Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:57:01 UTC No. 16224419

>>16224409
Theres no way they'll make the launch date will they?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:57:57 UTC No. 16224421

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 an infographic of a bloatoid moon program delaying.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 13:58:43 UTC No. 16224425

>>16224419
It's unlikely.
NASA won't admit it though.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:02:09 UTC No. 16224429

>>16224409
>The biggest thing in spaceflight in decades just happened
Huh? What was that?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:02:23 UTC No. 16224430

>>16224419
no

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:03:04 UTC No. 16224431

>>16224421
You seem unpleasant to be around.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:03:24 UTC No. 16224433

>>16224419
I would be more surprised if anything space related would be on time

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:03:28 UTC No. 16224434

>>16224429
quote fail
very unfortunate

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:04:35 UTC No. 16224437

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=effFp6AnCWo

Perun.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:04:39 UTC No. 16224438

>>16224421
Shoulda made the thread yourself. Tuff luck

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:04:45 UTC No. 16224439

>>16224419
sloss's take on what meeting it would have to look like. weekly starship tanker launches in just 2 years is a tall order but i almost think that's more likely than HLS being ready in 2026.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:15:48 UTC No. 16224454

>>16224421
every thread theme being IFT-4 would be retarded

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:16:27 UTC No. 16224456

>>16224439
They also need a demo flight. Unless things go completely smoothly, I don't think starship is going to be ready. I also don't think Blue Moon is going to be ready when it needs to be.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:25:02 UTC No. 16224468

>>16224421
We all know youre new. Fuck off and leave the OP alone these have been good topical threads from what we had before.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:37:08 UTC No. 16224482

>>16224409
shoulda spelled it funny to make the tranny seethe

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:39:19 UTC No. 16224486

The FAA has been subdued, they'll be compliant going forward.
t. knower

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:42:22 UTC No. 16224488

>>16224421
>The biggest thing in spaceflight in decades

A suborbital test flight is the biggest thing?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:43:18 UTC No. 16224491

>>16224488
This suborbital test, yes.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:45:24 UTC No. 16224495

>>16224488
did you not see the reentry footage, there will be entire college courses with that footage as a key graphic
people will make their entire careers off of that footage

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:49:35 UTC No. 16224498

>>16224495
>ITS THE BIGGEST THING BECAUSE LE GOOD FOOTAGE DUDE!!

holy fuck you sound like a baby, so the biggest thing in spaceflight is not even starship, its the starlink conexion LMAO

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:49:53 UTC No. 16224499

>>16224488
galactic 07 wasn't a test, and yes, it was MASSIVE

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:51:15 UTC No. 16224501

>>16224499
RIP to a real deathtrap

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:54:43 UTC No. 16224509

>>16224437
from the vid

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:54:54 UTC No. 16224510

>>16224498
no, retard

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:55:16 UTC No. 16224511

>>16224421
>Biggest thing in spaceflight in decades
You mean Starliner narrowly avoiding blowing up the ISS for the second time in three years? Or the "reusable" N1 managing to avoid blowing up for the first time in the last ever?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:55:44 UTC No. 16224512

>>16224499
><100km
not spaceflight, not even suborbital spaceflight.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:56:11 UTC No. 16224514

Don't give up anons, she never did!!!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:56:30 UTC No. 16224515

>>16224509
Roscosmos on suicide watch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:57:13 UTC No. 16224517

>>16224499
It's also the last time Spaceship 2 gets to fly. Virgin Galactic is now officially in hiatus mode until the Delta-class ships get finished.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 14:58:01 UTC No. 16224521

>>16224509
>people will see this, and will still claim spacex is a "colossal failure" run by a billionaire with no engineering background

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:03:04 UTC No. 16224527

>>16224495
>B-b-but the cinematographic quality of a death trap melting on re-entry before being reused by the Indian Ocean
That movie was derivative anyway linkrel desu *yawn*
https://youtu.be/U9fkYIrRwbo?feature=shared

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:04:42 UTC No. 16224530

>Muh N1
Truly the mark of intellectual dishonesty.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:05:45 UTC No. 16224531

>>16224509
ULAsisters, russisters...
what went wrong?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:05:48 UTC No. 16224532

I can't stand his nasally australian whining, has somebody watched this? Is it EDS coping and seething? He seems like he might be the type.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:07:21 UTC No. 16224535

>>16224532
no anon, it's the opposite of that.
His voice is annoying though.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:09:26 UTC No. 16224538

>>16224509
>>16224521
>It was really heavy bros

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:10:00 UTC No. 16224539

>>16224527
>Cope, cope. cope, seethe, cope more seethe
See you in a month or two when they catch the booster moron

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:10:51 UTC No. 16224540

>>16224538
"Lifted mass" does not include the launcher unless you're that fucking shuttle retard.
Are you that fucking shuttle retard, tourist?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:10:52 UTC No. 16224541

>>16224530
lol yeah, not even worth a reply unless you're also a mudbrained shitskin

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:11:56 UTC No. 16224544

>>16224540
I think he might be that shuttle retard
do the aerospace museums have a display set up that's brainwashing these people or something?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:12:43 UTC No. 16224545

90% of upmass is spacex rockets. soon it will be 99%
Thisnis what winning looks like

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:12:45 UTC No. 16224546

>>16224511

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:13:45 UTC No. 16224551

>>16224530
>Ur lying
Recovery and reuse rate status?
>Inb4 "but they blew them up and melted them on re-entry and dunked them in the ocean on purpose so it doesn't count"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:15:10 UTC No. 16224553

>>16224545
naw, this is probably close to the peak right now. ULA and ESA are both sidelined because they're switching to new rockets and they're going to recover somewhat.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:15:48 UTC No. 16224555

>>16224551
Ah yes the N1 famously known for soft landing every stage in the ocean after successfully launching and re-entering

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:09 UTC No. 16224558

I hate /sci/ so much it's unreal, at least twitter allows me to block those retards.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:19 UTC No. 16224559

>muh N1 bait
Baiting is gay and you're gay for giggling at it you little turd

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:17:56 UTC No. 16224562

>>16224553
>naw, this is probably close to the peak right now.
Brother the rest of the world won't even be competing with F9 by the time Starship is regularly flying. It might be the local maximum but it's definitely not the peak.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:19:11 UTC No. 16224565

>>16224540
>>"Lifted mass" does not include the launcher
>Now watch this video of the launcher reentry
Is the "shuttle tourist" in the room with you right now?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:19:23 UTC No. 16224566

>>16224532
>>16224535
kiwi accent >>> aussie accent
I will never not love fush n chups
>>16224558
you should go back there

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:22:55 UTC No. 16224573

>16224565
>lifted mass must mean something different than everyone says it does because i saw a video in a different context
what the fuck are you doing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:23:29 UTC No. 16224575

>>16224555
>Muh soft landing
Recovery status?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:24:40 UTC No. 16224578

Hey everyone please do not engage with this retard >>16224575 I really don't want a repeat of last thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:24:59 UTC No. 16224579

>>16224545
space victory
>>16224565
stupid frogposter
reentry, by itself, is new and cool and interesting
lifted payload mass, by itself, is powerful and emblematic of dominance
stupid frogposter

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:24:59 UTC No. 16224580

Starship is a gimmick marketing campaign for Starlink.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:25:31 UTC No. 16224581

>>16224573
>Doesn't even know how to respond to a post correctly
Go back to twitter

🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) &#039;kneel&#039; at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:25:47 UTC No. 16224582

>>16224555
You wanna fart in my mouf? Or?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:26:24 UTC No. 16224583

>>16224575
in progress
>>16224578
what if we post more anime this time
>>16224581
no I've seen this before, it's the (you)less schtick
people with mental illness do it sometimes because they feel the need to reply but also feel superior by not replying

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:27:15 UTC No. 16224584

>it thinks it deserves (You)s

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:28:02 UTC No. 16224585

>>16224579
>Reentry
>New
You need to be 18 to post here

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:28:57 UTC No. 16224588

>>16224585
post the footage of space shuttle reentry from the wingtip looking back at the body of the shuttle, or from the cabin looking at the wing
fucking do it, pussy, you won't, because you can't, because it doesn't exist

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:29:03 UTC No. 16224589

>>16224580
A gimmick with several customers already lined up to launch on it...

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:29:27 UTC No. 16224591

>>16224511
Oh hey frog poster whos first word was "N1" and doesn't know what an FTS is after being told over and over

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:30:32 UTC No. 16224592

>>16224580
How dare you anon, manned flight to Mars in 2 more booms

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:31:16 UTC No. 16224594

>>16224592
something will be sent in the 2026 transfer window but it won't be people

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:31:20 UTC No. 16224595

>>16224591
His cope will be ">but we blew it up on purpose" not knowing that this has been a thing since forever

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:31:26 UTC No. 16224596

>>16224584
>xhe think xhe deserves (You)s

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:31:58 UTC No. 16224597

>>16224521
When I see those graphs posted on other boards there's never a reply. I wonder what it feels like to realize everyone you associate with and everything you read has been lying to you and forgot to tell you twitter man launches 90% of earth's payload

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:32:27 UTC No. 16224598

>>16224596
I don't know what any of those words mean but YWNBAW

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:33:19 UTC No. 16224599

Flight 4's success has caused an incredible amount of cope and seethe in EDS sufferers.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:25 UTC No. 16224601

>>16224597
They don't realize anything, they simply ignore it and go back to EDS pilpul.
That is the kind of person you're dealing with.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:30 UTC No. 16224603

>>16224597
elon is polluting the sky with useless starlinks and recklessly risking kessler syndrome just so he can buy more slaves to work his diamond mines

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:39 UTC No. 16224604

>>16224588
>Le camera placement
The ultimate cope

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:34:49 UTC No. 16224605

>>16224553
>ULA and ESA are both sidelined because they're switching to new rockets and they're going to recover somewhat.

so is spacex

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:36:06 UTC No. 16224607

>>16224580
That's fine. even if 90% of starship launches are starlink that remaining 10% will still make it the most influential rocket to date

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:36:33 UTC No. 16224608

>>16224597
They have to pretend that spacex hasn't launched 17% of all us payloads EVER launched by the us since the beginning of us launch existing and landed said rocket over 300 times because if they don't they can't push their narrative that spacex is a grift

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:36:57 UTC No. 16224609

>>16224605
Note that neither Vulcan or Ariane 6 have any reuse in the near future.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:37:56 UTC No. 16224611

>>16224553
For commercial launches I really don't think either has any hope.
ULA never once bothered trying to get commercial contracts and ariene 6 is twice as expensive as falcon 9. Government payloads are the only refuge for these two companies.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:38:06 UTC No. 16224612

>>16224603
Kessler syndrome isn't a problem in LEO.
All the trash burns up in the atmosphere and you can just launch again.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:38:27 UTC No. 16224613

