuclear world.
genius gravel is coming.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:45:01 UTC No. 16223149

One month until Ariane 6 launch

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:45:31 UTC No. 16223150

>>16223148
for me, it's Spectacular Sand

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:45:38 UTC No. 16223151

Fluid hammer

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:45:54 UTC No. 16223152

>>16223146
All explosions are the flight termination system, newfags lurk or get the fuck out

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:46:00 UTC No. 16223153

>>16223137
>the Chinese are the future of space exploration
i will piss on xi jinping's grave lol

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:46:19 UTC No. 16223154

>>16223125
It’s not that far off

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:46:35 UTC No. 16223155

>>16223149
really, I thought is was in a couple of days?
>>16223150
that doesn't even work anon, spectacular isn't a synonym for brilliant.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:47:16 UTC No. 16223157

>>16223138
It will take several months so no. Booster catch on flight 5 with the existing pad. If something goes wrong they have tower 2 already under construction to replace it. Moreover tower 2 will likely be better than tower 1 because they will be able to bake in all that they have learned from the flight tests and the stack interactions with the olm during takeoff

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:47:32 UTC No. 16223158

>>16223077

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:48:12 UTC No. 16223159

>>16223144
Starship has recovered 0 of 4 first stage, second stage, and third stage/orbiters. 3 explosions, one sitting at the bottom of the Indian Ocean
>inb4 is confusing Super Heavy for Falcon and/or thinks recovering first stage boosters from LEO launches is something that the Space Shuttle program hasn't been achieving for 40 years
Funny how muskies always have a 5th grade understanding of aerospace engineering yet insist on getting involved in these discussions

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:48:50 UTC No. 16223161

>>16223149
One month until an already outdated design launches for the first time :^)

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:49:44 UTC No. 16223163

>>16223155
>brilliant (comparative more brilliant, superlative most brilliant): Shining brightly.
okay then, Specular Sand

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:50:15 UTC No. 16223164

>>16223151
DEBUNKED
HULLO IN SHAMBLES

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:50:16 UTC No. 16223165

>>16223102
Musk isn't 100% right on his politics, but the conversation needs to happen to correct the current course. Its absolute cancer. Common sense needs to be restored.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:50:33 UTC No. 16223166

is joh michael godier a secret EDSer?
Always interviews and talks about SpaceX rivals. Never mentions SpaceX

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:51:15 UTC No. 16223168

>>16223161
but enough about starship block 2

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:52:03 UTC No. 16223171

>>16223124
How will this effect my blimp city?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:52:57 UTC No. 16223173

>>16223168
V2 isnt for a while anon. Still need to get through like 6 more starships. V2 isnt even in production. Nice try though.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:52:58 UTC No. 16223174

>>16223166
he probably is but are you really going to start getting mad at ecelebs for NOT talking about spacex?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:28 UTC No. 16223175

>>16223152
>Intentionally blowing it up because we couldn't vent the boosters doesn't LE COUNT
0% recovery rate

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:39 UTC No. 16223176

>>16223171
don't listen to that anon, you could have endless nights/days if you let venus be and just move slowly in one direction.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:45 UTC No. 16223177

>>16223137
>Space Shuttle was superior
I will hunt you down

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:47 UTC No. 16223178

>>16223165
Common sense, you say?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:53:49 UTC No. 16223180

>>16223166
Well, if he's not excited about SpaceX, then he's not pro-spacex for certain. It could be he's trying to clamp down on his inner hate for Musk by masking his misgivings with positive stories on others. There are quite a few like this. The "smarter everyday" guy seems to one of them.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:54:17 UTC No. 16223181

>>16223166
he fancies himself an astroonomer, so his default position is hates starlink and by extension everything about elon and his endeavors. he is absolutely EDS but he keeps it on the DL i've noticed

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:55:06 UTC No. 16223182

>>16223166
I like him because he's open to ET. God it's genuinely refreshing to hear him interview scientists that are genuinely interested in uap and finding extraterrestrial intelligences

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:55:37 UTC No. 16223184

redpill me about hyper drive

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:55:38 UTC No. 16223185

>>16223181
>astroonomer
I can't stand those perverse star voyeurs.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:56:25 UTC No. 16223188

>baiting /sfg/ is this easy
Tbq.h fampai I'd do the same

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:56:27 UTC No. 16223189

>>16223184
you can read more about this here:
>>>/lit/sffg/

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:56:51 UTC No. 16223190

>>16223180
>The "smarter everyday" guy seems to one of them.
Dustin is an actual employee of the MIC

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:57:07 UTC No. 16223192

>>16223178
Google is too woke to put von Braun in that result.
>>16223184
It doesn't exist and all the plans to make it exist are based off of fictional materials or techniques.

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:58:38 UTC No. 16223196

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:59:28 UTC No. 16223197

>>16223177
>98% recovery rate
Actually reusable
>1.48% catastrophic failure rate
Actually safe
>40 hour scientist and engineer work weeks
Prioritized science over profiteering
>Publicly reported budgets
Run by scientists and not a balding grifter
>>"I will hunt you down"
And do what? Dilate to my face?

Anonymous at Sat, 8 Jun 2024 23:59:30 UTC No. 16223198

>>16223190
Thats another alternative. They dont want to speak positive about competitors to companies they work for.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:00:39 UTC No. 16223199

We need to use "the equation" to gatekeep again.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:00:47 UTC No. 16223200

Speaking of jmg he did an interview with gary nolan of the sol foundation. What do you think of gary nolan /sfg/?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:01:09 UTC No. 16223202

>>16223180
>>16223190
He's not only part of the MIC by way of his background and day job, but he's a shill for old space because they give him access to "make content" and he naturally wants to keep them happy because he's been given that access.

Quite frankly the guy is probably much more than he seems. For some weapon test engineer with a youtube channel to get an interview with Obama still seems implausible. I think he's a glowie undercover as an ostensibly independent media, Operation Mockingbird style.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:01:11 UTC No. 16223203

>>16223197
Damn I got baited. Anon please, everyone in a thread like this is going to be autistic. It's too easy. Please leave

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:01:37 UTC No. 16223204

>>16223200
I have never heard that name before.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:02:12 UTC No. 16223205

>>16223165
dw, Project 2025 will fix it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:03:06 UTC No. 16223207

>>16223198
The MIC actively desires artemis cancellation and replacement with another moon-rocket, like what happened after constellation.
They're salivating over the new contracts.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:03:49 UTC No. 16223209

>>16223157
Tower 2 will take 2 years to complete. You have no clue how long that mount takes to cure, plus a whole new deluge

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:04:45 UTC No. 16223210

>>16223203
No :^]

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:05:01 UTC No. 16223211

>>16223188
4chan sure ain't what it used to be...

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:05:13 UTC No. 16223212

>>16223175
>vent the boosters

>day 1, I think they realize I am a redditor

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:05:53 UTC No. 16223214

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:06:43 UTC No. 16223216

>>16223200
sol foundation?
>Confirmation that genuine Unidentified Aerial Phenomena exist would be world-changing in every sense of the term. The Sol Foundation marshals intellectual insight and policy expertise to meet the scientific and political challenges.
oh, I thought they were interested in the inner solar system or something.
Not really interesting; I'm a Mars Society guy.
some other anons like whatever the L5 soc's current incarnation is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:06:49 UTC No. 16223217

>>16223207
Yes, they are wishing for the project to be cancelled before they are seen to fail on delivery. Cancellation saves more face then having to deliver and failing. And as you say, cancellation comes with brand new contracts and a new deadline far far into the future. It would take a great deal of pressure to perform off of them.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:06:53 UTC No. 16223218

>>16223202
Anecdotal, but the YouTube comments on his channel give me that inexplicable feeling when there's inorganic activity online. Too positive, too pro government, and with actual people in the field. The line between schizophrenia and pattern recognition is very thin

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:07:29 UTC No. 16223219

What next launch do you think Innsprucker will be assigned to commentate?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:07:49 UTC No. 16223221

>>16223214
cute!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:08:54 UTC No. 16223222

>>16223214
>astronaut and his angel gf trying to find picnic spot

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:09:12 UTC No. 16223223

>>16223204
Hes the guy who's heading up the sol foundation with a group of other scientists and people like Jacques vallee. They are doing civilian studies on uap

https://youtu.be/-flNFzqWJ8I?si=00aHbr_EWuIpmqfw
Interview in question for those that want to listen.

>>16223216
They are interested in the inner solar system, more specifically near seti which is the fancy term for looking for evidence of aliens that are already here. The more you actually think about it, near seti makes a ton of sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:09:33 UTC No. 16223224

>>16223180
Yeah this sounds like whats going on

If you have EDS and you are actually smart, you know better than to directly talk shit about spacex. Same reason you don't short sell tesla.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:09:44 UTC No. 16223225

>>16223218
I agree, he's always given me these inorganic vibes.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:10:20 UTC No. 16223226

So.. when are leaving this planet bros? Here I am again, another day in this hellhole called earth, All my hopes were in starship but it turns out to be a complete failure. They told us to be on mars and beyond at this point bros, I want my intellestelar dreams come true.. whats taking so long?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:10:47 UTC No. 16223227

>>16223226
we deserve better bait.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:10:54 UTC No. 16223228

>>16223212
>“Flight 2 actually almost made it to orbit,” Musk said. “If it had a payload, it would have made it to orbit because the reason that it actually didn’t quite make it to orbit was we vented the liquid oxygen, and the liquid oxygen ultimately led to a fire and an explosion.”
Yes, it sounds idiotic. Yes, that's because a venture capitalist pretending to be an astrophysicist said it. Try to keep up with the lore if you're going to come to this board to jelk him

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:11:32 UTC No. 16223230

>>16223214
Is she trying to convince him to take off his helmet?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:12:32 UTC No. 16223231

>>16223230
>look at these calculations and charts, they prove that you can't kiss me unless you take off that helmet

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:13:14 UTC No. 16223234

>>16223231
I would fall for it desu

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:13:25 UTC No. 16223235

>>16223228
>couldnt vent the boosters
>we vented the booster

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:14:31 UTC No. 16223236

>>16223214
Fucking l*narians.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:14:57 UTC No. 16223237

>>16223236
Don't make me throw rocks at you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:15:19 UTC No. 16223238

>>16223226
>Implying we aren't closer to ASAT combat destroying the internet than we are to colonizing mars
I know, anon, it feels terrible

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:15:25 UTC No. 16223239

>>16223197
>Actually reusable
That'll be 1.5 billion per flight sir
>Actually safe
the last shuttle accident is an unfixable failure mode. That's why its not flying and uncle sam went to russia on his knees
>Prioritized science over profiteering
Who built the space shuttle? Do you think the government has factories? Who do you think gets the astronomical quantity of money spent on it?
>Run by scientists and not a balding grifter
That's the past. Now it's boeing telling congress what to tell the scientists what to build
>And do what? Dilate to my face?
If we don't dilate the wound will close

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:16:11 UTC No. 16223241

>>16223236
They're called loonies.
That's because unlike earthers, they're crazy enough to use their WMDs.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:17:44 UTC No. 16223245

>>16223235
>"It only blew up because we vented the LRB on purpose"
>"This means it's fully reusable"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:18:18 UTC No. 16223246

>>16223239
learn to not interact with bait, all you'll get by replying is more dumb low-effort bait.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:19:26 UTC No. 16223249

>>16223239
>the last shuttle accident is an unfixable failure mode.
All they had to do was bring back the white paint, dammit!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:19:45 UTC No. 16223252

>>16223228
You keep up with the lore. He wasn't talking about the booster. You've been caught not knowing the first thing about starship flights again. Instead of shitposting about things you know nothing about you can read the failure mode on wikipedia, or you can start a youtube channel which can make you a lot more money.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:20:26 UTC No. 16223253

If you do not know what this is you do not belong here.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:21:29 UTC No. 16223255

>>16223239
>unfixable failure mode
its called inspecting the heat shield before reentry.
They didn't have a canadarm onboard because surprisingly not all the shuttles had one, so they never inspected the damage. If they had seen the big gash on the wing they would have sent a rescue misison.