>>16224540
Was there a question?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:38:33 UTC No. 16224614

>>16224609
nuh uh! tory bruno told me vulcan was SMART

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:40:00 UTC No. 16224619

>>16224609
>he forgot about SMART
Tory will come through.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:40:30 UTC No. 16224621

>>16224613
The seethe generated by giving true numbers for shuttle capacity is hilarious

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:40:34 UTC No. 16224622

>>16224619
The only ones who forgot about SMART is ULA themselves.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:41:34 UTC No. 16224624

>>16224591
>>16224595
>0 Saturn V explosions including all test flights
>2/135 Shuttle explosions including all test flights
>"Activating FTS because of a failed test means the failure didn't count"
>"LRB venting causing an explosion doesn't count because we actually le meant to do that"
Musk worship is mental illness and Starship will kill a manned crew by the end of the decade

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:42:01 UTC No. 16224627

>>16224607
>10% will still make it the most influential rocket to date
Yes

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:42:05 UTC No. 16224628

>>16224614
why is it that when the anime girl lies to my face like this I think it's cute but when Tory Bruno does it I think he's a snake

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:42:07 UTC No. 16224629

>>16224605
yeah but when you're already at 90% of the market that means you have to launch an additional 9 tons for every 1 additional ton the rest of the world ramps up just to hold steady. they may be able to manage that for several years with starship coming online but there have only been a few companies in history that have pulled off market domination on this level - spacex is basically in 1890s standard oil territory - and it's borderline impossible to keep it going for very long.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:42:59 UTC No. 16224630

>>16224553
nigga, the mass those rockets are going to lift is completely neglible compared to the F9 spam happening right now, not to mention when Starship becomes operational soon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:43:06 UTC No. 16224631

>>16224613
I like how you don't include the mass of the Starship vehicle for its payload numbers

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:43:13 UTC No. 16224632

>>16224594
That's all but certain, probes have been common for decades

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:43:26 UTC No. 16224633

>>16224624
>shuttle kills 2 manned crews
>this is ok

>s-starship is too dangerous it will kill people!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:44:41 UTC No. 16224636

>>16224632
okay but what if it's a whole-ass Starship full of MREs and solar panels

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:44:44 UTC No. 16224637

do you guys actually think it's realistic for Starship to drop 100+ tons in dry mass so they can hit their payload targets
As far as I'm aware, the extensive reinforcements were necessitated by previous failures

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:45:07 UTC No. 16224640

>>16224613
>The SLS is a bigger spaceshuttle with more rocket and less heatshielded aeroplane and it has a lower payload than the shuttle

sounds legit

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:45:09 UTC No. 16224641

>>16224599
it is something to behold

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:45:18 UTC No. 16224642

>>16224597
>Statpadding with comm sats
>Bait and switching a "Mars colony" death rocket grift
>Twitter "astronomers" fall for it
Ngmi

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:45:42 UTC No. 16224643

>>16224637
I thought they were having ISP problems? Yeah, I think they can pull it off.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:46:06 UTC No. 16224645

the last 3 or 4 /sfg/s have been a trollfest. the funny thing is that people keep falling for them.
sad.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:46:06 UTC No. 16224646

>>16224631
it will be counted when they build a wet workshop out of it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:46:10 UTC No. 16224647

>>16224619
Talking about SMART for Vulcan =/= actually implementing it for Vulcan.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:46:51 UTC No. 16224650

>>16224640
it's optimized to throw light mass to high energy orbits (TLI and escape velocity), loading it down for LEO causes inefficiencies for it
Atlas and Vulcan suffer from this problem as well

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:46:56 UTC No. 16224651

>>16224636
>solar panels

Lmao.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:47:06 UTC No. 16224652

>>16224631
k, 200 t expendable. Pretty sure 150 t is the realistic number

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:47:14 UTC No. 16224653

>>16224608
>Bait and switching the success of Falcon 9 with Le Shartship
On schedule

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:48:10 UTC No. 16224655

>>16224637
some subsequent version will get to 100 tons, whether that is through making it longer and bigger or lighter or a combination of the two (most likely) doesn't really matter
what matters is the max mass and $/kg to orbit

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:48:49 UTC No. 16224656

>>16224653
>Admits falcon 9 is a success
See you in 5 years when you have to admit starship is as well

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:48:53 UTC No. 16224657

>>16224514
I KNEEL

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:49:23 UTC No. 16224659

>>16224653
yeah, not like its made by the same company and already very far down the path to being fully operational

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:49:50 UTC No. 16224661

>>16224633
Shittle had some major design flaws. The final stretch of reentry still was a safer design than the last second kick flips Musk is cooking.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:50:23 UTC No. 16224662

>>16224613
Falcon Heavy cannot lift more total mass than Falcon 9 due to structural limitations.

Counting Saturn V's third stage as payload but not the Shuttle orbiter?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:51:24 UTC No. 16224665

>>16224656
They will say SpaceX is succesful only because of government subsidies (totaling $3 million).
The EDS copium comes from a bottomless supply.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:51:53 UTC No. 16224667

>>16224653
>>16224659
and it's not like we haven't been talking about the success of the company and not a specific launch vehicle this whole time or anything lol
SpaceX kick ass

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:52:55 UTC No. 16224670

>>16224662
what gets me is counting the S-IVB but not the Starship orbiter
>>16224665
>$3 million
lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:53:01 UTC No. 16224671

>>16224661
safety depends on the reliability of the system
its not impossible (I think its actually likely) that the flip manuever of Starship will become so normal and reliable its actually boring

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:53:05 UTC No. 16224672

>>16224661
Starship can and will be safer than shuttle, all they need to do is have a failure rate of less than 1/300. With enough flights, they'll achieve that.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:53:35 UTC No. 16224675

>>16224633
>Shuttle has 2 catastrophic failures in 135 flights including all tests
>"Shut it down!"
>Starship has 3 catastrophic failures and 0 orbiter recoveries in 4 test flights
>"Mars colony in 2 more weeks"
Kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:54:47 UTC No. 16224677

>>16224624
Musk is running a hardware company like a software company. Run, debug, repeat. Your comparisons don't work.

🗑️ B4RK0N (300 IQ) &#039;kneel&#039; at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:55:50 UTC No. 16224678

>>16224677
Fatty

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:55:59 UTC No. 16224679

>16224675
Do the numerous explosions that falcon 9 experienced in it's test campaign mean that it's currently a failure?
Clearly the answer is no.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:57:45 UTC No. 16224684

>>16224679
Anon if it explodes during testing it's automatically a failure. Doesn't matter if it goes on to completely change the space industry and start a new era in space flight.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:58:45 UTC No. 16224685

>>16224684
>if it explodes during testing it's automatically a failure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvim4rsNHkQ

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:58:45 UTC No. 16224686

>>16224675
>equating Shuttle killing astronauts on two seperate operational flights with Starship's iterative development

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:59:00 UTC No. 16224687

>>16224659
>>16224667
>Soviets design plenty of working rockets but the N1 was a meme
>SpaceX designs plenty of working rockets but the Shartship is a meme
>"No it's all or nothing anon!!!!!"
Meds

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:59:04 UTC No. 16224689

>>16224675
Disingenuous and lame, post for real or don't bother

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 15:59:08 UTC No. 16224690

>>16224662
>Falcon Heavy cannot lift more total mass than Falcon 9 due to structural limitations
(unproven)
>Counting Saturn V's third stage as payload but not the Shuttle orbiter?
The orbiter's mass at orbital altitude is debatable. It's at least 78000 kg

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:00:11 UTC No. 16224692

>>16224687
N1 would've worked, it would have been better than the Saturn V.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:00:39 UTC No. 16224694

>>16224685
I don't see spacex recovering from this one tbdesu

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:01:03 UTC No. 16224695

>>16224692
No capability to test fire engines whatsoever ensured that it would never succeed.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:02:05 UTC No. 16224697

>>16224687
don't put words in my mouth, the N1 was a funny meme
the Soviets designed one (1) working rocket, btw

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:03:08 UTC No. 16224699

>>16224695
wasn't that being implemented on the very next test flight that got cancelled?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:03:11 UTC No. 16224700

The post IFT threads are fucking awful man. I want to go back to discussing how to make Venus into a fully mosquito based ecology

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:03:48 UTC No. 16224701

>>16224684
This is actually an analogue era mindset from back when the only way to get testing data was to recover the test article.

Flight 4 would be a failure under those standards because both stages are at the bottom of the ocean, except in reality SpaceX has a treasure trove of priceless data now which has allowed each iterative flight to leapfrog the last.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:03:49 UTC No. 16224702

the tourists aren't the trolls, they're the posters unironically arguing with the trolls. but thread oldfags should have a little empathy and remember that there was a time when we thought these sort of arguments were the most interesting thing in the world, too.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:04:19 UTC No. 16224704

>>16224697
>the Soviets designed one (1) working rocket, btw
and it still works. it works so well that even yuropoors use it

they also designed and built some of the best rocket engines out there,,, some 60 ears ago

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:04:23 UTC No. 16224705

>>16224700
could mosquitos survive on Venus as it exists today? I propose a 4ASS probe laden with them to find out

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:04:29 UTC No. 16224706

>>16224624
Ok, see you tomorrow when you still don't know what an FTS is

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:04:37 UTC No. 16224707

>>16224700
mosquitos are banned, but step one you need to freeze out all of the CO2 in the atmosphere and process it into limestone
step two you need to ship half of the nitrogen to Mars

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:04:52 UTC No. 16224708

>>16224686
>Le iterative development
Every space program has used iterative development. The difference is that the successful ones test extensively and have minimal catastrophic failure rates, the ones that show clear patterns of total loss of rocket are typically abandoned. For example, Falcon 9 had 1 test flight with total loss of the rocket during hundreds of test flights whereas Shartship blew up the first three (on purpose though!)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:05:16 UTC No. 16224711

>>16224699
NK-15 was to be replaced with NK-33 for the N-1F, which was never built.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:06:06 UTC No. 16224712

>>16224704
the Europeans USED to use it, before Russia committed political and military suicide on their neighbor
>>16224702
these conversations would be more interesting if people argued in good faith instead of being disingenuous about it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:06:36 UTC No. 16224713

>>16224692
Now THIS is good troll feed

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:06:37 UTC No. 16224714

>>16224700
Parasites will not make it off this quarantine world, NO TICKS NO LEECHES NO MOSQUITOS ARE TO LEAVE EARTH, EVER.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:07:08 UTC No. 16224715

>>16224711
oh okay, it was two test flights away, my bad

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:08:30 UTC No. 16224718

>>16224712
>the Europeans USED to use it, before Russia committed political and military suicide on their neighbor
so what? are we talking about technical or political matters?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:08:50 UTC No. 16224719

>>16224629
Yeah sure, but whats going to happen when your competition doesn't develop reusable rockets because they just didn't

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:09:59 UTC No. 16224722

>>16224706
>Boosters fail to separate
>Forced to blow up your ship
>"This means it worked, you don't understand what an FTS is"
Twitter tourists have a maximum IQ of 75

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:11:09 UTC No. 16224725

>>16224718
they're a little bit intertwined here lol
>>16224722
when has that ever happened to anybody in the history of ever?
shit, it's literally only the russians isn't it
you're a Russian shill sent to destabilize the general

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:11:21 UTC No. 16224726

>>16224701
Yeah new data collectiong methods are what allow them to toss the test article away but oldspace jerkoffs see boom boom and think "failure"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:12:55 UTC No. 16224729

>>16224580
Starlink is a cover story for Brilliant Pebbles.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:13:05 UTC No. 16224730

>>16224722
Man fuck off with this gay shit, nobody's laughing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:13:24 UTC No. 16224731

>>16224714
What about my pet leech?
Euro leeches are good for you, you know.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:14:26 UTC No. 16224734

>>16224661
Starship is designed to do its landing flip with the thrust of one engine

Yeah, landing a plane is safe. Too bad you have to get through the ice and foam strikes you can't do shit about because they didn't put the orbiter on top. Meanwhile starship can take plasma directly inside a surface control hinge and still make it through.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:15:02 UTC No. 16224735

>>16224718
They overlap significantly. The ISS was built after the fall of the USSR for a reason. The U.S. abandoned international space cooperation and started relying on private companies spamming comm sats to boost payload numbers in 2011 after the Wolf Amendment banned working with the CNSA.
In reality we're closer to ASATs destroying the internet than we are to colonizing Mars, but don't tell the twitter tourists or they'll melt down

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:16:07 UTC No. 16224737

>>16224731
Eaten before leaving Earth's SOI. Leave all parasites here, there's no reason to take those vile things offworld and infect somewhere else with them.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:17:10 UTC No. 16224740

>>16224675
It really is the difference between can you fix the failure mode or can you not. It would be insane to keep flying the shuttle when further deaths couldn't be prevented. Every reason starship has failed has been fixed for the next flight so far.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:19:49 UTC No. 16224743

>>16224642
>b-b-but spacex owns those payloads they are launching. t-t-hey own over half of earth's satellites, they are losing!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:20:28 UTC No. 16224745

>>16224737
There's nothing wrong with leeches

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:20:37 UTC No. 16224746

>>16224707
>limestone
Too much calcium. Just freeze it into dry ice and mass driver it towards Mars. It doesn't matter if it evaporates mid flight if the trajectory is good
>>16224714
You don't understand anon, Venus gets much more solar energy than Earth, to the point where plants would have the required energy to make fruit filled with blood. It is perfect. Leeches on giant mosquitos, giant mosquitos feeding on little mosquitoes feeding on blood fruit. Beautiful

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:20:51 UTC No. 16224747

>>16224665
>$3 million

do you understand this number?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:20:54 UTC No. 16224748

>>16224725
>"You're only saying Shartship blew up because you don't know what FTS is but if you mention why they triggered FTS then you're a Russian double agent"
My word the /pol/ and twitter lurkers are unhinged today

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:22:03 UTC No. 16224752

>>16224747
$3 million is nothing in the launch business.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:22:44 UTC No. 16224754

>>16224665
That figure was based on disclosed subsidies, but I read an article that texas gave something like 15 million. And low interest on loans counts for something.

But yeah, it's probably around half of a falcon 9 launch

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:22:49 UTC No. 16224755

>>16224745
Get your own damn food, bloodsucker
>>16224746
Nightmare world, prime candidate for sterilization from orbit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:24:21 UTC No. 16224759

>>16224748
mental illness is a fucked up thing. lack of logical and critical thought is even worse IMO.
I wonder about these "people". how old are they? are all of them zoomers, millenials, boomers or just retards who are unable to separate different factors and think the world is black and white?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:24:37 UTC No. 16224760

>>16224752
>I understand this number

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQeKlL0fOaU

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:25:12 UTC No. 16224761

>>16224746
>too much calcium
you need to be able to use it as a building material, anon, and Mars already has enough CO2 in my opinion
they can have a few million tons as a treat but most of it needs to stay where it is and change form
you're also forgetting the most important part of any mosquito based ecosystem, the giant dragonflies
>>16224748
>fuck, he's got me, I'd better call him a twitter tourist and tell him to take his medication, there's no way he can come back from that
you didn't mention noncon buttsex or blowjobs at all so in hindsight you're probably not actually a Russian
anyway here have an image depicting you as a retard, that'll show you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:26:05 UTC No. 16224763

>>16224755
we literally farm european leeches for use in medicine, they're almost extinct outside of leech farms.
ticks and mosquito I agree with, they should be exterminated, not leeches.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:27:24 UTC No. 16224765

>>16224761
Intelligent fairyposter. I kneel to your oldgod status.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:28:05 UTC No. 16224767

>>16224740
>Implying there weren't 22 successful manned shuttle missions between 2005 and 2011
>Implying the number of catastrophic failures by Shartship didn't surpass the entire 30 year shuttle program after 3 launches
>"We'll perfect it though I promise"
You are delusional and I can't wait to see the cope when Shartship kills a manned crew

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:29:48 UTC No. 16224768

>>16224599
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L4PEbjSqC7A

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:30:10 UTC No. 16224769

>>16224599
They know deep down that this means we're on the fast path to first stage reuse and Starlink v2, which lets them earn money on ship recovery test flights.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:30:19 UTC No. 16224770

>>16224767
>22 successful manned shuttle missions between 2005 and 2011
I forgot how utterly shit the shuttle was holy shit. They couldn't even launch it unmanned.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:30:39 UTC No. 16224771

>>16224722
Use your PTS

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:31:31 UTC No. 16224773

>>16224743
>Spamming comm sats means Mars colony in 2 more weeks
You've made clear in the last 2 threads that your hobby isn't space exploration, it's rimming Musk's business ventures

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:35:47 UTC No. 16224779

>>16224431
>>16224438
>>16224454
>>16224468
He's not being serious, anons.
https://warosu.org/sci/?task=search&search_text=take+a+moment+to+depreciate

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:36:24 UTC No. 16224780

>>16224773
>>Spamming comm sats means Mars colony in 2 more weeks
kind of. The first step to mars colonization is lowering cost of mass to orbit.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:37:00 UTC No. 16224781

>>16224770
>The program that designed reusable rockets for manned flights was shit because it launched manned flights and reused its rockets
Quality b8

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:37:10 UTC No. 16224782

>>16224773
M8 you thought the Saturn IB was used to put the LM into lunar orbit, you don't know a damn thing about space flight. The only reason you're in this thread is to seethe about Elon.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:38:07 UTC No. 16224786

>>16224521
obsessed

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:41:34 UTC No. 16224791

>>16224687
I would have loved to see N1 go forward, where are you getting this idea?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:43:42 UTC No. 16224794

>>16224781
not b8, that's a rate of ~3.7 launches per year, with a useful payload of ~29000kg each, so 107300kg to orbit each year.
That's pathetic without even accounting for how expensive the shuttle was.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:43:44 UTC No. 16224795

>>16224708
Falcon 9 had like 10 failed landing attempts you dumb nigger

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:44:45 UTC No. 16224799

total baiter death

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:45:37 UTC No. 16224802

>>16224791
he's trolling you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:46:59 UTC No. 16224804

>>16224767
>22
They were trying to fly it as little as possible lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:47:49 UTC No. 16224805

>genuine schizo is shitting up /sfg/ for couple of days now

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:49:06 UTC No. 16224809

As an unfortunate side effect of being primarily made up of spaceflight autists, /sfg/ is only capable of identifying less than 50% of the bait that is posted as bait.
The bait that /sfg/ can detect, it cannot resist replying to with spaceflight facts.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:50:16 UTC No. 16224811

>>16224773
This is the first time I've talked to a shitposter about marketshare/payload/starlink. You're schizoing out

Also no I'm trying to fix your retarded expectations and save you from disappointment, for some reason lmao. Maybe I should spend my sunday on someone else

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:51:07 UTC No. 16224813

>>16224809
replying to bait with spaceflight facts is like half the purpose of the general
personally I would prefer to reply with spaceflight facts to genuine curiosity instead but what can you do

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:51:32 UTC No. 16224815

>>16224421
>The biggest thing in spaceflight in decades just happened
Your mom cured her AIDS? Congrats, you can fuck her raw again with out worry.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:52:28 UTC No. 16224816

if you don't respond with truth to bullshit lies then less well-read anons will just accept that the lies were the truth. it sucks but you really have to push back to blatant delusional bullshit like this twitter tourist who for whatever reason has let Elon dominate his thoughts. it's especially sad since I don't even the EDS guys are even aware of how far along V2 is or that spacex has 4 more v1s ready to test and no reason not to since they've already been built

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:52:34 UTC No. 16224818

>>16224781
It launched our national debt and scrubbed our school teacher population

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:53:23 UTC No. 16224819

>>16224816
>if you don't respond with truth to bullshit lies then less well-read anons will just accept that the lies were the truth.
so?
>it sucks but you really have to push back to blatant delusional bullshit like this
no you don't. stop.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:54:54 UTC No. 16224820

https://youtu.be/bvim4rsNHkQ?si=pnJOUZjQnYbLvQAG
Do you honestly think the Falcon 9 will ever be fully reusable? Look how many times it crashed or fell over. Never gonna happen

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:55:39 UTC No. 16224823

>>16224819
Sorry but it's for the culture

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:56:13 UTC No. 16224824

>>16224780
>Implying NASA expenditure hasn't consistently been around 0.5% of US GDP even during the peak of the Space Race
>Implying labor budgets for engineers and scientists doesn't make up a significant portion of program budgets
>Implying SpaceX doesn't cut labor costs by having the R&D team work 50-80 hour weeks on salaries designed for 40 hours
>Implying private companies even disclose their budgets
>Implying Musk hasn't claimed the Starship costs $10 million per launch when independent estimates put it closer to $100 million
>Implying the 4 test flights haven't already made the one partial success just as expensive as one successful shuttle launch/recovery
Please tell me you didn't actually fall for the "cost lowering" meme anon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:58:14 UTC No. 16224827

>>16224819
not that anon, but a future where sfg is replaced by the tourists whos foundation was the flow of current event trolls - sounds pretty real to me. I've seen communities and entire boards on 4chan transform. You have to gatekeep.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:58:56 UTC No. 16224830

>>16224708
>Every space program has used iterative development
except the shittle

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 16:59:40 UTC No. 16224831

>>16224824
Being cheaper than your competitor is important in the increasingly-commercialized sector of space, yes.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:00:02 UTC No. 16224832

>>16224824
thanks for using the same images so I know which posts to skip

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:01:04 UTC No. 16224834

>>16224782
>Implying the Apollo 7 entered lunar orbit
Based 50 IQ subhuman reading comprehension moment
>You
Meds

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:03:15 UTC No. 16224839

>>16224834
>Implying the Apollo 7 entered lunar orbit
Yes, that's what you said yesterday. You said the Saturn IB was used to put the LM into lunar orbit where it rendezvoused with the CM, and that Saturn V launches were only used for the missions that had lunar rovers.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:04:04 UTC No. 16224841

>>16224794
>107300kg
Of what? Supplies for the ISS, or comm sats for selling high speed internet?
>inb4 "we don't NEED to test living in space in order to colonize space"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:06:16 UTC No. 16224843

>>16224834
>Meds
People who use that as an insult are always ironically the ones on psych meds. especially given you've used that reply like a half dozen times over 2 days (what a weekend you are having too btw)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:07:15 UTC No. 16224845

>>16224841
SpaceX isn't trying to colonize space, that's just the PR cover story for building Brilliant Pebbles. Building Brilliant Pebbles entails putting tens of thousands of satellites (kinetic interceptors) into LEO. SpaceX is on the precipice of being able to do this.