Either that or never remove the paint which was on the early shuttles. It was structural.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:21:43 UTC No. 16223256

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:22:44 UTC No. 16223259

>>16223253
calculus?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:23:42 UTC No. 16223261

>>16223255
>yup there's a giant hole in the carbon carbon leading edge of the wing
>can you come pick is up?
>oh the next shuttle isn't ready
>we'll touch base again after we're dead, yes you too, buh-bye *click*

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:25:16 UTC No. 16223264

>>16223224
Not even, but avoidance of one is often a mask especially when promotion of others.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:25:36 UTC No. 16223265

>>16223261
>>16223255
You don't need any of that, you just need to bring up a couple of MOOSE units.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:26:20 UTC No. 16223266

>>16223255
Side-mounting on a cryogenic prop tank is fundamentally flawed because of the inevitable ice. Having to reserve a rescue shuttle every launch is an abject failure with how expensive they are.
>>16223259
newfag, don't be surprised if I pat you on the ass.
>>>/out/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:26:23 UTC No. 16223267

>>16223261
they could have another shuttle ready within a week in those emergency conditions. it ould be an apollo 13 style close shave.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:26:38 UTC No. 16223268

>the EDS tourists are now googling MOOSE and wondering what big canadian deer have to do with it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:26:38 UTC No. 16223269

spehs

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:27:22 UTC No. 16223273

>>16223269
perspective is fucked

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:27:38 UTC No. 16223274

>>16223269
>starship-based hypersonic glider
skunkworks btfo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:27:52 UTC No. 16223275

>>16223245
Dont change the goal post shitter. You said, and I quote, "they couldn't vent the booster." this is patently false. Accept your loss and move on
>reusable
Falcon 9 flight leader has hit 21 resuses, they have landed 300 boosters, they have a successfullanding streak higher than most other rockets have a streak of successful launches.
They *will* figure it out and you *will* look retarded just like every other spacex hatin fanatic did when they claimed falcon 9 reuse was impossible. Doubting spacex at this point is utterly delusional.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:28:10 UTC No. 16223276

>>16223266
having rescue shuttles woudlnt be a problem if the fleet was big enough

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:29:47 UTC No. 16223280

>>16223276
After Challenger blew up they made Endeavour out of spare parts they had laying around. Making another after that simply wasn't feasible.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:31:06 UTC No. 16223283

>>16223255
Starship just demonstrated it can safely reenter while missing tiles and having melted aero surfaces.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:31:30 UTC No. 16223284

>>16223086
Astroonomy is not spaceflight.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:31:58 UTC No. 16223285

The real problem with the shuttle was how expensive it was to refurbish.
LEO Astronauts are just glorified space jannies, losing a handful or two shouldn't be a big deal.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:33:50 UTC No. 16223289

>>16223255
>its called inspecting the heat shield before reentry.
Good job, you have now noticed that the Shuttle is damaged. Unfortunately, there is absolutely no way to repair the Shuttle while in orbit.
That's why the other anon called it an unfixable failure mode. Because it's unfixable. Once it happens there is nothing the astronauts can do about it other than pray a rescue mission gets to them before they run out of life support (and that said rescue mission doesn't ALSO suffer an unfixable failure mode).

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:34:55 UTC No. 16223292

>>16223267
Then you're rushing a dangerous vehicle that doesn't have a completely destroyed fleet with more dead astronauts because you spend months refurbishing it. And every time ice makes a hole in the shuttle you will probably lose the vehicle and the small fleet shrinks even more. It doesn't matter if everyone lives and your vehicle makes a good movie if you lose too many of them to crew the ISS

All of this when you should be flying a capsule like the soyuz or dragon 2 that's vastly cheaper

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:36:57 UTC No. 16223296

>>16223239
>Muh per flight cost
Space Shuttle launches carried a price tag of $450 million, including engineer salaries, maintenance to the launch pads, etc. They also had a 99% success rate and 98% booster recovery rate including test launches. Each Starship test launch has cost $100 million, cut corners by having salaries employees work double shifts and using existing infrastructure, and still had 1 flight NOT end in catastrophic failure with a 0% recovery rate. 4 flights, $400 million, all rockets lost. Space Shuttle launches had a better price tag per successful flight.
>Unfixable failure mode
2/138 explosions was "unfixable failure mode" (even though the program continued for a decade of success after Columbia) but 3 straight explosive launches and 0 recoveries was "Mars colonization imminent"
>Uncle Sam went to Russia on its knees
The ISS began construction immediately after the fall of the USSR and international cooperation with the Chinese being banned by the 2011 Wolf Amendment coincided with the cancellation of the program. Quit outing yourself as a zoomer.
>Muh Boeing
Who built the Saturn V and had a (non-fictional) success two days ago. Once again, zoomer moment
>Who do you think gets the money?
The R&D team and contractors. Except a SpaceX, where they're paid in "stock incentives", work 50-80 hours a week, get fired if they say anything negative about Lord Musk, and still have to watch all of their launches except internet satellites fail.
>The wound would close
Is it true that it smells like poo? Tell me about your life experience

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:38:21 UTC No. 16223298

>>16223285
Don't belittle space jannies.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:38:34 UTC No. 16223299

>>16223296
>retard doesn't understand the steamroller concept
It's alright, you'll soon be flattened by it like everyone else has been.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:41:49 UTC No. 16223304

>>16223296
Shuttle was a failure cope sneed and mald

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:43:37 UTC No. 16223307

NASA should have made falcon 9 instead.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:43:59 UTC No. 16223308

>>16223296
wtf bros, i used to think shuttle was bad but now i don't know what to believe now

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:44:45 UTC No. 16223309

>>16223296
>test launch
>IT HAS LE 0% RECOVERY RATE!!!!
I bet you think the Space Launch System is a great idea

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:45:36 UTC No. 16223313

>>16223296
>Muh per flight cost
yeah

You didn't have to type all that, you could've just told me you don't understand anything and I could've helped. There's too many errors to grade. Instead of replying to points, you just type out something unrelated you learned on EDS twitter/youtube a few days ago and add "zoomer" to try to fit in. If you want to have some fun, just stick to shitposting with pepe and don't follow up next time.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:47:19 UTC No. 16223315

>>16223296
bait post

lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:48:50 UTC No. 16223316

>>16223309
Anon youdont understand. There is only one way to develop a rocket, and that is to take years meticulously testing every single part and only fly the rocket when you are absolutely 10000000% sure it will work completely perfectly the first time. Rapid Iteration and learning from failures is a stupid thing that stupid people do!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:49:44 UTC No. 16223317

>>16223289
Just send up a Crew Dragon? Simple stuff

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:50:58 UTC No. 16223318

>>16223316
Don't forget you have to do it in the most expensive and inefficient way possible to ensure that all the congress critters can brag about how they're subsidizing private corporations in their home states. And thus you end up with a non-reusable piece of shit that costs $2.2 billion per launch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:51:24 UTC No. 16223319

>>16223307
failed con.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:52:10 UTC No. 16223322

>>16223319
Yes, NASA is awful. They could never make something as objectively brilliant and successful as Falcon 9.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:52:21 UTC No. 16223323

>>16223275
>They try to vent the LRB
>It blows up
>"But technically they vented it bro"
Nice bait
>But MLV reuses!
Which Space Shuttle accomplished in 1981. And recovered 399 of 405 orbiters and boosters over 30 years of successful missions. While Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy have recovered 300 of 500 first stage boosters, and not a single Shartship orbiter has been recovered. Talk about moving the goalposts lol
>They WILL figure it out
Sure they will, kid. You're obviously not old enough to know, but we've been saying the same thing for a long time. They WILL blow up a few astronauts by the end of the decade and they WILL get their federal funding cut and fade into obscurity while space becomes increasingly militarized, that's just the cold reality

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:54:58 UTC No. 16223324

>>16223323
>not a single Shartship orbiter has been recovered
Because they're still testing it lmao retard
Every test launch gets further and accomplishes more.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:56:30 UTC No. 16223326

Fucking retards biting this half ass bait kys

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:56:54 UTC No. 16223329

>>16223255
>(shuttle Columbia)If they had seen the big gash on the wing they would have sent a rescue misison.

No they couldn't have, another shuttle couldn't have been prepped and launched before their oxygen ran out.

They couldn't have flown to the ISS because they didnt have the required docking mechanism because their payload (transhab).

There's rumours that NASA knew about the damage and the likely consequences of re entry but there were no other options.

Also I believe but aren't sure they had no functional airlock either , it's been a while since I was a true space buff.

The problem is you have an "I fucking love science" level understanding of space flight, my knowledge has faded a bit but I can still explain the Oberth effect and understand apogee and pedigree without googling it , while you cannot.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:58:10 UTC No. 16223332

>>16223309
>"Exploding during test flights is actually better than not exploding during test flights"
>"Source: Elon Musk's ball sack clogging my throat"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:58:22 UTC No. 16223333

All this shuttle talk makes me want to rewatch a launch. Despite its issues, just I can't deny its aesthetics. Does anyone have recommendation of a particular STS mission to watch?

On a side note, I wish Clear could also do streams commenting on historic launches. Would be pretty nice and break the monotony of the near daily starlink missions.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 00:59:02 UTC No. 16223335

>>16223332
Doing test flights is better than doing nothing but spending billions of dollars for 20 years.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:00:14 UTC No. 16223337

>>16223332
Now you're just recycling my shitposts from 3 years ago

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:01:09 UTC No. 16223338

>>16223335
The other guy has obsession with Musk, the criticism doesn't come from iterative hardware design vs long paper designed, its Musk vs no Musk involvement.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:01:16 UTC No. 16223339

>>16223304
>Building the ISS was a failure
>Spamming LEO with comm satellites and blowing up a bunch of orbiters is LE SUCCESS
We get it, you drank Elon's cum for dinner, you don't have be so loud about it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:01:25 UTC No. 16223340

>>16223333
Spacelab footage is pretty Kino, but that's all mogged by Skylab footage, ultimately if they had gone the Russian route and kept the Apollo/Saturn hardware the USA would have spent less and achieved more , I would go on but I'm making myself depressed at the loss of what could have been

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:01:35 UTC No. 16223341

>>16223333
>Does anyone have recommendation of a particular STS mission to watch?
My time has come
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSefxa9SslU

Also, here's a playlist of all of these shuttle mission recaps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhAGrOQEVHo&list=PL46C2B72FFEAEE72D

[spoiler]Nice quads[/spoiler]

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:01:58 UTC No. 16223342

>>16223335
Did somebody say Blue Origin?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:03:10 UTC No. 16223344

>>16223342
Have they even achieved actual orbit with anything yet? kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:03:21 UTC No. 16223345

>>16223340
Spacelab was pretty cool tho

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:03:30 UTC No. 16223346

>>16223226
>>16221429
Would you fucking stop

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:03:37 UTC No. 16223347

>>16223344
They haven't.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:03:55 UTC No. 16223349

>>16223329
>There's rumours that NASA knew about the damage and the likely consequences of re entry but there were no other options.
i don't buy that for a second. they were aware of the debris strike but those had happened plenty of times before and nobody had ever considered the possibility that foam could puncture the RCC.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:04:09 UTC No. 16223350

>>16223323
>500 first stages boosters

Do you think people just go on the internet and tell lies?