Hence, shilling is off the charts.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:09:05 UTC No. 16224847

>>16224824
You already posted this gif
>>Implying NASA expenditure hasn't consistently been around 0.5% of US GDP even during the peak of the Space Race
From memory, NASA expenditure was 2 to 5% of GDP during the space race.
>>Implying labor budgets for engineers and scientists doesn't make up a significant portion of program budgets
Yes, most of the program budget of oldspace is wasted on do nothing jobs spread across multiple states for more gibs from congress. SpaceX doesn't do this, has fewer employees than ULA BO etc, and is therefore a lot more efficient.
>>Implying the 4 test flights haven't already made the one partial success just as expensive as one successful shuttle launch/recovery
With how expensive the shuttle was, I wouldn't be surprised.
The cost lowering is real, if they were bleeding money musk would have run out by now. Modern independent cost estimates show profit margins are high. There are multiple articles seething about how spacex is abusing their monopoly to price gouge and extract huge profit margins since the cost of a falcon 9 launch is significantly lower than their price.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:09:16 UTC No. 16224848

>>16224845
(The shills probably don't even know this is why they're here. They're useful idiots of the CCP programmed by reddit/etc.)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:09:56 UTC No. 16224849

>>16224839
>"The LM was a success on the first test flight"
>First test flight was Apollo 7
>"Show me a video of the Saturn V landing"
>"Saturn V didn't carry the LM (on the first test flight) it was the Saturn IB)
>"OMG R U SAYING THE SATURN IB WAS USED FOR THR MOON LANDING??"
you are a schizophrenic dumbass and you should either go back to posting anime or go back to twitter. or both

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:11:42 UTC No. 16224850

>>16224849
This was you yesterday:
>>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

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:12:19 UTC No. 16224852

>>16224841
Falcon 9 has a near monopoly on the global launch market, so it carries ISS resupplies, crewed missions, internet satellites, research satellites. Everything and anything.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:13:52 UTC No. 16224854

>>16224845
>Building and blowing up more expensive death trap rockets is all part of the master plan to use the already marketable MLVs to do a heckin Kesslerino
Kek
>>16224848
>If you deny this retardation then you're a Chinese/Russian double agent
L M A O

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:15:11 UTC No. 16224856

>>16224820
how many failed landings was that again?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:16:42 UTC No. 16224857

>>16224850
I didn't think the /g/tard was quite this dumb.
I thought that whole "turning around and docking" thing in apollo 11 was iconic.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:17:08 UTC No. 16224858

>>16224854
>he believes in the reddit kessler meme in LEO
Once again, you prove that you don't know anything about spaceflight. Everybody here knows that debris in LEO decays in mere years. Some space debris is a small price to pay for strategic missile defense.

(Not to mention that wouldn't happen in the first place because the entire point is deterrence.)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:17:15 UTC No. 16224859

>>16224824
bait or mental retardation? who knows

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:17:51 UTC No. 16224861

>>16224699
Glushko cancelled cause he hated korolev so much he'd rather see the americans win then his enemies rocket be the one to get them to the moon.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:17:51 UTC No. 16224862

>>16224850
>"This was you"
>"It was real in my mind"
inb4 you're the anon who kept saying "he's responding to himself" because he couldn't comprehend that mocking Shartship is a popular sentiment. The thread got a lot better after your bed time btw

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:17:53 UTC No. 16224863

>>16224845
fuck you brilliant pebbles poster

Every time you spam this shit it makes me think about fruity pebbles. And every time I eat them I'm fucking disappointed because they're fucking shit. So just stop

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:18:22 UTC No. 16224865

>>16224857
He's obviously never even seen Apollo 13, which explains all of these matters clearly and memorably. His spaceflight knowledge is much worse than the average normie.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:18:41 UTC No. 16224866

>>16224819
silence, bolshevik
your campaign of falsehoods WILL be repelled even if it makes this place fucking unuseable

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:19:45 UTC No. 16224871

what is the final solution to /g/ retards infesting /sfg/?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:20:07 UTC No. 16224874

>>16224863
kek
I'll never stop.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:20:26 UTC No. 16224876

did jwst find carbon in the early universe?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:20:43 UTC No. 16224877

>>16224861
Hate Glushko, what kind of human being snitches to the NKVD?
Hypergolics are shit too, evil chemicals.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:21:15 UTC No. 16224879

>>16224841
we have cargo dragon for that. what are you even posting about now

Do you think we can colonize space with the shuttle? what the fuck am I reading. Stop watching michael bay movies

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:21:28 UTC No. 16224881

>>16224820
>fully reusable
they already gave up on that, they're sticking to first stage reuse instead
>>16224861
yeah, think about where civilization could be if the competing superpower wasn't completely dedicated from a cultural level to shooting themselves in the foot repeatedly and continuously

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:21:48 UTC No. 16224882

>>16224871
/sfg/ stands for science fiction technology

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:22:07 UTC No. 16224883

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:22:20 UTC No. 16224886

>>16224876
The early universe is too far away to ever be relevant to space flight.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:23:11 UTC No. 16224887

>>16224877
say that to my face motherfucker and not online

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:24:39 UTC No. 16224889

>>16224824
>independent estimates put it closer to $100 million
Independ estimates put it around 28 million dollars.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:26:09 UTC No. 16224890

>EDS sufferer is reduced to spamming the same strawman over and over

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:27:08 UTC No. 16224893

>>16224890
That's what inevitably happens when you're:
>flat wrong
>have no knowledge of the subject matter

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:27:23 UTC No. 16224894

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1799818839649062994

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:27:27 UTC No. 16224895

>>16224852
>15/51
>"Near monopoly"
I'm all for Falcon 9 being used for ISS supply missions but let's not tell outright lies here. The Russians are still doing the majority of ISS launch operations (I know, I know, call me a putler shill for mentioning this)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:28:26 UTC No. 16224899

>>16224895
EDS shitter, see >>16224509

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:32:00 UTC No. 16224903

>>16224895
>global launch market
>oh he must mean ISS launch operations because that's what I needed him to say

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:32:02 UTC No. 16224904

>>16224886
>early universe is too far away
>Retard doesn't understand its already gone

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:32:24 UTC No. 16224905

>>16224894
>They have a zero-g indicator now too
I love that this tradition is spreading

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:34:18 UTC No. 16224909

>>16224532
>>16224535
The fuck are you two retards smoking
Perun is always calm and composed. His voice is fucking average as well

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:35:13 UTC No. 16224912

>>16224895
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncrewed_spaceflights_to_the_International_Space_Station
In the modern day, it's about half and half. Also, Roscosmos also resupplies the ISS and they aren't interested in buying a cargo dragon flight no matter how cheap it is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:35:53 UTC No. 16224913

>>16224904

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:36:22 UTC No. 16224914

>>16224909
No matter the subject he always uses a whiny tone like he's annoyed he has to explain whatever he's talking about to his audience. His tone is that of a calculus teacher explaining basic algebra to his class remedial of idiots.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:36:51 UTC No. 16224915

>>16224613
>I can pick up a box that weighs 30 pounds and I weigh 300
>Therefore I can lift 330 pounds

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:37:07 UTC No. 16224916

>>16224913
lmfao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:37:40 UTC No. 16224918

>>16224858
>Only mentioning debris
>Not the mass of sats themselves
>"It's a small price to pay for ASATs"
>"NASA astronomers are r*ddit cope but a venture capitalist's tweets are gospel"
Does the DoD pay you extra to shitpost on the weekends?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:38:24 UTC No. 16224920

>>16224918
>>>Not the mass of sats themselves
The mass of the interceptors is trivial for Starship. That's the entire point of Starship. Do try to keep up.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:39:09 UTC No. 16224922

>>16224881
>They're sticking to first stage reuse instead
Careful anon you're gonna bait out the "second stage doesn't exist" schizo from the last thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:39:32 UTC No. 16224923

"I don't think the pebbles are all that brilliant"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:39:47 UTC No. 16224924

>>16224914
If you think that's whiny, you should get your hearing checked because you're defective in the extreme
probably some brain damage from all the high blood pressure ass pain you replaced your personality with

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:40:04 UTC No. 16224925

>>16224912
desu if they didn't resupply the station, fully half the docking ports on the station wouldn't be usable since they aren't the same as the western half's

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:40:19 UTC No. 16224927

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:41:33 UTC No. 16224928

>>16224927
That deluge plate is turning into one incredible piece of industrial art

If they replace it I hope it gets installed somewhere as a display

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:41:50 UTC No. 16224929

>>16224923
Brilliant is relative to the Smart Rocks proposal. But both terms are relative to the 1980s, the interceptors themselves are now trivial technology and all that remains is to complete the creation of rockets capable of launching satellite constellations that large. That's the only remaining piece of the puzzle and SpaceX is well on their way to solving it.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:41:51 UTC No. 16224930

>>16224915
But as long as you can jump with it, that counts. Put on another 50 pounds but do a few calf raises so you can still get a vertical. If you fail, just commit suicide and it won't count

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:44:08 UTC No. 16224933

>>16224924
Are you austrialian or something? Maybe you don't hear his whining because it's familiar and normal to you. The way he draaaaaws out some wooooorrdsssss makes him sound very annoyed at everything. And his frequent casual use of sarcasm certainly doesn't help.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:45:12 UTC No. 16224936

"I don't think this defense initiative is all that strategic"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:45:48 UTC No. 16224938

>>16224920
>Knows that "mass" in that context referred to the secondary definition synonymous with "abundance in number"
>Brings up Shartship mass to LEO to deflect the issue
No, the DoD can't be paying you overtime. Not for these low quality posts