>Total launches 345
>Success(es) 343
>Failure(s) 1
>Partial failure(s) 1
>Landings 303 / 312 attempts

Shuttle got SRBs out of the ocean which anyone can do, its dead end technology. So are space planes

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:04:26 UTC No. 16223351

>>16223324
>It was a LE TEST
And yet none of the Saturn V or Space Shuttle test flights ended in explosions. Odd, it's almost like Starship's test flights record is more comparable to the N1 like my first reply asserted. Weird how that made Musk cultists so upset and got them to spam this thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:05:08 UTC No. 16223354

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:05:23 UTC No. 16223355

>>16223342
Can you hear it?
That's the sound of blue origin building a road to space. Your kids will be living and working in space, for earth.
GRADATIM FEROCITER!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:05:29 UTC No. 16223356

>>16223341
>STS-51A
Ty king and thank you for noticing my digits

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:05:41 UTC No. 16223357

>>16223347
they call it Blue Origin because they always return to Earth

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:06:13 UTC No. 16223358

>>16223349
Nobody in management , no

But I don't want to get into that issue ,since we are doomed and not just repeating it but exporting it to every facet of life

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:06:24 UTC No. 16223360

>>16223332
They are doing test flights to build the most massive and powerful rocket ever made.

>>16223323
So what you're saying is falcon 9 is a massive success since they have similar levels of reuse to the shuttle but costs more than 10 times less.
>sure they will
Plenty of people in aerospace believe it will be operational and successful, including airbus, which is relying entirely on starship to get their in development 9m class station habitat into orbit. Do you know more than airbus anon?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:08:06 UTC No. 16223361

>>16223332
You were told about the FTS but you didnt understand lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:08:21 UTC No. 16223362

>>16223335
>Going to the moon and building the ISS means nothing
>You have to spend $10 billion to blow up three ships and drop another one into the Indian Ocean or it doesn't count
>This will help us create the Moon Colony of New Reddit

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:08:31 UTC No. 16223363

>>16223351
>And yet none of the Saturn V or Space Shuttle test flights ended in explosions
Because NASA spent decades designing and redesigning while not actually launching anything.
By actually launching rockets, even ones that will end up exploding, you can see what the ACTUAL problems and failure modes are, rather than spending 20 years theorizing about them (and then missing a critically important one like your heat shield being damaged, preventing re-entry and dooming the crew to death).

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:09:58 UTC No. 16223366

And it came to pass in the latter days, that a great ship of fire and metal did soar into the heavens, and did rend the firmament asunder. And the people beheld the ship with wonder and awe, and said one to another, Lo, what manner of thing is this that flieth so high and so fast? And some praised the ship and its makers, saying, Surely this is the work of the Lord, and a sign of his favour unto us. And others feared the ship and its makers, saying, Surely this is the work of the devil, and a sign of his wrath upon us. And the ship did return to the earth in glory and in power, and did land safely upon its feet. And the makers of the ship did rejoice greatly, and gave thanks unto the Lord for his mercy and his grace. And they said one to another, Let us go forth and prepare another ship, that we may fly higher and farther than before. For this is our destiny, to fill the earth and subdue it, and to have dominion over all things that fly in the air. Amen.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:10:35 UTC No. 16223368

>>16223360
Another big company, sierra space, is betting on 9m fairing for their 5000m^3 life habitat.

Do you know better than sierra space anon?

>>16223363
Dont forget the funny O ring that was entirely preventable

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:10:44 UTC No. 16223369

>>16223112
Starship doesn't look nearly as good as the N1

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:11:27 UTC No. 16223370

reminder:
if you find yourself getting angry at an obvious troll post, please reply to let the troll know how mad his post has made you. the troll will then be able to use your feedback to make better posts in the future.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:12:38 UTC No. 16223372

>>16223357
zing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:14:21 UTC No. 16223373

>>16223363
to be fair here, actually to state the obvious, nasa wasn't retarded for not flight testing rapid prototypes. The vehicles were manned. The problem is spectators think this kind of engineering is what we should do with completely automated spacecraft welded by mexicans.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:14:43 UTC No. 16223374

>>16223369

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:15:30 UTC No. 16223375

>>16223368
5 cubic kilometers? Isn't that a little excessive?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:16:02 UTC No. 16223378

>>16223341
>7:00
WTF LMAO
Why were old astornauts so much funnier and not stuffy losers like modern ones?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:17:52 UTC No. 16223379

>>16223378
That's it buddy just earned himself a 6 month FAA investigation

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:18:57 UTC No. 16223380

>>16223379
Retard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:20:26 UTC No. 16223381

>>16223373
Obviously, yeah, you can't do this kind of testing on a vehicle that has to have a crew. Though with modern computer systems it is now possible to test a vehicle that can carry a crew without actually having to put a crew in it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:20:40 UTC No. 16223382

>>16223360
>They are doing test flights to build the most massive and powerful rocket ever made
Just like the N1. With similar results. Weird.
>Still not comprehending the difference between an MLV and an orbiter
The Starship is the equivalent of the Space Shuttle and has an abysmal recovery rate. The Falcon 9 is a medium-lift vehicle for LEO launches. My original comment called the Starship program a failure and compared it to the Space Shuttle program. At no point did I say that the Falcon 9 wasn't reusable. The Falcon 9 isn't even the same launch system being used by the Starship program, that's the Super Heavy (which, once again, has an abysmal recovery rate). The only point at which I even responded about the Falcon 9 was to point out that reusable boosters aren't not a pioneering technology. Learn how to read and quit deepthroating Elon long enough to stay on topic.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:21:54 UTC No. 16223383

You guys should keep replying, it makes for a great quality thread.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:22:23 UTC No. 16223384

>>16223329
counterpoint: reddit spacing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:22:47 UTC No. 16223385

Did you know that the shuttle had one of the highest $/kg cost to orbit of any rocket despite being reusable?
It really wasn't a good idea, and set spaceflight back decades.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:23:14 UTC No. 16223386

>>16223382
>medium-lift vehicle for LEO launches
So was shuttle lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:24:15 UTC No. 16223388

>>16223383
If we just find the right argument, he'll see sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:24:48 UTC No. 16223389

>>16223373
rapid iteration is a lot easier when you can get high-quality video footage of the exterior of a spacecraft zooming through plasma at mach 20 and see exactly where the failure points are. a lot of what /sfg/ hates about oldspace thinking is just the legacy of von braun's german conservatism and risk-aversion - a good philosophy at the time that's long outlived its usefulness.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:25:15 UTC No. 16223391

>>16223369

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:25:50 UTC No. 16223392

>>16223381
>Though with modern computer systems it is now possible to test a vehicle that can carry a crew without actually having to put a crew in it.
You should let Boeing know that.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:26:42 UTC No. 16223394

>>16223389
>Von Braun
>risk aversion

No one tell him

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:26:51 UTC No. 16223395

>>16223368
5,000 cubic kilometers? Not big enough

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:27:10 UTC No. 16223396

>>16223383
We're going for the 'feed him till exhaustion' strategy.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:28:24 UTC No. 16223397

>>16223382
>similar results
The N1 never even made it to space. Starship has, twice now. The N1 had 4 launches, Starship has had 4 launches.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:28:26 UTC No. 16223398

>>16223375
Genuinely? No. More space is always better. More comfortable for the ocupents and more room for equipment, experiments etc. Especially experiments and manufacturing which both will explode once commercial leo destinations begin popping up and increase access to microgravity as a commodity. Companies will hire commercial astronauts, smaller nations that traditionally didnt have enough money can pay to get their nauts into space, hell even esa member nations might jump ship and go off on their own. There will be plenty of demand for it, and plenty of people to send there.

>>16223395
This is the right attitude. At some point in space manufacturing will allow even larger modules.

>>16223382
Its a test flight. What part of that do you not understand? Do you not know what testing is? Are you not aware that companies do destructive tests all the time?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:29:25 UTC No. 16223400

>>16223392
What stupid shit did they do now?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:32:19 UTC No. 16223403

>>16223392
No simulation is going to be as accurate as actually testing the system in real life. You often find failure points you don't expect and can address them before they become issues. You are retarded

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:32:27 UTC No. 16223404

>>16223363
>Implying Saturn V and Space Shuttle didn't have test flights
Are you 15 years old, or are you trying to claim that test flights don't count if the orbiters don't blow up?
Also
>Researching before you launch so you don't waste rockets is LE BAD
???

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:32:57 UTC No. 16223405

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:33:47 UTC No. 16223406

>>16223329
> I can still explain the Oberth effect and understand apogee and pedigree without googling it
oh yeah? whts your favourite pedigree then, without googling it!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:37:11 UTC No. 16223412

>>16223400
Doing their damned best to kill astronauts with Starliner.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:37:54 UTC No. 16223413

>>16223339
>Building the ISS was a failure
>Spamming LEO with comm satellites and blowing up a bunch of orbiters is LE SUCCESS
On a useful work done per dollar metric, yes, unironically. The ISS was the wrong thing done with the wrong parts done with a great deal of effort and technical skill, much like SLS.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:38:10 UTC No. 16223414

>>16223403
>what is testing Starliner without crew until they actually get the bugs under control
Retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:39:45 UTC No. 16223418

>>16223403
Meant to reply to
>>16223381

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:40:05 UTC No. 16223420

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1799617026132234359

RIP SPACEPLANE BROS

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:41:19 UTC No. 16223422

>>16223394
yeah? he was notoriously cautious in his day. redstone arsenal had adopted the attitude that you scrub launches over a single anomalous reading long before anyone else. it's why the saturn i was basically a prototype for a 4-year test program for the saturn ib. and at the time, it worked. the saturn family having a perfect launch record was an almost unbelievable accomplishment given the time.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:42:16 UTC No. 16223424

>>16223373
The Starship program also isn't any more "rapid" than previous rocket tests. The Saturn V program launched Apollo 4 in 1967, and by 1969 launched Apollo 11.
The Starship program's first test launch was in 2022, and as of 2024 has 3 complete losses of vehicle and one rocket in the Indian Ocean. Turns out giving R&D scientists regular working hours and not blowing up your rockets on purpose may actually be the more effective strategy, who knew

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:42:36 UTC No. 16223426

>>16223403
>>16223418
I'm not talking about computer simulations. I'm talking about automating the flight controls of a vehicle that would otherwise be manned, so that you can flight test it without a crew onboard until you've ironed out the issues enough that it's safe to put a crew on it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:42:59 UTC No. 16223427

>>16223420
spaceplanes just carry too much excess weight to orbit. The only ones that are practical are tiny ones that sit in fairings

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:48:22 UTC No. 16223437

>>16223427
Looking closer, I believe this is a plane first stage, i.e., virgin orbit (rip). Either way they are still shit. You need an obnoxiously large and expensive plane to get any significant payload to orbit. Rockets are cheaper and better.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:50:04 UTC No. 16223439

>>16223382
>The Starship is the equivalent of the Space Shuttle and has an abysmal recovery rate.

0/0 recovering the prototypes wasnt in any flight plans. They're huge and not valuable enough even if you could physically hoist them on a boat. But apparently knowing basic facts would be deepthroating elon so you don't do it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:51:58 UTC No. 16223440

>>16223424
How many tries did it take them to get propulsive landing of the Saturn V to work?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:52:17 UTC No. 16223441

>>16223439
No anon they didnt recover the ships they never intended to recover in the first place! Its a failure! Elon musket is finished!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:53:53 UTC No. 16223444

>>16223413
>Space station which multiple countries have used for research on improving life support systems, farming in space, developing new alloys, radiation shielding and many other technologies that astronauts would actually need for deep space exploration
Vs
>Helping rednecks get faster porn download speeds, blowing up billions of taxpayer dollars, and shit posting about Mars colonization on Twitter
Ok

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:54:06 UTC No. 16223445

>>16223424
i know it's just trolling but i can't resist a chance to pull out that planetary society spreadsheet. nasa had already spent more than $63 billion in today's money on the saturn v program when apollo 4 launched. the program ended up costing $86 billion total.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:55:45 UTC No. 16223447

>>16223444
>giving disadvantaged communities access to the internet is a bad thing

Pack up and go home your bait is weak

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:57:14 UTC No. 16223448

>>16223420
>being that close to the Valkyrie
I've got a bad feeling about this....

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:57:22 UTC No. 16223449

>>16223440
the LEM worked first try thanks for asking.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:57:38 UTC No. 16223450

>>16223444
The ISS primarily exists to ensure NASA gets funding.
That's the unfortunate truth: despite possibly being able to, NASA still hasn't done the important tests.
Can a fetus develop without issue in microgravity, for example.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:58:19 UTC No. 16223451

>>16223449
So how many tries did it take for them to get the Saturn V landing to work?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 01:59:17 UTC No. 16223452

>>16223451
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zOvichbz0s8

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:01:12 UTC No. 16223453

>>16223450
>Can a fetus develop without issue in microgravity, for example.
I don't understand why they haven't brought a couple pairs of laboratory mice up there yet.
Or even launched a dedicated mission just for that purpose. You'd only need to launch a small capsule into orbit with enough life support to keep the animals alive for a few months, and equipment to monitor them. Obviously wouldn't be as ideal as having scientists able to directly observe the process, but if they don't want mouse shit in the ISS or something then it's an option.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:03:45 UTC No. 16223456

>>16223453
Nasa is actively unwilling to do research that in that direction for some reason. Likewise they refuse to bring life-sensing equipment to Mars.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:03:46 UTC No. 16223457

>>16223453
>>I don't understand why they haven't brought a couple pairs of laboratory mice up there yet.
NASA doesn't want to risk proving that it actually is possible, because then they would lose one of their excuses for their lack of ambitious space projects.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:03:51 UTC No. 16223458

>>16223448
Dont worry anon thenchad hermeus is going to bring back compression lift wings

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:04:01 UTC No. 16223459

>>16223439
>>16223441
>The point of this program is reusability and efficiency unlike those pesky $400 million rockets that reused 98% of their parts
>Wasting 4 ships at $100 million a pop doesn't count because we did it on purpose though
Cope

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:05:05 UTC No. 16223461

>>16223112
Don't worry anon, I've got (Your) back.
And I'll even make sure >>16223127 sees this.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:06:27 UTC No. 16223462

>>16223440
It worked on the first test flight, no explosions necessary. Weird, the effect that doing iterative engineering through researching and testing without blowing up your prototypes can do. But I guess that scientists who developed it also weren't working 50-80 hour weeks to appease a balding man-child's profit margin

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:06:46 UTC No. 16223464

>>16223459
Where are you even getting this 100 million figure for starship? If they cost that much, they would be burning through cash making dozens at a time like they are now. I don't buy that one bit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:07:18 UTC No. 16223465

>>16223461
Starship fully vindicates Korolev & N1.
Stupid Glushko.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:07:25 UTC No. 16223466

>>16223461
The guy(or gal)'s most recent from the booster video spacex released

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:08:11 UTC No. 16223467

>>16223462
>>It worked on the first test flight,
Can you show me a picture of the Saturn V landing?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:08:48 UTC No. 16223469

>>16223447
>Hedge fund babies on yachts and rural coomers who want to upgrade to high speed downloads
>"Disadvantaged"
Dye your hair pink and go back

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:08:50 UTC No. 16223470

>>16223466
Reverse gattai

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:09:04 UTC No. 16223472

>>16223456
>Likewise they refuse to bring life-sensing equipment to Mars
They have done that though? What kind of life-sensing equipment would you like them to bring?
>>16223457
NASA's lack of ambition is due to budgetary restrictions and congress being retards who only care about being able to say "look I created le jobs by funneling billions into already-billion-dollar private contractors in an incredibly bloated and inefficient manner."
If NASA wasn't run according to the whims of bureaucrats they would probably get a lot more accomplished. When they had those bureaucrats united behind them and giving them blank cheques they were able to go to the moon in a decade. But now there is no Cold War enemy to compete with, so the 80 year old bureaucrats who are definitionally incapable of thinking farther ahead than the next financial quarter don't care about space or colonizing other worlds.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:09:13 UTC No. 16223473

>>16223424
I mean rapid in terms of changes, not speed of the program

For example, starship does things like let's make it out of carbon fiber, actually carbon fiber is shit we are using steel. The ship has 3 legs, actually it has no legs and 4 flaps. But the booster has legs, oh actually it doesnt have legs either and we're going to catch it with the launch tower. Let's switch from hydraulics to electric actuation. Ok we're going to stage separate with a flip maneuver, actually fuck that, we're hot staging. Oh that broke it. Ok we're dumping the hot staging ring and separating into 3 pieces.

Before computer control, no would could do this on a vehicle that has people on it for flight 1 and they have to survive all these changes.

Yeah I think it would be dumb at worst or unnecessary at best to say spacex is going faster than apollo. I don't care for all that dumb shit you wrote though. Starship is throttled by the speed of the FAA. Also apollo had complete losses of the rocket in the ocean because its expendable. Spacex met apollo milestones as soon as they achieved orbital insertion.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:10:20 UTC No. 16223474

Why do they need every venture of Elon's to be a bust? Boring company has been a great success yet it also gets constantly attacked by the EDS libs. My city (seattle) spent 3.3 billion for a fucking tunnel and it constantly fell behimd schedule. Fuck old digging machines

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:10:33 UTC No. 16223475

>>16223472
>NASA's lack of ambition is due to budgetary restrictions blah blah blah
That doesn't explain NASA's obvious cope about sex being impossible in space therefore we should never bother trying to send people up there long term

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:11:24 UTC No. 16223479

>>16223475
Never heard about that. Do you have a source?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:11:37 UTC No. 16223480

>>16223464
NTA but cost per ship is like 2 billion based on program cost, but the cost of construction is very cheap compared to the total cost like with any rocket.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:12:16 UTC No. 16223481

>>16223464
>There's no way a company reporting $9 billion in annual expenses and paying scientists the equivalent of $25/hr is spending $100 million per starship
Please tell me you didn't buy the "$10 million max" crap from Elon's tweets
https://payloadspace.com/payload-research-detailing-artemis-vehicle-rd-costs/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:12:58 UTC No. 16223482

>>16223473
V1 to V2 switch has been incredibly quick as well

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:13:37 UTC No. 16223485

>>16223479
A source for NASA saying that fucking in space is impossible? This is common knowledge, everybody in this thread knows it. Clearly you don't know the first thing about spaceflight, go be an EDS tourist someplace else.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:14:13 UTC No. 16223486

>>16223474
Because Elon is a lightning rod. For success of capitalism, for hard work, for success, for inspiration, etc. The seethers see him and think "he didnt do it, its impossible he must be fraud"!!!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:14:21 UTC No. 16223487

>>16223481
>Payload estimates Starship will cost ~$100M to build and expend in a forward-looking/post-R&D model. Full reusability will significantly lower future launch costs.
Anon that's literally "source: dude trust me" tier. It's complete garbage.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:15:01 UTC No. 16223488

>>16223481
>https://payloadspace.com
Lol

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:15:13 UTC No. 16223489

>>16223481
$100 million dollar ship flies 10 times

hmm.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:15:20 UTC No. 16223490

>>16223485
>A source for NASA saying that fucking in space is impossible?
Yes.
>This is common knowledge, everybody in this thread knows it.
Not an argument.
>Clearly you don't know the first thing about spaceflight
I clearly know more than you, since you seem to think there is some massive NASA conspiracy to hide the possibility of reproduction in microgravity.
>go be an EDS tourist someplace else.
I have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:16:22 UTC No. 16223491

>>16223467
The LM landed, not the Saturn V. The Saturn V didn't even carry the LM, that was the Saturn 1B. You have to be 18 to post here

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:17:06 UTC No. 16223492

>>16223491
>The Saturn V didn't even carry the LM, that was the Saturn 1B.
holy shit anon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:17:19 UTC No. 16223493

>>16223491
The Saturn V never landed? Hmmm, that sure simplified development, didn't it?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:17:25 UTC No. 16223494

>>16223489
look up the bulk cost of 5000 tons of fuel before embarrassing yourself.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:17:29 UTC No. 16223495

>>16223490
What went wrong in your life? Did you get vaxx injured?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:18:13 UTC No. 16223497

>>16223491
>The LM landed, not the Saturn V
Exactly. The rest of the Saturn V became useless space trash the moment its propellant was expended. All the material, engineering, and man hours put into the rocket are thrown away with every launch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:18:23 UTC No. 16223498

>>16223487
Care to provide a better source?
>Inb4 musk tweets
Say what you will about nationalized space programs, at least they're federally mandated to post their annual budgets so people aren't left arguing over how much the launches actually cost

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:18:53 UTC No. 16223499

>>16223498
>>Inb4 musk tweets
The CEO/ChEng is in fact a pretty good source for rocket program progress you double nigger.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:19:10 UTC No. 16223500

>>16223495
I got my cock in your ass.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:19:15 UTC No. 16223501

>>16223495

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:19:24 UTC No. 16223502

>>16223188
It is seriously so easy

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:19:26 UTC No. 16223503

>>16223498
>people aren't left arguing over how much the launches actually cost
Evidently you haven't seen all the arguments over how much SLS costs to launch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:19:49 UTC No. 16223505

>>16223492
It just goes to show that EDS posters don't know a single thing about spaceflight and are hastily trying to learn on the fly with wikipedia. Even one of those chatbots would have known that the LMs were launched with Saturn Vs.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:20:36 UTC No. 16223506

>>16223497
Which is why the Space Shuttle program developed reusable boosters and orbital maneuvering 20 years later. Technological innovation is a relative concept, congratulations on the recognition

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:20:50 UTC No. 16223507

>>16223505
Or just like, watching the Apollo 13 movie. They show the entire process in great technical detail.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:21:46 UTC No. 16223508

>>16223503
yeah cost accounting is much more an art than a science and any nasa operation is going to have some unique issues that make it much harder than a normal business

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:22:03 UTC No. 16223509

>>16223506
>reusable boosters
*refurbishable boosters

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:22:04 UTC No. 16223510

Do you think the booster blew up after it tipped over? They cut the video off in both clips.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:23:01 UTC No. 16223511

>>16223505
Their hobby is attacking Elon. Not spaceflight/electric vehicles/solar/tunnels/massive logistics. Oddly though they keep using twitter after they said they'd leave...