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:48:36 UTC No. 16224945

>>16224933
local mutt doesn't understand what dry humour is, needs jokes explained to him in detail to process them
We do apologize if the lack of flashing lights and fortnite sound effects bored your neurotic ADHD ipad baby brain

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:49:05 UTC No. 16224946

>>16224938
Both the mass and the quantity of interceptors needed for Brilliant Pebbles will be trivial for Starship. It's already borderline feasible with Falcon 9, as demonstrated by Starlink.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:50:53 UTC No. 16224950

>>16224945
Perun draws out words in virtually every sentence he speaks. That's not for comedic effect, it's just the way he chooses to talk.
His sarcasm is for comedic effect, but sarcasm is the immature teenage sort of humor that adults eventually come to find grating.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:53:22 UTC No. 16224956

>>16224847
>From memory
Your memory is quite poor. That or you're confusing GDP for the federal budget, in which case your IQ is quite poor.
>Making fewer salaried employees work double shifts and do 90 gorrillion launches a year to bring down per-launch labor costs is LE EFFICIENT
Tell me you're too young to have witnessed Challenger without telling me you're too young to have witnessed Challenger.
>Defending Starship by pivoting to Falcon 9
Right on cue

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:56:15 UTC No. 16224965

>>16224645
grats

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:56:23 UTC No. 16224966

>>16224950
>Mutt tries to assert their personal sense of humour is the correct "adult" one
>again
>for the billionth fucking time
Nigger, you're a fat NEET on a mongolian basket weaving forum, you aren't the arbiter of anything

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:57:13 UTC No. 16224967

>>16224946
>"How can putting too many sats into LEO cause Kessler syndrome if we are capable of putting too many sats into LEO"
You can't actually be this stupid. I'm entirely convinced that you're a DoD shill ever since that "small price to pay for a good ASAT" line

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:57:31 UTC No. 16224968

>>16224966
>mutt
fair criticism, unfortunately you have no space program.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:58:38 UTC No. 16224971

>>16224966
>he still hasn't learned that sarcasm is annoying

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:59:30 UTC No. 16224973

>>16224956
Don't know what you mean with the challeger stuff, that accident was caused by mormon cronyism.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 17:59:38 UTC No. 16224974

>>16224967
>he's still on about the reddit kessler meme
>IN LOW EARTH ORBIT
blatant EDS tourist

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:00:04 UTC No. 16224975

>>16224816
just report the trolls

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:00:24 UTC No. 16224976

>>16224924
he's your fav youtuber huh. if it matter his voice also annoys me

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:01:19 UTC No. 16224983

>>16224967
>small price to pay for a good ASAT
Who are you quoting? Nobody said this.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:01:26 UTC No. 16224984

>>16224975
you must be new to /sci/

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:02:13 UTC No. 16224987

>>16224922
second stages exist
second stage boosters do not

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:02:30 UTC No. 16224989

>>16224975
/sci/ doesn't have jannies
Reports don't have anywhere to go

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:04:04 UTC No. 16224992

>>16224984
I know the jannies do nothing but replying is even worse because it actively encourages the retards

>>16224989
a guy who is definitely not me got a few short terms bans in the past

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:04:32 UTC No. 16224994

>>16224881
>>16224922
hey second stage booster anon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:04:44 UTC No. 16224996

>>16224983
ctrl + f thank me later

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:05:08 UTC No. 16224997

>>16224956
I looked it up and it was 2 to 2.5% of annual gdp over 10 years, if anyone was interested.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:06:34 UTC No. 16225002

>>16224992
the last janny had a stick up his butt regarding pictures of fairies and tried to ban me for them, but he got schwacked by the mods pretty quickly and now we just have nobody as far as I can tell

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:07:05 UTC No. 16225005

>>16224996
ASAT != strategic missile defence anon
ASAT is anti satellite, which means shooting down satellites either from earth or space.
Strategic Missile Defence refers to shooting down nukes, which are not satellites because they don't get into orbit.
I'm not sure you understand what brilliant pebbles is.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:07:22 UTC No. 16225006

>>16224881
>they already gave up on that, they're sticking to first stage reuse instead

post citation, the seethe you generate in this thread would be historic. Starship would unravel and it would just be a big falcon 9 at best

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:07:26 UTC No. 16225007

>>16224881
Dammit bro I warned you. He's back
>>16224987
>>16224994

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:08:54 UTC No. 16225011

>>16225006
they've given up on Falcon 9 second stage reuse, that's the point of the Starship program, please try to keep up
>>16225007
what did you mean by this

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:09:32 UTC No. 16225013

>>16224996
Strategic missile defense isn't ASAT. Brilliant Pebbles is for swatting ICBMs, ideally during boost phase (no orbital debris at all.) But even it performs orbital interceptions and litters LEO with a choking cloud of debris, that would be a hell of a lot better than letting those missiles reach their targets. Some space debris in exchange for saving millions of lives from nuclear bombardment is literally a small price to pay. Not least because IN LOW EARTH ORBIT that debris will clear in mere years.

And as already stated, this scenario won't happen in the first place because the deterrent effect of having Brilliant Pebbles would prevent anybody from trying in the first place.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:09:34 UTC No. 16225015

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:10:29 UTC No. 16225017

>>16225007
see, they call it a "second stage" not a "booster" you mouthbreathing cretin

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:10:36 UTC No. 16225018

>>16225006
Someone posted a vid link in the last thread but the cope became
>Second stage doesn't exist
>He doesn't say that I'm not watching it
>Leaves the thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:10:48 UTC No. 16225019

>>16224996
Strategic missile defense isn't ASAT. Brilliant Pebbles is for swatting ICBMs, ideally during boost phase (no orbital debris at all.) But even IF it performs orbital interceptions and litters LEO with a choking cloud of debris, that would be a hell of a lot better than letting those missiles reach their targets. Some space debris in exchange for saving millions of lives from nuclear bombardment is literally a small price to pay. Not least because IN LOW EARTH ORBIT that debris will clear in mere years.

And as already stated, this scenario won't happen in the first place because the deterrent effect of having Brilliant Pebbles would prevent anybody from trying in the first place.

>>16225015
Yes, that's an ASAT test. That's not Brilliant Pebbles.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:10:58 UTC No. 16225022

>wordcels

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:12:00 UTC No. 16225025

>>16225019
>that's an ASAT test
what that is is a spaceplane

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:12:48 UTC No. 16225028

>>16225022
It's important to speak the language of spaceflight, and to understand how it works.
You should read "Ignition!" it's a great book which will teach you a lot about this stuff and allow you to fit in more.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:13:14 UTC No. 16225029

>>16225011
Oh my bad anon. There's a different anon here that was posting that elon won't recover starships "second stage booster" yesterday. I didnt realize your post was about F9

He's right here btw >>16225007

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:14:11 UTC No. 16225031

>>16225019
I would personally trade the lives of every single human being in New York and Los Angeles for a single satellite in LEO

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:15:11 UTC No. 16225034

>>16224820
>Do you honestly think the Falcon 9 will ever be fully reusable?
Nobody here thinks that. Any pretext of making the second stage reusable ended several years ago. You would know this already if you weren't a tourist.
>Look how many times it crashed or fell over.
Pic related, EDS shitter.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:15:41 UTC No. 16225036

>>16225029
yes, I'm still seething about him
how are you even that stupid, is it an ESL thing? does some other language translate their word for "stage" to "booster" in some dictionary?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:16:12 UTC No. 16225037

>>16225022
Booster means first stage and always will. It wouldn't even make sense to use to to describe any engine and any stage of the rocket. Because if you ask, "what is the booster boosting", the answer is "another booster of course". It becomes a meaningless term. Or you could just know what the fuck you are saying before posting

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:16:54 UTC No. 16225039

>>16225025
Yes, the F-15A is a spaceplane. The government doesn't want you to know this but it's fully space capable. I flew one to Venus last week.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:18:29 UTC No. 16225045

>>16225037
The phrase itself is uncanny to a spaceflight enthusiast. This phrase instantly identified him as a tourist.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:20:14 UTC No. 16225047

>>16225017
>Liquid rocket [redacted] aren't LE REAL
Which is why those Shartship tests didn't require self destruction after leaks in the liquid oxygen [redacted]s, right?>>16225011
>They gave up on second stage recovery by launching a more expensive and less successful project with 0% recovery of any stages
kek okay pal starship lemon status rescinded

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:21:36 UTC No. 16225049

>>16225047
it's incredible how your retardation, feigned or real, is causing me to seethe to such an insane degree

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:22:59 UTC No. 16225050

>>16224905
Have the Chinese done it yet?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:24:37 UTC No. 16225052

>>16225039
I'd like to interject for a moment. What you are referring to as a spaceplane is in fact ASAT/f-15 or as I've recently taken to calling it, ASAT plus F-15. F-15 is not a spaceplane unto itself, but rather another component to a fully functioning spaceplane made useful by the ASAT missile, space capabilities and vital F-15 launch components comprising a full spaceplane as defined by 4ASS

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:25:19 UTC No. 16225054

im obsessed with womens feet.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:25:56 UTC No. 16225055

We should remove the atmosphere on earth to make spaceflight less difficult.
Imagine if we didn't have to use different rocket engine bells or deal with air resistance.
Don't allow terraformers to get their way and ruin perfectly good atmosphere-less worlds, remind them that they are inferior creatures.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:27:19 UTC No. 16225058

>>16225037
>>16225045
>I'll just pretend that liquid rocket boosters aren't used for second stage propulsion by numerous rockets because my argument has been relegated to semantics

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:27:47 UTC No. 16225059

>>16225058
post one why don't you

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:28:42 UTC No. 16225062

>>16225058
fitting in is important though, it's almost like we know what we're talking about

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:28:50 UTC No. 16225063

>>16225058
Booster refers to either the first stage of a rocket, or stages that burn in parallel to the main first stage. Second stages are not boosters.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:29:15 UTC No. 16225064

>>16225058
a "booster" is vague at best, and it is usually just another way of referring to the first stage on a two stage rocket.
Are you trying to say "engine"? That would make more sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:29:18 UTC No. 16225065

>>16225055
we should remove the atmosphere on earth as part of the TED project

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:36:39 UTC No. 16225071

>>16225063
okay but could you call a Star SRM a "booster"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:36:50 UTC No. 16225072

>>16225065
TED is very compelling as always.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:36:55 UTC No. 16225073

>>16225058
>I'll just pretend im not a tourist who said "starship wont reuse its second stage booster"

Also it's not semantics. Few people would give you shit for calling something the wrong name. What you were saying was wrong anyway and you spent all your time trying to troll before you dropped the phrase