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:23:16 UTC No. 16223512

>>16223510
definitely. steel is hypergolic with water.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:23:32 UTC No. 16223514

>>16223506
>t-the shuttle had r-reusable b-boosters
Solid rocket boosters are garbage honestly. There's a reason they're hardly ever used.
Being able to reuse an entire liquid-fuel rocket and its booster stage is an innovation over being able to reuse solid rocket boosters and land an orbiter (sometimes, unless some foam breaks your heat shield open, then you die on re-entry).

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:23:43 UTC No. 16223516

>>16223508
It doesn't help that nasa is deliberately trying to obscure how much it costs because it's so absurdly high.
I remember in 2019 it was estimated to be 2 billion, now it's twice that and still only an estimate!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:24:06 UTC No. 16223517

>>16223506
what are you smoking lol? I swear to god the crew were launched on a 1c and the lem on a 2b and they rendevouzed around the moon. Saturn v was for the later missions which carried a rover

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:24:34 UTC No. 16223520

>>16223494
A million dollars give or take? It's such a small fraction of the launch cost

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:24:56 UTC No. 16223521

>>16223506
Have you ever looked into how long and how much it cost to refurbish a space shuttle? Or how not everything was even able to be replaced or fixed leading to them leaving service?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:26:17 UTC No. 16223523

>>16223498
Do you want to know why its not federally mandated? Because spacex is a private company that spends their money, and when they aren't spending their money you know exactly how much they've gotten from government contracts, for which they were the lowest bidder.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:27:21 UTC No. 16223524

A reusable Falcon 9? Emmm... no.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:28:08 UTC No. 16223526

>>16223517
>the crew were launched on a 1c and the lem on a 2b and they rendevouzed around the moon. Saturn v was for the later missions which carried a rover
anon what the fuck are you talking about
even Apollo 8 launched on a Saturn V

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:28:46 UTC No. 16223527

Trolling outside of /b/ >>16223517

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:29:18 UTC No. 16223528

>>16223510
It should have fuck all fuel left. They probably had an obligation to use the FTS right after engine cut off for some gay reason

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:30:14 UTC No. 16223531

>>16223492
never forget anon, when day is dark always rember happ day

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:30:44 UTC No. 16223532

>>16223516
sometimes i think the highest possible cost estimates are a little unfair to nasa. like, one example would be they need to keep a bunch of people employed just to keep the VAB up and running. that usually gets chalked up as part of the cost of SLS because SLS uses the VAB, but NASA would have to be spending that money to keep the VAB open regardless. for better or worse, they're stuck with a bunch of legacy facilities and they need a program of record to justify the expense of keeping those facilities open.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:31:52 UTC No. 16223534

>>16223517
What the actual fuck is wrong with you anon?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:32:29 UTC No. 16223535

>>16223507
well, maybe not the actual landing on the moon part

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:33:44 UTC No. 16223537

>>16223532
I get what you mean by double accounting but why do they need the vab? because something was designed to need the vab so someone would see that sweet $$$$$. Meanwhile private space will never build something like the vab.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:34:09 UTC No. 16223539

>>16223532
Knock it down, it's obsolete.
>muh historic site
mothball it then. Make it into a museum. The Battleship New Jersey gets a million dollars a year and they get the job done with that. You don't need some non-trivial fraction of a billion dollars to keep a few damn buildings open.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:35:00 UTC No. 16223540

>>16223539
That will never happen until all the boomers who have worked there for 30 years retire.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:35:19 UTC No. 16223541

>>16223521
All the heat tiles being uniquely sized just seems so utterly insane to me. Each shuttle was basically as handcrafted as a one off satellite

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:36:53 UTC No. 16223543

>>16223517
this isn't twitter or non-space related reddit. What you're doing here is like bluffing in a whore house that your baby dick is normal size because it worked on preschoolers

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:38:48 UTC No. 16223544

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:39:33 UTC No. 16223546

>>16223517
>I swear to god
It's lucky you don't actually believe though obviously you'll be burning regardless

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:39:46 UTC No. 16223548

>>16223537
>>16223539
we're going to have all 4 VAB high bays simultaneously working on starship within 10 years and there's nothing you can do to stop it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:39:51 UTC No. 16223549

>>16223544
sorry wrong webm

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:41:24 UTC No. 16223551

>>16223548
Needless bloat. SpaceX doesn't need that old space infrastructure, you're just fantasizing about ways to siphon money away from them with pointless boondoggles.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:41:44 UTC No. 16223552

>>16223544
Indians are actually subhuman. Someone should nuke india and wipe them off the face of the earth for good. It would be good for the future of humanity. Future children would no longer have to suffer having been born a jeet

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:42:47 UTC No. 16223554

>>16223552
>nuke india
Do you want to inject billions of tons of aerosolized "human" feces into the upper atmosphere? I fucking don't

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:45:42 UTC No. 16223556

>>16223554
Fine. Ill settle for an ethnic bioweapon then. The uk can reclaim the land once the street shitters are all gone

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:47:25 UTC No. 16223557

For me its
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sV2vAiNlxE

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:47:52 UTC No. 16223558

>>16223427
>>16223437
whats exactly the point of space planes? they seem like rockets with a ton of pointless shit added to them, for what? to use oxygen breathing engines? how is that better? i asked an ai and it calculated the lox savings to be less than 10%, and thats only for leo

>>16223444
eds is a legit mental disorder, cant reason with people who have it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:49:05 UTC No. 16223559

>>16223420
i think this is the first time i ever knew about something before hullo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:49:41 UTC No. 16223560

we are witnessing history in the making

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:52:19 UTC No. 16223563

>>16223558
X37b is a spy satellite that has the advantage of being able to be launched to any orbit and return for upgrades and changes etc. Normal spy sats are actually pretty limited.
Dream chaser has lower g loading on landing which has some use cases

As for air breathing stage 1 planes they are pretty silly

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:52:35 UTC No. 16223565

>>16223558
>whats exactly the point of space planes?
MAD

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:53:50 UTC No. 16223568

>>16223556
You can't reclaim that land dude. Whole continent needs to be quarantined for at least a century to allow it to recover from the poojeet devastation. Stick some big nets at the river mouths to catch all the trash that washes down.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:54:42 UTC No. 16223570

>>16223560
I am worried it will just fizzle out and we'll just be left with "what if?" for the next hundred years. Imagine if Musk wasn't around or just dies tomorrow, none of this will be happening.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:54:57 UTC No. 16223572

>>16223544
poor starship :(
Hawaii would have been a nice place to retire

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:55:10 UTC No. 16223573

>>16223492
That was in response to someone talking about the first test launch, which was the Apollo 7, which was carried by the 1B into LEO and not by the V into lunar orbit. Read before you post.
>>16223505
Project more

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:57:51 UTC No. 16223579

>>16223570
yeah it will. even if he dies tomorrow the military applications of a cheap megaconstellation LEO lifter are overwhelming and spacex has shown you don't even need to spend that much money to develop one.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 02:58:58 UTC No. 16223580

>>16223579
>spacex has shown you don't even need to spend that much money to develop one

Competition attempts found: 0

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:00:24 UTC No. 16223582

>>16223573
>I-I was just talking about Apollo 7....
>>16223517
>the crew were launched on a 1c and the lem on a 2b and they rendevouzed around the moon. Saturn v was for the later missions which carried a rover
ESDers literally cannot stop lying and making fools of themselves.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:00:25 UTC No. 16223583

>>16223560
>artist's rendering of the "starship" based off this photograph

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:01:20 UTC No. 16223584

>>16223583
that is very good anon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:02:07 UTC No. 16223585

>>16223580
That's for want of competency and vision, not money. Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin has more than enough money to do it, they're just lacking the other things.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:03:00 UTC No. 16223586

>>16223558
They need to be hypersonic air breathers to make engineering sense, ideally mode-shifter engines to reduce dead engine weight, and switching to rocket mode above Mach 5. This is very expensive to design compared to just "mage rogget bigger :DDDDDDD" if you've already got orbital class rocket engine talent in house, which is why SpaceX is building Starship and not Star Raker.

https://www.netl.doe.gov/sites/default/files/event-proceedings/2014/MHD/2-1-MPGW-NASA-IBlanksonPresentation10012014.pdf
https://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#starraker

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:03:05 UTC No. 16223587

>>16223560
How did they even get this photo? Stick a drone straight above it?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:03:21 UTC No. 16223589

>>16223582
Are you actually illiterate?
See
>>16223467
The discussion was clearly about "the first test flight"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:04:07 UTC No. 16223590

>>16223579
>>16223580
Well spacex showed you can afford one if you are the top launch provider by a far margin, and if you're not you probably can't afford it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:04:44 UTC No. 16223592

>>16223580
they just switched long march 9's second stage to methalox last year. it's gonna be a long time coming but it's coming.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:05:12 UTC No. 16223593

>>16223579
This is the only genuinely useful application of Falcons and SpaceX in general but no one wants to admit it yet

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:05:21 UTC No. 16223594

>>16223587
realy long selfi stick

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:05:35 UTC No. 16223595

>>16223586
thanks i love you!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:06:39 UTC No. 16223597

>>16223509
Every reusable booster is refurbished anon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:08:28 UTC No. 16223598

>>16223092
based UN and false color photographer destroyer

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:08:31 UTC No. 16223599

>>16223589
>the crew were launched on a 1c and the lem on a 2b and they rendevouzed around the moon. Saturn v was for the later missions which carried a rover
Apollo 7 did not "rendevouzed around the moon" and the Apollo 8, 11, 12, 13 and 14 missions used the Saturn V and did not have a rover.

You know nothing about space flight and you're a bad liar. You can't bluff spaceflight knowledge here.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:09:23 UTC No. 16223600

>>16223597
Can someone autistically break down the time, cost, and parts that need to be replaced with for the shuttle vs falcon 9 booster? Would it be unfair to call the falcon 9 refurbished even if the situation is a lot better than the shuttle?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:12:03 UTC No. 16223603

>>16223600
>Would it be unfair to call the falcon 9 refurbished even if the situation is a lot better than the shuttle?
They basically just need to scrub the coke out of the engines and refill fluids to get the first stage ready for flight. It's not a lot different than airplane maintenance.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:12:27 UTC No. 16223604

>>16223514
>Then you die on re-entry
Yeah, it's truly awful. Imagine if that something catastrophic like that had happened on every single test flight, surely they wouldn't have kept funding further launches

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:12:42 UTC No. 16223606

>>16223587
Maybe it's a static fire.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:13:07 UTC No. 16223609

>>16223600
shuttle required an enormous amount of refurb.
just the valves that needed to be replaced and cleaned required a huge effort (t. WSTF anon)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:13:48 UTC No. 16223611

>>16223600
No need, we have the official numbers for both.
Falcon 9 costs about 250000$ to refurbish.
Space shuttle boosters cost 23 million$ in refurbishment.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:18:02 UTC No. 16223615

>>16223611
EDSers think all official numbers out of SpaceX are lies, that's a central pillar of their ideology.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:18:33 UTC No. 16223616

>>16223611
Calling shuttle boosters a refurbishment is generous. It probably would have been cheaper to just make them from scratch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:21:56 UTC No. 16223623

>>16223616
It had the very important property of setting the bar at "everything but the ET is technically reusable" which humiliated the Soviets.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:27:11 UTC No. 16223629

>>16223623
And wasted a lot of their money with the buran

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:30:29 UTC No. 16223633

>>16223445
That budget also included building extensive infrastructure like launch pads, transportation infrastructure including railways, administrative buildings, communications infrastructure, etc. Your figure includes absolutely everything, and after the termination of the Mercury and Gemini projects in 1963, Saturn was NASA's only major project. SpaceX not only get to skip infrastructure costs by using NASA's, but also gets billions in federal subsidies every year.
To avoid a double standard, that would be like calculating Starship's budget by including the entirety of SpaceX's budget. At $9 billion since 2017, that would be $63 billion by the end of the year.
>Inb4 but not all of SpaceX's budget goes to Starship
And not all of Saturn's budget went to the rockets. Surely you'll get the point, though

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:34:00 UTC No. 16223638

>>16223633
>but also gets billions in federal subsidies every year
What are these supposed subsidies spacex is getting?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:37:18 UTC No. 16223643

>>16223611
>>16223615
>Implying SpaceX even releases "official numbers" on the costs of any of their projects
Go ahead, post a link to an official budget report. I'll wait

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:37:56 UTC No. 16223644

Keep giving me (you)s Elon goy dickriders :^)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:38:17 UTC No. 16223646

>>16223633
>skip
They pay rental fees for the leased launch sites. Might buy the facilities too

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:39:18 UTC No. 16223649

>>16223644
I hate jews who lie so I have no problem with this. You're going to die and burn in hell.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:39:46 UTC No. 16223650

>>16223600
the zero-based shuttle program cost study from 1994 is the best and most detailed breakdown of shuttle expenses ever https://web.archive.org/web/20110629140131/https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/Shuttle_ZB.htm

adjusting for inflation we get the following per-flight refurbishment costs:
SRB refurbishment operations $2.5m - $3.7m
SSME refurbishment $3.7m
Orbiter refurbishment $3.7m
these are refurbishment costs, not launch costs. if someone thinks it sounds too cheap then go find better numbers.

>>16223633
>That budget also included building extensive infrastructure like launch pads, transportation infrastructure including railways, administrative buildings, communications infrastructure, etc.
you're messing with the wrong anon if you think you're gonna gonna catch me making basic accounting errors. the planetary society data separates out facilities cost very nicely. it's $86 billion. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QW8MaPWa2YXDik52h4M0LN4SVc_tINoFEwashbaOjgE/edit#gid=1617056277

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:40:27 UTC No. 16223651

im going to bike 100km tomorrow to celebrate IFT-4

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:43:44 UTC No. 16223652

>>16223650
>https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QW8MaPWa2YXDik52h4M0LN4SVc_tINoFEwashbaOjgE/edit#gid=1617056277

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:46:02 UTC No. 16223653

>>16223638
Numerous, plus contracts.
>Inb4 but other aerospace companies get them too
But those funds have historically been included in NASA project budgets (such as payments to Boeing while developing the Saturn V)

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-list-government-subsidies-tesla-billions-spacex-solarcity-2021-12

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:46:10 UTC No. 16223655

just got back from my 3 day vacation
sad that I was sidelined for test flight 4 :-(
but how insane man I still cannot believe it soft landed after going through all of that

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:47:27 UTC No. 16223657

>>16223653
You and that article don't know what a subsidy is.
It's not the government paying a company to do something.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:48:01 UTC No. 16223658

>>16223649
>Starship isn't a lemon it's DA JOOOOOS
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:49:02 UTC No. 16223659

>>16223646
Which costs more, renting a building, or constructing it? Admit it, you know this point is valid

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:50:37 UTC No. 16223660

eseffgee will never learn to not bite onto obvious garbage bait

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:54:18 UTC No. 16223662

>>16223178
this common sense skeptic guy is a massive weirdo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:56:52 UTC No. 16223665

>>16223650
>the entire project cost $86 billion
>nonono I mean just one rocket cost that much
>now trust this google doc link
meds lmao
>$11 million in refurbishment costs after each test flight is lower than $100 million after blowing up each test flight btw
top kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:57:48 UTC No. 16223666

>>16223633
>SpaceX not only get to skip infrastructure costs by using NASA's

Yeah but lets not pretend if they didn't have this benefit in florida that their infrastructure would have equal costs. You can just compare boca chica to kennedy space center

Also this has been said to death, but contracts aren't subsidies unless you think spacex is getting overpaid with the lowest bid

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:57:50 UTC No. 16223667

>>16223659
That wasn't your original argument. You said skip but they do pay and are interested in wholesale buying the facilities. Also would be cheaper to build if they were given the zoning clearances on the coast (they won't).

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 03:59:40 UTC No. 16223671

>>16223660
Casual anons will find the actual real information useful. Letting jews lie is how societies are lost.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:00:23 UTC No. 16223672

>>16223667
My nephew rents an apartment. Is that cost equivalent to the company who built the entire complex? Try not to overthink it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:00:42 UTC No. 16223674

>>16223666
spaceX shouldn't get a cent of public dollars whether they're launching something or not lol

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:01:11 UTC No. 16223675

anyone against space exploration is a communist who deserves to hang

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:02:09 UTC No. 16223677

>>16223675
Communists were not against space exploration

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:02:42 UTC No. 16223679

>>16223660
>>16223671
Yeah this. I was silently agreeing with dont feed the trolls post #10, but we also have new posters since ift 4 and they need to know which posts are low information EDS newfags.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:03:48 UTC No. 16223680

>>16223672
That wasn't your original argument. You said skip but they do pay and are interested in wholesale buying the facilities. I am repeating since it seems you have alzheimers. Perhaps from the vaxx.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:04:40 UTC No. 16223682

>>16223666
>Implying SpaceX doesn't also receive hundreds of millions annually in R&D subsidies from the federal government as well as Texas and California
But let me guess, those sources are fake because only Lord Elon tells the truth?
>Contracts don't LE COUNT
Yet they count against NASA when calculating the official cost of building rockets? Again, double standard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:05:53 UTC No. 16223685

>>16223682
You don't know what a subsidy is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:08:12 UTC No. 16223692

>>16223677
soviets already went through several reforms by then
a full blown communist state is basically total anarchy with negative technological progress

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:08:19 UTC No. 16223693

>>16223680
>Won't admit that $1,500 a month in rent would take over 3 centuries to equal the $6 million it took to build the complex
>Le corona vaxx
>>>/pol/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:08:30 UTC No. 16223694

>>16223674
Ok well, if that were true the first time america launched astronauts since the shuttle was grounded would be a few days ago instead of a few years ago, and that money would have gone to russia all throughout the ukraine war. I guess boing could've done the cargo missions at some cost.

You would be waiting on jeff bezos and the national team to make the lunar lander and he hasn't even gone to orbit yet

Oh and europa clipper, well you just got a lot older waiting on SLS to be able to send it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:09:11 UTC No. 16223696

>>16223692
>it's not real communism!
lmao you retards actually say this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:09:39 UTC No. 16223698

>>16223692
>a full blown communist state is basically total anarchy
>a bunch of jew niggers and their yes men running everything from the top down is basically total anarchy

Ok????

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:13:07 UTC No. 16223704

>>16223682
it's not double standard, its a definition

Something can be calculated as cost but not a subsidy. Like if the government gives your mom a grant to go to whore school, thats a subsidy. But if they pay her for sex work that's a contract. I wasn't raising an issue with you counting that in the costs. Just call a hoe a spade.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:13:24 UTC No. 16223705

>>16223653
I would like to note that he has received single digit billions over more than a decade, which is hardly "billions every year"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:13:25 UTC No. 16223706

>>16223677
Then why did they suck at it?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:15:03 UTC No. 16223707

>>16223685
>"1. a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive."
SpaceX receives millions in subsidies, tens of millions in low interest loans, and billions in contract money. If you count those on NASA's budgets then you have to do the same for SpaceX, that shouldn't be a hard concept to understand

https://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/parent/space-exploration-technologies-spacex

>inb4 an ad-hom without an alternate source or another one liner with no rebuttal

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:15:29 UTC No. 16223709

just got on and all I see is a bunch of anit-spacex rhetoric
you guys need to find something else to bitch and moan about
you lost

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:16:18 UTC No. 16223711

>>16223677
communists, like jews, promote spaceflight in their own countries and discourage it abroad

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:18:37 UTC No. 16223714

>>16223711
this explains why the entire left is against space flight now

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:19:32 UTC No. 16223717

>>16223707
NASA pays SpaceX millions for data on their rocket launches and other research that SpaceX has done. This is the entire purpose of NASA.
also you're a retard, and probably a frogposter

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:20:23 UTC No. 16223718

>>16223706
In fairness, they did win the space race multiple times and US kept moving the goalposts until we did one thing first.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:21:05 UTC No. 16223719

>>16223718
and they immediately gave up

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:23:38 UTC No. 16223722

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:24:51 UTC No. 16223724

>>16223722
>orange cat

every time

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:31:42 UTC No. 16223731

>>16223717
>NASA pays an aerospace contractor to develop rockets
Congratulations of putting that together all by yourself. What that has to do with Starship being a lemon on par with the N1 is beyond me, but nice job.
I'm assuming you're the same person who tried to confidently imply that the Apollo 7 was launched by Saturn V?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:34:15 UTC No. 16223735

>>16223731
which one was 7 again? That was the crewed flight test of the capsule, right? That would have been in LEO on a 1B IIRC

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:34:25 UTC No. 16223736

>>16223731
when did russians ever design the n1 for reentry of all stages>?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:41:31 UTC No. 16223742

how plausible is it to get rid of heatshields and do reentry burns instead?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:41:49 UTC No. 16223743

>>16223719
On manned lunar landings, sure. They still built the first space station and had the first Mars and Venus probes.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:41:52 UTC No. 16223744

>>16223707
>Government contracts are subsidies
You people are quacks

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:43:54 UTC No. 16223747

>>16223743
Idk if u can count lithobraking on the surface as a success but yes they did technically touch mars first.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:43:54 UTC No. 16223748

>>16223742
picrel

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:44:57 UTC No. 16223749

>>16223742
it's not, at least not without some pretty crazy new engine technology
NSWR can do it, high thrust fusion drives might be able to do it, reactionless drives might be able to do it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:47:00 UTC No. 16223752

how far from the launch site do the boosters land for the falcon?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:47:01 UTC No. 16223753

>>16223744
>R&D subsidies are contracts
The company receives both, quit coping

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:51:34 UTC No. 16223760

>>16223742
Starship and the booster use almost all their fuel to get the starship to that speed. If you burned only half your fuel, and used the other half to slow down the rocket, it wouldn't even reach the speeds it needs to enter orbit let alone deliver a payload

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:51:49 UTC No. 16223761

so how do we stop starship from tipping over on the moon, I heard the south pole of the moon is pretty sketch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:51:52 UTC No. 16223763

>>16223752
9 miles, roughly.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:53:00 UTC No. 16223765

>>16223753
What is the point again? Subsidies are a few million. I'm wondering if all the subsidies would even pay for a single falcon 9 launch. Too often people pretend contracts are subsidies because they want to say spacex gets billions in free money which is asinine

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:53:02 UTC No. 16223766

>>16223761
Yeah that's where the black moon aliens live, bad neighbourhood. Would definitely avoid.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:54:05 UTC No. 16223769

>>16223761
big fat legs

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:55:11 UTC No. 16223771

>>16223763
how much delta v do the boosters need after separation to land so close to the launch site? i assume very little. how much delta v do the boosters contribute to the payload?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:55:18 UTC No. 16223773

>>16223761
Find a relatively flat location. Apollo 11 landed in a shit spot, but the later missions had plenty of room.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:55:41 UTC No. 16223774

>>16223736
Their goal was a manned moon landing and all of their test flights were failures. Just like Starship's goal is full recovery and refurbishment and all of their test flights have been failures. It's so bad that they've no changed their goal and outright stated that they are no longer even trying to reuse second stage boosters. Seethe all you want, you know it's a failed project

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:56:25 UTC No. 16223776

>>16223749
>reactionless drives might be able to do it.