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:38:45 UTC No. 16225075

>>16225059
>>16225062
>>16225063
>>16225064
>"If I post 4 consecutive semantic copes it'll look like everyone is going along with it"
Cool story bro. Liquid rocket boosters are used for secondary propulsion, Starship hasn't recovered any, and you cannot refute this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:39:44 UTC No. 16225077

>EDS poster thinks it's only him and one other person in this thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:41:24 UTC No. 16225081

>>16225075
>secondary propulsion
I've heard of tripropellant, is that close to what this is?
also, don't listen to
>>16225077 (Me)
/sfg/ is just one guy talking to himself and you.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:41:24 UTC No. 16225082

>>16224613
>Shuttle doing 110 tons
lol who made this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:41:26 UTC No. 16225083

>>16225075
you got me

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:41:56 UTC No. 16225085

being intentionally obtuse to garner replies is called "trolling"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:42:45 UTC No. 16225087

>>16225083
kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:43:24 UTC No. 16225088

>>16225073
>"Calling something 'the wrong name''
>"Not semantics"
Fill in the blank: liquid rocket _______

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:43:45 UTC No. 16225089

>>16225088
engine

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:43:55 UTC No. 16225090

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:43:57 UTC No. 16225091

>>16225088
ballsack

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:44:03 UTC No. 16225092

>>16225088
plant

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:44:55 UTC No. 16225096

>>16225088
fleshlight

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:45:39 UTC No. 16225098

"I don't think this rocket is all that liquid"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:45:45 UTC No. 16225099

>>16225088
jackie chan

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:45:46 UTC No. 16225100

>>16225050
Nah, they're all serious business military types. The closest they get are the procedure books they're holding throughout the launch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:46:09 UTC No. 16225101

>>16225089
Wrong
>>16225091
Closer, at least the acronym is correct then kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:46:57 UTC No. 16225102

>>16225089
you could also use "motor" although it would be weird.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:47:22 UTC No. 16225103

>>16225099
Checked

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:49:41 UTC No. 16225105

>>16225034
Are you kidding? That wasn't even bait, that was sarcasm to make fun of the guy saying Starship failed because it exploded.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:51:01 UTC No. 16225108

>>16225102
the engine/motor divide is one of the stranger quirks of English vocabulary.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:51:12 UTC No. 16225109

>Elon Musk, the visionary entrepreneur and founder of SpaceX, has recently announced that he is canceling plans for recovering the second stage booster of the company's ambitious Starship spacecraft. This decision comes as a surprise to many in the industry who have been closely following SpaceX's progress in developing its next-generation rocket system.

>In recent years, Musk has made headlines with his plans for reusable rockets and spacecraft, which he believes are essential for making space travel more affordable and accessible. The Starship program aims to create a fully reusable transportation system that can carry humans to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. However, despite these ambitious goals, Musk has now decided not to pursue the recovery of the second stage booster for the time being.

>The decision appears to be primarily driven by cost considerations. While recovering rocket boosters is an essential part of SpaceX's mission to make space travel more affordable, doing so requires significant resources and investment. In light of these factors, Musk has decided that it would be better for the company to focus its efforts elsewhere at this time.

>Musk explained his reasoning in a series of tweets

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:51:55 UTC No. 16225110

>>16225101
Are you getting confused with SRB's?
solid rocket boosters are specifically these, I think only the energia used liquid rocket boosters, and that only flew like once.
These are called boosters because they attach to the side of the first stage in a modular way.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:53:23 UTC No. 16225114

>>16225109
>chat gpt detected
fa/g/ strikes again

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:53:55 UTC No. 16225116

>>16225110
The reason why the first stage of starship is called a booster is because it's also kind of modular: you don't need it to get to LMO from the surface of mars.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:54:55 UTC No. 16225118

>>16225088
kino

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:56:29 UTC No. 16225121

>>16225116
First stages may always be called boosters.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:56:53 UTC No. 16225122

how long is it going to take for the tourists to leave? I forgot it becomes this bad

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:57:36 UTC No. 16225125

>>16225110
>>16225116
they call things "boosters" because they're big like my cock
I don't really get it but that's what they tell me

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:57:54 UTC No. 16225126

>>16225058
why are you doubling down? this is like the dumbest hill to die on

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:58:48 UTC No. 16225127

>>16225122
this is the way certain parts of this website believe that all communications on the internet should be
those people have brain damage, and should go back to their shitholes so I don't need to think about them

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 18:59:10 UTC No. 16225129

>>16225088
dildo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:00:49 UTC No. 16225131

Guys help I'm going into the primary literature to research for my thesis but I think these "scientists" are using fake terms! It goes all the way back to the 60s, how deep does this "second stage booster" conspiracy go??

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:01:31 UTC No. 16225132

>>16225122
It usually doesn't. it's kind of interesting that different boards have their own different types of low quality tourists.
/pol/ and /x/ schizos are the kind we usually get, and they usually post space is fake stuff for a little while before leaving. Maybe they come back in flare ups sometimes and post the exact same thing again on and off but it peters out and they aren't that bad.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:02:18 UTC No. 16225134

>>16225131
yeah "booster" was kinda a generic term for orbital launchers up through the 60s. you can find a bunch of old stuff just referring to atlas boosters or saturn boosters and they meant the entire rocket.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:02:44 UTC No. 16225135

>>16225131
if you have three or more stage you can have multiple booster stages
in two stage rockets like Starship/Super Heavy, Starship is not a booster, it is being boosted

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:04:34 UTC No. 16225137

>>16225131
odd terminology, and some of these might refer to odd rocket studies with radial boosters on the second stage?
>>16225135 is correct though, even if you use this fringe terminology, starship second stage is still not one.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:05:35 UTC No. 16225139

Holy shit you guys are sperging out about words without me??

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:05:39 UTC No. 16225140

>>16225131
>1 ancient paper
>3 ESL papers
poor showings

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:05:59 UTC No. 16225141

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:06:10 UTC No. 16225143

>all of this because the EDS poster thinks the F9 second stage not being reused is some sort of "gotcha"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:06:40 UTC No. 16225145

>>16225131
sorry chud, language changes with use

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:07:41 UTC No. 16225148

>>16225135
okay but what if we put a Centaur upper stage inside of Starship as a third stage

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:08:46 UTC No. 16225149

>>16225143
pic related: EDS sufferer posting cope and seethe into our blessed thread

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:08:56 UTC No. 16225150

>>16225134
There are hundreds of research papers dated through 2024 that use the term "second stage booster" though. It's pretty obviously a widely used term by actual aerospace engineers and researchers, contrary to what a delusional hobbyist in this thread is claiming. It's clearly a pivot to semantics to avoid confronting the real debate

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:09:41 UTC No. 16225152

>>16225148
then you could call Starship a booster I guess, still a confusing term to use in that context
it would be clearer just to call starship a second stage (not a booster) with a third stage kick-stage

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:09:47 UTC No. 16225153

>>16225143
He said starship yesterday. He must have read about falcon 9 abandoning second stage reuse a long time ago and conflated it with starship

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:10:35 UTC No. 16225156

>>16225150
how many of those papers are posted by ESLs though?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:11:53 UTC No. 16225159

>>16225150
>It's clearly a pivot to semantics to avoid confronting the real debate

That's been done and it wasn't a debate. Starship is recovering its second stage and it's not a booster. Everything you posted was uninformed billionaire spectator garbage

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:12:08 UTC No. 16225160

>>16225152
booster implies inherently expendable in my internal lexicon

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:12:21 UTC No. 16225161

>second stage boosters

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:13:06 UTC No. 16225163

>>16225143
>They're fully reusable
>No actually he never said the second stage boosters were reusable
>Second stage boosters don't exist
>....LE EDS
Thanks for reusing the same anime pics now everyone knows you're the same anon who tried to confidently imply that Saturn V carried the Apollo 7

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:13:09 UTC No. 16225164

>>16225152
>kick stage
this is discriminatory language, it's proper to call them "orbital transfer vehicles" or "space tugs" these days

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:13:27 UTC No. 16225165

>>16225160
Super Heavy is often called a booster and is not expendable

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:13:32 UTC No. 16225166

>>16225156
pretty much all of the modern references are either chinese or indian.
this is from google scholar. Even then it's kind of rare.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:14:33 UTC No. 16225168

>>16225161
cool

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:15:12 UTC No. 16225169

>>16225164
kick stage =/= space tug

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeCI1B-0Jkc

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:15:45 UTC No. 16225170

>>16225159
>Starship is recovering its second stage
How many have they recovered?
>Uninformed billionaire spectator garbage
Project more

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:16:26 UTC No. 16225172

>>16225165
also F9 first stage is a recoverable booster

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:17:29 UTC No. 16225174

>>16225156
>Those don't LE COUNT
Post your AE degree professor

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:18:27 UTC No. 16225177

>>16225163
Nobody said F9 second stages are reusable.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:18:58 UTC No. 16225178

>>16225166
well indians have three stage rockets, in multi-stage rockets you can have multiple booster stages
in any case, Starship is not a booster
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LVM3

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:19:23 UTC No. 16225179

>>16225165
Thanks for the clarification. How many have been recovered?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:19:29 UTC No. 16225182

>>16225165
hmmmmm, you've given me a lot to think about
>>16225169
yeah but a Centaur is obviously an OTV or space tug, the RL10 is capable of relights and modern Centaur has basically all of the ACES improvements rolled into it except for the ZBO stuff (it's too heavy for casual use)
>>16225170
they have had one out of two upper stages make it to a soft splash down in the ocean

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:20:58 UTC No. 16225183

>>16225177
>No actually he never said that
[You are here]

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:21:53 UTC No. 16225184

>>16225178
A booster boosting a booster doesn't make sense.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:22:24 UTC No. 16225185

>>16225179
why do you keep bringing this up like its relevant in any way?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:23:13 UTC No. 16225186

>>16225184
you should play kerbal space program

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:23:25 UTC No. 16225188

>>16225184
The booster is boosting the stack on top of it which has an additional booster and then the kick stage or upper stage

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:25:55 UTC No. 16225190

>>16225182
Why didn't they recover it? 2 more booms?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:26:56 UTC No. 16225191

>>16225186
I have.
>>16225179
This makes me wonder if they're just going to leave superheavy from the last flight just floating there in the gulf.
Can they even transport it? Did they activate the FTS after it flopped?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:28:08 UTC No. 16225192

>>16225190
you're not going to believe me, but it's the fucking government's fault
the FAA and Joe Biden won't let them reenter over land and try to recover the vehicle
something about untested vehicles and populated areas

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:29:31 UTC No. 16225194

> 'this doesn't resemble starlink!' cried the /sfg/ downie

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:30:17 UTC No. 16225195

>>16225185
>"It's fully reusable"
>"How many have been reused?"
>"... EDS troll reee shut up"
Kek okay
>Inb4 circles back to "failed test costs for this one don't count but successful launch costs count for NASA projects"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:31:12 UTC No. 16225196

https://www.vayaspace.com/post/vaya-space-awarded-multiple-patents-for-vortex-hybrid-engine-technology

>vortex flow LOX hybrid engine with 350s Isp
what the fuck

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:31:21 UTC No. 16225197

>>16225191
>Can they even transport it? Did they activate the FTS after it flopped?
i'm pretty sure this is being kept secret. that's why the spacex video didn't show it tipping over.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:41:05 UTC No. 16225203

>>16225088
nigger

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:42:32 UTC No. 16225204

>>16225191
>Can they even transport it?
Kek no. They've yet to even unveil a prototype for a recovery vessel capable of retrieving a Starship

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:44:08 UTC No. 16225206

>>16225197
How dare you spread those conspiracies anon. It's safe and sound and already being refurbished for next month's manned launch
>inb4 source

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:46:57 UTC No. 16225210

>>16225206
source?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:48:03 UTC No. 16225211

>in after source

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:48:46 UTC No. 16225212

>>16225195
not really sure what your argument is really

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:50:52 UTC No. 16225215

>>16225090
i'm gonna cum

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:51:42 UTC No. 16225216

>>16225191
>>16225197
>>16225204
Even if they could push/pull it with tugboats there's no way you could keep that a secret.

I bet they were required to activate fts at engine shutdown. That's why the video cuts before it falls over, and the buoy footage doesn't show it fall over either because they cut the explosion out. They don't want /g/tards coming in here telling us the rocket exploded because they don't know the FTS is normal procedure required by the government

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:51:46 UTC No. 16225217

>>16225210
SHUT EDS TROLL REEEEEEE

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:53:30 UTC No. 16225218

>>16225196
oh interesting they're using polyethylene instead of HTPB-based goop or paraffin

https://www.vayaspace.com/post/from-hobbyist-s-workshop-to-orbital-dreams-the-revolutionary-rise-of-3d-printed-rocket-fuel

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:55:14 UTC No. 16225221

>>16224409
Why is everyone on the Artemis crew jewish?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:57:42 UTC No. 16225223

>>16225216
>They don't want /g/tards coming in here telling us the rocket exploded because they don't know the FTS is normal procedure required by the government
they never needed to use FTS for the f9 water landings did they? don't see why this would be any different.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 19:58:45 UTC No. 16225224

>>16225223
Starship floats when empty and would be a hazard to navigation.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:01:58 UTC No. 16225228

>Flight Termination System
>booster is no longer in flight
semanticbros...

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:05:12 UTC No. 16225236

>>16225228
why do you argue with people in the thread when you are not even familiar with basic jargon? lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:05:18 UTC No. 16225237

what twitter does to a man (vaxxed albeit)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:08:21 UTC No. 16225239

Yup, it's still the weekend.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:10:13 UTC No. 16225242

Kek this thread is unusable what the fuck

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:11:26 UTC No. 16225243

>>16225223
did they ever do a water landing with those? I'm guessing not because a barge can transport it. I guess the best answer would be what happened to any F9s that fell over but didnt explode, if that ever happened

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:12:28 UTC No. 16225244

>>16225228
>booster is no longer in flight

so its recovered, no one needed your concession but thanks anyway lmao

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:12:52 UTC No. 16225245

>>16225243
>i don't know what i'm talking about and instead of taking 1 minute to do minimal research i'll just make shit up off the top of my head and pretend it's useful information

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:13:34 UTC No. 16225247

>>16225239
>>16225242
The last two or three threads have been utterly dreadful, people posting bad bait and retards responding

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:14:25 UTC No. 16225250

>>16225243
yes multiple times and I don't think they recovered them either

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:17:45 UTC No. 16225253

Why don't they just find where the booster and second stage landed, then send a diver in there to open up a valve and then pump it up with ping pong balls so that it will float up

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:20:36 UTC No. 16225257

I am "Brilliant Pebbles anon" and I did not make this post: >>16225194
I am not so rude.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:21:35 UTC No. 16225259

https://twitter.com/cbs_spacenews/status/1799893301430022244
>Starliner CFT: Flight controllers have told the Starliner crew their undocking and return to Earth is moving from June 14 to June 18 to provide separation for an already planned spacewalk by ISS astronauts Tracy Dyson and Matt Dominick on June 13. NASA will hold a briefing to preview EVA-90 and two subsequent spacewalks on Tuesday at 4pm EDT (2000 UTC)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:22:45 UTC No. 16225260

>>16225245
Yeah I deserve that

after 1 minute of minimal research the rockets immediately explode when touching the water. I won't speculate if they explode because FTS or the engine bells touching the water sealing all the pressure inside. That would take another minute to figure out

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:23:05 UTC No. 16225261

>>16225253
the data they would get from recovering them would not be worth the cost and complexity
with high cadence and hopefully tower recovery they can get them back without any extra cost or time, no damage from water

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:23:15 UTC No. 16225262

>>16225216
They should rig the stages they drop in the water with scuttling charges small enough to leave the stage mostly intact, but also include sea mines rigged to arm themselves once they settle on the ocean floor. That way any chinese submarine foolish enough to take a look gets a nasty surprise.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:25:04 UTC No. 16225265

>>16224421
Is this a new meme?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:25:44 UTC No. 16225266

reminder that polaris dawn is happening July 12
Ariane 6 is July 9
Falcon Heavy launc in June 25
Vulcan Centaur with Dream Chaser should be before July

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:26:21 UTC No. 16225267

>>16224645
daily reminder, N1 comparison baiter, that pretending to be retarded is a form of mental illness, you are coping with a lack of parental attention by requesting it from anomymous strangers online in the form of laughing at you.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:26:34 UTC No. 16225268

>>16225221
I think that's flight hardware, not the crew

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:27:32 UTC No. 16225272

>>16225216
>Normal procedure required by the government
Only when there's an uncontrolled descent lmao. Based Shittle never had to use it. If SpaceX wants to avoid those regulations and crash Shartships on land then Musk could always just move the company to China. Long Marches do it all the time and no one seems to care

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:29:39 UTC No. 16225280

>>16225194
>>16225257
Here, DoD anon, have a (you)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:29:47 UTC No. 16225282

https://x.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1799885721849008560

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:29:58 UTC No. 16225283

>>16225272
>Based Shittle never had to use it.
They did and its use on a crewed vehicle is controversial to this day

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:30:22 UTC No. 16225284

alright so according to newfags baiting is just "pretending to be retarded really loudly and obnoxiously to make the thread unusable and then calling people gullible when they tell you you're acting like a retard"?

you people seriously need to get help, you can just talk to people across the street you don't need to get your attention quota filled by having people mock you online, that's really weird.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:31:30 UTC No. 16225287

>>16225272
>shittle

>mom I think I'm one of the boys now!

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:33:52 UTC No. 16225291

pc game show just showed a gemmy game where you play as spaceX killing earther rebels

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:33:54 UTC No. 16225292

>>16225257
>I am not so rude.
Well, you should be. /sfg/ anons are dumb brutes who need goading to move in the right direction.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:34:58 UTC No. 16225295

>>16225282
>How to avoid boats rotting at the pier: drive them up on land
Genius

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:37:32 UTC No. 16225300

>>16225282
Hovercraft Starship launch pad when?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:38:20 UTC No. 16225302

>>16225267
>>16225287
Are (You) okay anon? (You) seem very upset

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:38:25 UTC No. 16225303

>>16225259
what. wasn't the starliner down to the bare minimum number of usable thrusters?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:38:59 UTC No. 16225305

>>16225295
they don't have a pier at starbase, I don't think the water is deep enough much of the time to even use boats

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:39:32 UTC No. 16225307

>>16225266
NASA will have paid SpaceX $152.5 million for the Falcon Heavy launch of its GOES-U satellite.

With two side-booster recoveries and an expended center core, SpaceX easily pockets a cool $100 million from this deal.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:39:51 UTC No. 16225309

>>16225291
>gemmy
ah so the guy wasting his weekend spamming retarded shit has been a sharty zoomer

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:41:15 UTC No. 16225310

>>16225305
the "water" is actually just salty floodplains

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:42:14 UTC No. 16225311

>>16225283
>They did use FTS
Source?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:44:07 UTC No. 16225313

>>16225303
They were able to get some of the misbehaving thrusters back into line by turning them off and then back on again. I think there are still a few that are out but they've got enough for a margin now. They were also able to lock down the helium manifold so that won't start leaking until they need to reactivate the thrusters.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:44:26 UTC No. 16225314

>>16225310
Ah I see, it's more like an ATV
If it was continuous shallow water to Starbase they'd probably be using airboats instead

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:47:22 UTC No. 16225321

>>16225302
>spent two days on another board doing nothing but uncreative shitposting because you cant move on from the fact a billionaire you dont like spent money on a successful test for a vehicle that benefits you and everyone you know
>I better start claiming they are upset before they figure out my secret

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:49:25 UTC No. 16225325

>>16225292
Here DoD anon, have another (you) to keep the thread going. I'll even throw in some space war kino for your enjoyment

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:50:27 UTC No. 16225330

>>16225302
Imagine finding out what this guy looks like. This is always what I think when the shit posting goes on too long. Imagine how funny a picture of this guy's face would be. Oh man

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:50:59 UTC No. 16225333

>>16225311
The Challenger SRBs were blown by the FTS 110 seconds after launch (after the Challenger had already broken up.)