First they have to produce thrust and that's never been demonstrated outside of measurement error in tests. If they ever did produce thrust that would open up the inner solar system to manned space flight, so new space race

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:57:21 UTC No. 16223778

>>16223771
No idea.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:57:35 UTC No. 16223779

>we finally land on the moon
now what>?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:57:58 UTC No. 16223780

>>16223761
bunches of crab legs

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:58:36 UTC No. 16223782

>>16223771
the boosters need a lot of delta v to boostback, but they're much lighter than on the way up so that's much easier
they contribute a few km/s
>>16223776
yes

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:59:03 UTC No. 16223783

>>16223776
also the outer solar system with a light enough weight nuclear electric power cycle

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:59:07 UTC No. 16223784

>>16223779
Honestly, I hope nothing. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, you cannot hope to colonize the moon. It makes Mars look like a walk in the park, and has several unsolvable problems for long-term colonization.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 04:59:29 UTC No. 16223785

>>16223780
im hungry asshole

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:01:01 UTC No. 16223789

>>16223784
Mars is just wayy too far with current technology

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:02:18 UTC No. 16223791

>>16223789
Mars can be done, the Moon is close but shit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:03:47 UTC No. 16223794

>>16223791
moon is just around the corner and will be a better testbed for training future astronauts

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:03:59 UTC No. 16223795

>>16223785
If you ate crab legs instead of ass you'd be less hungry and less gay.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:04:20 UTC No. 16223796

I think "No Krystal allowed" is a reference to me

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:05:03 UTC No. 16223798

>>16223789
4-6 months is not that far at all but you're just looking for you's so kill yourself

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:06:18 UTC No. 16223800

>>16223796
>even acknowledging the furries samefag forced meme

Jump off a bridge

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:06:26 UTC No. 16223801

>>16223774
What is this? According to this retarded argument the Apollo missions had more than 20 failed test flights because they didn't land people on the moon. Starship with only 4 failures is looking 5 times better so far.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:06:44 UTC No. 16223802

>>16223795
if crab legs were cheaper than ass then i would

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:07:32 UTC No. 16223804

>>16223765
Read the sources posted. They get hundreds of millions, only including subsidies with disclosed amounts.
>What's the point again?
This topic came came.up when someone tried to compare the budgets of the Saturn and Starship programs, which is a disingenuous premise in part because NASA reports subsidies, contracts, and loans as expenditures while private companies report them as credits. For example, the Saturn V rockets were developed by Boeing within the larger context of the Saturn program but no one tries to say "Boeing is innately more efficient than NASA and NASA should be defunded" because their CEO doesn't have a cult of personality and thus people think logically about how both organizations need each other for space exploration to work

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:08:24 UTC No. 16223805

>>16223774
>stated that they are no longer even trying to reuse second stage boosters.

retard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:09:52 UTC No. 16223807

I've been thinking about this. Consider how much money HLS will cost to build. Would it not make sense to just modify tanker Starships and use them as simulators for the actual mission to save money and time? Imagine, for instance, they have to send three Starships to the moon because they keep running into problems. Just hypothetically. Imagine each time they did that, SpaceX was forced to build a brand new HLS to spec from scratch. That seems like an absurd time and financial investment.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:10:11 UTC No. 16223808

>>16223804
Boeing is full of vampires and we should drive stakes through all of corporate's hearts

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:11:01 UTC No. 16223810

He's just replying to himself at this point, sad

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:11:30 UTC No. 16223813

>>16223810
Who I just got to this bread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:14:14 UTC No. 16223815

>>16223789
mars requires less delta v. It's really only the trip length and window you can travel that sucks

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:14:51 UTC No. 16223816

>>16223707
>Project Description: Israel: Guided Missile And Space Vehicle Manufacturing
Lmfao for all 4 federal loans too. Jew gibs

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:17:33 UTC No. 16223819

Holy fuck. Boeing REDEEMED, sirs.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:17:47 UTC No. 16223820

>>16223801
No, landing on the moon was the overall goal of the Apollo missions much like landing a manned Mars mission is the overall goal of Starship. Each individual test flight had heir own goals, like each Starship test launch had the goal of reaching orbit and recovering the ship. Every single one of those test flights ended in either total or partial failure. Musk and his cult following just keep moving the goalposts and declaring victory each time by saying "we actually MEANT to blow up the vessel while the secondary boosters were failing bro"
Starship is also more comparable to Space Shuttle than it is to Saturn, which makes these failures even more embarrassing seeing as reusable rockets have been around for 30 years (Starship is just aiming to reduce costs/increase efficiency) whereas Saturn was actually pioneering technology
>Inb4 muskies mass reply to this trying to change the topic to Falcon 9 comm satellites again

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:17:51 UTC No. 16223821

>>16223794
Yeah because its a more hostile environment than mars. Lower gravity, practically no air pressure or atmosphere to filter the sun, high surface temperatures, dust that will fuck you and your gear up

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:18:27 UTC No. 16223822

>>16223819
rebooting for update in 10...9...8...7...6

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:18:54 UTC No. 16223823

>>16223819
Saar please be of the patient for windows update for being able to of controlling the rocket saars

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:19:28 UTC No. 16223824

>>16223784
>several unsolvable problems for long-term colonization
Name them

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:21:47 UTC No. 16223826

>>16223821
whether you like it or not the Moon is the first place we are colonizing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:21:54 UTC No. 16223827

>>16223820
You're just recycling your posts now. Go back to twitter to scavenge better bits.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:23:23 UTC No. 16223831

>>16223820
>Starship is also more comparable to Space Shuttle than it is to Saturn
I thought it was the N1, what happened>?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:23:50 UTC No. 16223832

timeloop

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:24:55 UTC No. 16223834

>>16223805
Name calling isn't an argument. SpaceX does not recover second stage boosters. "Fully reusable" is a marketing tactic. Look it up.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:26:03 UTC No. 16223836

>>16223831
>Than it is to Saturn
Learn to read anon. It's still more comparable to N1 than it is to either Space Shuttle or Saturn

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:26:23 UTC No. 16223837

>>16223824
Good luck trying to sustain a population on the moon. They'll have to constantly be sent back home due to the effects of low gravity, and you can't have babies on the moon due to the dangers. If you want jello babies, be my guest, but that's all you'll ever achieve in 1/8th gravity.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:26:26 UTC No. 16223838

/sfg/ harbors a reasonable amount of hate for the FAA but not nearly enough hate for the FCC

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:27:07 UTC No. 16223839

>>16223836
you moved the goal posts from n1 to the shuttle

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:27:33 UTC No. 16223840

jesus christ this one's rolling out the jello baby bait, I haven't seen that one in fucking years

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:28:19 UTC No. 16223842

>>16223827
Nice rebuttal have a (you)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:28:36 UTC No. 16223843

>>16223840
He's replying to himself too, age old classic

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:28:42 UTC No. 16223844

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:29:40 UTC No. 16223845

>>16223839
No, I compared Starship to the N1, you tried to compare it to the Saturn, I said it was "more comparable to the Space Shuttle than it is to the Saturn" and now you are coping

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:30:38 UTC No. 16223846

>>16223844
what does this comparison show? why do both sides look significantly worse than any available videos?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:30:50 UTC No. 16223847

Starship-Centaur though

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:31:16 UTC No. 16223848

>>16223804
>Read the sources posted. They get hundreds of millions

No you read it. It says around 3 million in subsidies disclosed. With around 100 million in loans that have to be paid back, with the only subsidy there being low interest. Don't be a gaslighting faggot over something you put right in my face that's low effort to look at

I get what you're saying about accounting. That seems right, but the reason people hate boeing here is cost plus contracts to rehash the space shuttle on a shitty late overpriced rocket called SLS, in comparison to spacex that makes low bid good hardware on a fixed cost contract. Starliner is fixed cost too so it's less bad than SLS, but its worse and arrived later than dragon 2. Thinking logically, spacex is the better performer and better deal for the taxpayer regardless of how cool you think elon is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:32:18 UTC No. 16223850

>>16223834
>recover second stage boosters

he said it again lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:32:40 UTC No. 16223851

>>16223826
But I has no atmosphere anon :^(

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:33:54 UTC No. 16223852

>>16223846
He's trying to show off the vapor cones in greater clarity, but achieved nothing. Also, he's a Mormon.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:34:04 UTC No. 16223853

>>16223846
the vapor cones

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:37:11 UTC No. 16223854

>>16223850
I'm not the one trying to sell the public on the possibility, that would be Lord Musk. Is your reading comprehension poor, or are you just giving out r*ddit spaced (you)s for fun?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:41:19 UTC No. 16223856

>>16223854
>reddit spacing

election tourist term

No I don't think elon ever told anyone he will or won't recover a "second stage booster", whatever that is

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:42:49 UTC No. 16223857

Man hates musk to the point that this is his saturday night.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:51:56 UTC No. 16223860

>>16223856
At his "Making Life Multiplanetary" talk at the International Astronautical Congress in 2017, Elon Musk clearly stated that developing reusable.second stage boosters was a goal of the Starship program
>"Second stage boosters don't LE EXIST"
the ultimate cope

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:53:22 UTC No. 16223863

>>16223860
what the fuck is a second stage booster you brain dead monkey

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:56:15 UTC No. 16223865

>>16223860
then you wont have any trouble providing a video and timestamp, since you remember it so well

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:59:17 UTC No. 16223868

>>16223837
Yeah, the rigorously tested effects of partial g

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:59:51 UTC No. 16223870

>>16223857
>"Only 1 (one) anon on earth thinks Starship is a grift"
Meds
>Implying you have better things to do on a Saturday night than defend senpai Elon's honor
Okay do it then

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 05:59:55 UTC No. 16223871

when will these tourists leave our comfy space travel forum

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:00:43 UTC No. 16223872

>>16223580
blue origin project jarvis

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:01:44 UTC No. 16223873

>>16223871
never
space will continue to be normalfagged (this is a good thing)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:02:21 UTC No. 16223876

>>16223872
aren't Terran orbital aiming for second stage reusability?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:03:19 UTC No. 16223877

>>16223863
Secondary propulsion that carries the payload into orbit after the first stage detaches, also known as the upper stage. Why are you posting ITT if you're too uninformed to know this? Is this actually a knew concept to you?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:04:32 UTC No. 16223880

>>16223857
>>16223870
I'm just glad we can all come together and spend our saturday night arguing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:04:49 UTC No. 16223881

>>16223873
I don't care about normalfags I just want the glowniggers to leave
>>16223877
literally nobody fucking calls an upper stage a "second booster" you mouthbreathing thirdie

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:05:33 UTC No. 16223882

why hasn't hollywood made a good space movie since apollo 13?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:06:08 UTC No. 16223883

>>16223882
First Man is great.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:06:25 UTC No. 16223884

>>16223865
Here's your research for you, anon. Timestamp it yourself, I'm not sitting through 45 minutes of that autistic halfwit screeching again
https://youtu.be/tdUX3ypDVwI?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:06:39 UTC No. 16223885

>>16223882
jews hate spaceflight

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:08:06 UTC No. 16223888

>>16223882
ryan gooseling is making another space movie soon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:08:50 UTC No. 16223889

>>16223881
>"Literally nobody calls it a second stage booster!!!"
Keep coping, it's mildly humorous

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:10:08 UTC No. 16223890

>>16223880
Maybe the real Mars colony was the friends we made along the way

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:10:20 UTC No. 16223891

>>16223882
Starship Troopers? Fifth Element?
Or do you mean realistic space movie?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:10:24 UTC No. 16223892

>>16223856
Reddit spacing really is an election tourist term btw. They see it on /pol/ and then they escape their containment board and use it on other boards which nobody cares about other than /pol/acks
>t. Reformed 2016 election tourist

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:10:39 UTC No. 16223893

>>16223889
I like how you added the exclamation points to the greentext, nice touch

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:11:13 UTC No. 16223894

>>16223882
Space Cowboys exists

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:11:28 UTC No. 16223895

>>16223882
disney star wars ruined space for normies
now making space movies is no longer profitable

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:12:28 UTC No. 16223897

Ad Astra would have been a goated movie if it wasn't for that one scene that ruined the entire movie

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:12:31 UTC No. 16223898

>>16223889
it must be difficult struggling with such crippling brownness among other disabilities

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:13:57 UTC No. 16223899

>>16223893

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:14:06 UTC No. 16223900

>>16223898
Garriott was 40 years old in this photo.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:14:13 UTC No. 16223901

>>16223891
realistic. iconic.
>the right stuff
>apollo 13
what else stands the test of time

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:17:37 UTC No. 16223902

>>16223897
>goated
gtfo zoomer normie scum

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:17:49 UTC No. 16223903

>>16223898
>Proven wrong
>Resorts to racism outside of /b/
Many such cases

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:18:38 UTC No. 16223904

>>16223903
Based and thunderpilled

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:19:18 UTC No. 16223905

>>16223902
zoomers will be taking care of your ass when you are old and decrepit so start being nicer to them

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:21:04 UTC No. 16223909

>>16223905
I am a zoomer you retarded nigger but I dont speak ebonics, and I especially dont bring it to my one refuge away from niggers in /sfg/. Fuck right off touristard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:21:15 UTC No. 16223910

>>16223905
never

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:21:34 UTC No. 16223912

>>16223722
why did he do it?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:21:59 UTC No. 16223913

>>16223909
if words offend you then you belong on reddit

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:24:44 UTC No. 16223916

>>16223913
>i was correctly called out for being a normie so now i must strawman and call him reddit to save face
Kek. Ever heard of projection?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:25:44 UTC No. 16223917

>>16223916
>strawman
kek fuck off back to twitter loser

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:26:40 UTC No. 16223919

>>16223910
Is he actually a pothead? Would finally start to make sense

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:28:02 UTC No. 16223921

>>16223919
as a former pothead, no. someone with that much intelligence had to be bugging the fuck out about 30 minutes afterwards.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:28:09 UTC No. 16223922

>>16223877
>>16223889
newfag why dont you look up what a booster is and start a different line of trolling. It's anonymous image board. You don't have to stick around after you've been caught

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:28:24 UTC No. 16223923

Finally watching Even Horizon (1997) what am I in for bros?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:29:26 UTC No. 16223924

>>16223884
No I don't think I'll spend 45 minutes waiting for elon to use a term that doesn't exist.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:31:32 UTC No. 16223927

>>16223922
>"l-l-look up what secondary propulsion is bro that doesn't c-c-count"
Go to bed zoomie adults are talking now

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:35:59 UTC No. 16223930

>>16223921
Musk strikes me as the 120-130 type. Smart, sure, but no genius. I'm sure he claims to be Mensa, but so does Kim Kardashian. He can run a business, but his scientific prowess largely consists of "inventing" things that already exist.
He probably rips a fat blunt once or twice a week

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:38:11 UTC No. 16223932

>>16223927
Zoomers are like 27 now.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:39:21 UTC No. 16223933

>>16223927
>adults are talking now
start a discord for bull hook ups with your wife

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:40:30 UTC No. 16223934

>>16223930
i know the demons that come with running 1 company, let alone 3+. sure he appreciates the culture, and indulges lightly occasionally, but to get blitzed once a week is unrealistic. too much pressure.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:41:29 UTC No. 16223935

What kind of new drugs await us on mars? might we snort perchlorates?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:42:11 UTC No. 16223936

>>16223923
guy from jurassic park acting kind of sus

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:43:40 UTC No. 16223939

>>16223933
NTA but I just fucked the shit out of the new intern girl

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:44:15 UTC No. 16223941

>>16223932
Fuck....
>>16223933
Is that you kids are up to nowadays? No wonder birth rates are falling off a cliff

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:47:12 UTC No. 16223944

>>16223935
Maybe we can all huff liquid hydrogen from secon---UPPER stage boosters and keep the high long enough to still be buzzed when we land

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:54:32 UTC No. 16223947

> \The medical kit was extremely compact and sometimes it was hard to find the correct medication. It is recorded that Gene Cernan accidentally took one of the anti-motion sickness dextroamphetamine/scopolamine tablets while trying to take an anti-flatulence tablet during Apollo 17.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:56:55 UTC No. 16223948

I wonder where all the drifter shitposters are from

/sci/ sees us in the catalog every day and they haven't been a problem
/pol/ has no reason to care about ift-4 in particular

You know who is obsessed with elon, frequents twitter and reddit, and would have a passing interest in rockets? /g/

I saw a thread on /g/ that was saltmining thunderfoot getting blown the fuck out before it was removed. So many posters there thought surface level knowledge of consumer electronics made them rocketry experts lmao. They also only know elon as a shitposting EV guy and had no idea he dominates space. It was the perfect ego trap. Now they are here chasing that feeling of superiority they used to get on /g/ and it's never coming back lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 06:58:14 UTC No. 16223950

>>16223948
that's kind of funny

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:00:46 UTC No. 16223952

>>16223948
Ok

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:02:16 UTC No. 16223954

>>16223952
god I miss the early hop tests. I hope they blow up the launchsite repeatedly again during catch attempts, that would be so fucking beautiful.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:03:44 UTC No. 16223955

>>16223954
we can only hope anon. wild west spacelfight

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:04:52 UTC No. 16223956

>>16223952
>4:27pm

7 minutes late

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:08:02 UTC No. 16223957

>>16223956
REMEMBER WHAT THEY TOOK FROM US

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:11:33 UTC No. 16223958

>>16223955
remember that time they launched a twenty ton coil of stainless steel several hundred meters into the air after one of their flying tanks came down too hard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:19:47 UTC No. 16223962

>>16223952
CONGRATULATIONS SPACEX!
>EXPLODES

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:25:30 UTC No. 16223964

ift-5 when?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:31:18 UTC No. 16223966

>>16223962
How dare you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:31:30 UTC No. 16223967

>>16223964
august. my wife says i have to be present for the birth of our first born instead of go to ift5. i told her shes being emotional and not thinking clearly.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:33:59 UTC No. 16223970

>>16223964
Fourth of July

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:34:50 UTC No. 16223971

>>16223967
is that the chop stick arm catch attempt? if so then I would suggest to go watch that.
however my gut tells me they are not going to do the chop stick arms catch for a while.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:35:15 UTC No. 16223973

okay this Event Horizon movie is kinda spooky :^(

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:36:09 UTC No. 16223975

>>16223967
drag your extremely pregrant wife to a rocket launch

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:36:53 UTC No. 16223976

>>16223559
Well this thread has a penchant for romantic pie in the sky solutions.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:37:13 UTC No. 16223977

>>16223971
i told her we're going to see them catch the booster long before she pregnant. i don't think they're going to do it either without tower 2 built but elon tweeter'd it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:42:39 UTC No. 16223981

>>16223975
this is the only logical option

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:45:30 UTC No. 16223984

we went to ift1. she knows how important it is to humanity that we be there

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:48:11 UTC No. 16223988

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:49:14 UTC No. 16223989

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:53:46 UTC No. 16223991

wtf is blue origin doing these days

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:54:13 UTC No. 16223992

>>16223991
Pretending to be a real company. Still.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 07:56:49 UTC No. 16223993

>>16223991
muh new glenn

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:00:48 UTC No. 16223997

>>16223964
twoweeks

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:04:19 UTC No. 16223998

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:11:10 UTC No. 16224003

>>16223081
rotation got fucked in the planetary crib. No rotation=no magnetosphere=solar winds blasting at it at full force

by all accounts it should be a earth like. Same sized, also in the goldilocks zone, was made out of the same stuff as earth

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:15:08 UTC No. 16224007

>>16223333
Gonna shill The Space Above Us, which has an episode for literally every shuttle mission.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:15:52 UTC No. 16224008

Why bother with regular space suits for moon and mars. Just build giant robot suits instead. It just makes sense in lower gravity.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:16:31 UTC No. 16224009

>>16223373
>The problem is spectators think this kind of engineering is what we should do
yeah? that is exactly what you do when you build machines. Try it out and correct what does not work then try again. have you ever worked on any sort of hardware

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:17:04 UTC No. 16224010

>>16223375
Seize.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:17:23 UTC No. 16224011

>>16223923
>>16223973
The comedy black man, in classic 90s style, is a welcome relief from the unending horror

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:18:55 UTC No. 16224012

>>16224003
> also in the goldilocks zone
It's really not. It's on the absolute inner border.
Mars would be fine if it had been about twice as massive as it is. Jupiter fucked it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 08:57:46 UTC No. 16224044

>>16223165
nobody is 100% (has the exact opinions as you) but you still have more and less retarded opinions
and what matters is that subjects can actually be talked about instead of being censored
that is what buying twitter was all about, letting discussion happen

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 09:09:10 UTC No. 16224050

>>16223966
N1
Failed to reach orbit after 4 flights
>Canceled

Starship
Failed to reach orbit after 4 flights
>???