Source:
>The two Solid Rocket Boosters flew
out of the fireball and were destroyed by the Air
Force range safety officer 110 seconds after
launch.
Page 19: https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/rogers_commission_report.pdf

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:51:26 UTC No. 16225334

Did the LEM have an FTS?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:52:37 UTC No. 16225337

>>16225243
it did, they called in the air force

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:53:31 UTC No. 16225338

>>16225334
doubt it, what would be the point?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:53:39 UTC No. 16225339

>>16225321
>"The Shartship N1 comparisons started two days ago, actually"
This is the best tourist projection cope yet

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:55:13 UTC No. 16225342

>>16225257
you should be, it's fun

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:56:00 UTC No. 16225345

he's doing that jewish thing again where he calls you what he is

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:56:14 UTC No. 16225346

>>16225284
this is how entire boards operate, anon
those dipshits think this is normal

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:59:32 UTC No. 16225354

>>16225338
blowing up the astronauts.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:59:38 UTC No. 16225355

>>16225334
his name was Buzz Aldrin and if Niel was about to land on the moon rabbits he was authorized to punch a hole clean through the ship

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:01:47 UTC No. 16225357

you know what would fix the trolling problem? if we had our own board.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:02:06 UTC No. 16225359

>>16225345
is that a Jewish thing? I thought it was a Russian thing

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:02:43 UTC No. 16225362

https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1799834322192794064

https://www.thestar.com.my/aseanplus/aseanplus-news/2024/06/09/japan-sdf-trialling-starlink-for-ship-crews039-personal-internet-use

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:03:27 UTC No. 16225366

you know what really grinds my gears? lunites

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:03:38 UTC No. 16225368

>>16225346
Something I've always liked about this website, especially as the entire internet changed around it, is that all posts are equal and sorted by time. It's the closest thing to actually talking to people there is.
Unfortunately that also means some retard can single handedly shit the place up just as efficiently as a gathering in real life

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:04:30 UTC No. 16225371

>>16225359
guess who shaped soviet culture. hint: starts with a B but man high % of early lifers

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:05:22 UTC No. 16225375

>>16225371
earthers

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:06:15 UTC No. 16225377

perchlorates would instantly kill any human who sets foot on mars

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:06:43 UTC No. 16225379

>>16225311
At T+72.284, the Ground Control Officer communicated they had no choice but to activate the Flight Termination System.[13] After detpmatopm. the right SRB pulled away from the aft strut that attached it to the ET, causing lateral acceleration that was felt by the crew. At the same time, pressure in the LH2 tank began dropping. Pilot Mike Smith said "Uh-oh," which was the last crew comment recorded. At T+73.124, white vapor was seen flowing away from the ET, after which the aft dome of the LH2 tank fell off. The resulting release of all liquid hydrogen in the tank pushed the LH2 tank forward into the liquid oxygen (LOX) tank with a force equating to roughly 3,000,000 pounds-force (13 meganewtons), while the right SRB collided with the intertank structure.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:09:49 UTC No. 16225386

>>16225357
that would just make us easier to find

I think the reason this weekend is how it is, someone must have namedropped /sfg/ in an elon salt thread. Much more likely to happen if we're on the board roster

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:12:26 UTC No. 16225394

>>16225377
perchlorates stand no chance against this high tech innovation.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:12:55 UTC No. 16225395

>>16225333
>Implying the explosion wasn't caused by ammonium perchlorate and powdered aluminum breaching the fuel tank
>Implying there was anything but the SRBs left after 73 seconds
>Implying the FTS was usable after the orbiter blasted
>Posting the entire Rogers Commission Report as a PDF because you know low IQ hobbyists won't read the entire thing to disprove your schizo ramble
>Doesn't realize that everyone ITT who isn't a zoomer actually watched it happen
EDS is real, just not in the way that his dickriders imagine it. FTS was never used on a shittle launch, cope and seethe

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:13:09 UTC No. 16225397

>>16225311
>The disaster unfolded at an altitude of 46,000 feet (14 km).[13][3]:21 Both SRBs survived the breakup of the shuttle stack and continued flying, now unguided by the attitude and trajectory control of their mothership, until their flight termination systems were activated at T+110.[3]:30

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:14:48 UTC No. 16225400

>>16225395
1st grade reading level is real

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:14:53 UTC No. 16225401

>>16225395
>caused by ammonium perchlorate
>perchlorate
see?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:15:13 UTC No. 16225402

>>16225395
he gave you the page number btw
>>16225333
>Page 19:
you actually are vaxx injured. you should talk to a lawyer since you have had a degradation in your living standards because of it

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:17:08 UTC No. 16225404

I am confused, who is shitposting who?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:17:32 UTC No. 16225405

>>16225401
woah

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:19:49 UTC No. 16225412

>>16225366
come up here and do something about it, bitch

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:21:06 UTC No. 16225415

>>16225404
I think there's just one shitposter, it's not hard to follow

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:22:56 UTC No. 16225417

>>16225397
>Implying the SRBs weren't recovered from the Atlantic Ocean and reused on future flights
>Still 0 non-PDF links to support this claim
Lmaoooo

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:24:25 UTC No. 16225420

>>16225404
in scenarios like this I like to think that it's just one guy responding to himself because it's too retarded to be a real conversation

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:32:06 UTC No. 16225437

I didn't realize challenger was such a bullshit way to die

Did the SRBs have o-rings at different levels? If so it picked this level as the one to leak on. And it could've leaked in any direction, but it leaked text to the fuel tank. And it could've made a hole in the fuel tank, but instead it decided to leak in the exact location of the support that fixes the SRB to the tank.

If it leaked anywhere else would it just be a fuel leak? Would they have lived?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:32:35 UTC No. 16225438

>>16225395
Holy shit try reading.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:35:02 UTC No. 16225445

>>16225402
>Page 19
Picrel anon highlight the proofs

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:38:12 UTC No. 16225450

>>16225417
Stop being retarded.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:38:50 UTC No. 16225453

>>16225438
>Still no proof
>Every available source states the contrary
Inb4 this tard thinks the contingency plan for the use of FTS stated in the report is claiming that it was actually used. It also mentions the plans for the 7 days after launch, I suppose next you're going to claim that Challenger made it to orbit for a week?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:40:03 UTC No. 16225454

>>16225450
Name calling isn't an argument. Why does Shartship using FTS and Shittle not doing so make you seethe so hard?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:40:15 UTC No. 16225455

>>16225437
maybe, a burn-through on the tank itself could have been pretty catastrophic itself

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:41:45 UTC No. 16225461

trolling people so hard they actually start reading the accident report for the Challenger disaster is raw dude, why would you fucking do that
please, kill yourself

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:42:03 UTC No. 16225462

>>16225445
>>16225453
>>1622545
First paragraph on that page.
Read, retard.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:43:00 UTC No. 16225465

>>16224421
>a bloatoid moon program delaying.
It's gonna end up cancelled ('restructured' to save face) and replaced by a debloated Starship moon program, as it should have been since the start.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:43:28 UTC No. 16225466

>>16225454
kek, look at this fucking retard. He got btfo so hard that he's now trying to larp that he was "pretending to be retarded" all along.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:43:54 UTC No. 16225468

>>16225437
>It decided
Based animist enjoyer

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:46:00 UTC No. 16225471

>>16225450
The idea of nasa recovering the SRBs from challenger is the first amusing thing he's posted. Imagine seeing the death cloud and the SRBs floating down on parachutes in the same video

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:49:04 UTC No. 16225478

>>16225471
That's what happened. You can't refute this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:51:01 UTC No. 16225479

>>16225478
You went too far, nobody believes you're not trolling now.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:51:07 UTC No. 16225480

>>16225437
>>16225455
why didn't they put tiles on the ET where the o-rings would spurt fire on it if they failed?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:54:47 UTC No. 16225483

>>16225437
let's say it failed in the safest direction possible. Directly away from the tank and orbiter. Would sensors/ the crew/ ground control have been able to identify the situation before it escalated and if so did they have a procedure in place to evacuate from such a situation?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:54:53 UTC No. 16225484

Wheel_stop did this

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:55:02 UTC No. 16225485

How does he do it? Generate so much seethe it starts to rival Trump

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:55:10 UTC No. 16225487

>>16225480
Admitting the O rings could fail at all would have forced NASA to pick a different supplier and then Utah's Senators would have canceled the program.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:57:15 UTC No. 16225492

>>16225462
That refers to the range safety system, not the flight termination system. How are you not familiar with this basic difference in terminology?
>Inb4 "that's semantics"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:58:54 UTC No. 16225494

>>16225492
it refers to the range safety OFFICER. aka the guy who pushes the fts button dumbass

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:59:38 UTC No. 16225495

>>16225487
Thing is they had already purchased a fix but it wasn't ready yet. Then they had the option of just not launching in record cold temperatures and they fucked that up too.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 21:59:41 UTC No. 16225496

>>16225492
>it took him this long to read the first paragraph and formulate new even insaner cope

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:00:03 UTC No. 16225498

>>16225479
How is it trolling to point out the simple fact that no Space Shuttle ever used its FTS? Rent free btw

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:02:02 UTC No. 16225503

>>16225494
>Pushes the FTS button
Then point to where it mentions the FTS being used. That was the argument presented. And no, this is not semantics.
>Inb4 you're the anon who kept calling liquid rocket boosters "boosters"

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:02:06 UTC No. 16225505

So many people ass blasted by the SS test launch.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:03:10 UTC No. 16225508

>>16225505
>Ass blasted
Kind of like the ship itself immediately after the video cuts off? Kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:04:22 UTC No. 16225513

Could a rocket pull a tether into orbit that's attached to the ground? Let's say it's a very thin, durable tether and it would be heavy cumulatively but by the time the rocket has pulled a lot of it off the ground it has hopefully reached less dense altitudes and is having an easier time propelling the load as it gets heavier.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:05:17 UTC No. 16225515

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:06:21 UTC No. 16225518

>>16225465
The only way congress redirects from SLS is if the Chinese start building a moon city. The benefits of actually getting stuff done (looks good for votes) needs to outweigh the benefits of a federal budget sucking factory in your district (looks good for votes)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:06:36 UTC No. 16225519

>>16225496
>Still hasn't accepted that there are no mentions of the FTS being used anywhere in the report
Illiterate much? (Every single Shartship launch used it btw)

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:07:13 UTC No. 16225520

>timmy, why are you pretending to be stupid all the time
>LOOK AT ME MOM I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED
>timmy please stop doing this none of the other kids want to play with you because of this
>HURR I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED I'M RETARDED
>other kids: haha stupid retard
>...
>HAHAHAHA GOTCHUGOTCHU GOTCHU I BAITED I WAS JUST ACTING LIKE A RETARDED HAAHAHAHAHAHA
>timmy we're disowning you
i'm assuming this is how it went for the resident newfag spambaiter.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:08:42 UTC No. 16225526

>>16225519
>Range safety's function is to ________

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:08:42 UTC No. 16225527

>>16225520
kek

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:09:00 UTC No. 16225528

>>16225513
We don’t have any materials that are strong enough to hang down a 100km cable without it snapping.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:09:45 UTC No. 16225529

https://x.com/wapodavenport/status/1799921426696384768

RIP

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:09:48 UTC No. 16225530

>>16225513
There are three or four immutable physics reasons why that doesn't work

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:10:13 UTC No. 16225531

>>16225495
NASA was being pressured over the delays to launch and the low flight rate by congress (because NASA had previously overpromised and was now underdelivering). Non-technical managers decided to ignore engineers and figured that a lot of the "WE CANNOT LAUNCH BECAUSE..." stuff was just safety theatre, so they could just cut it out. They were incorrect about what they thought was inconsequential (previous reports of O-ring hardening in low temps and warnings from thiokol engineers on the day).
I think Ballast had something to do with the pressure over the delays that were happening.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:10:47 UTC No. 16225534

>>16225518
>Actually getting stuff done
If by that you mean crashing a 120 ton death trap into the Chinese moon colony and then blowing it up then I absolutely support

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:10:56 UTC No. 16225535

>>16225484
>Lesbian art
Sauce?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:11:06 UTC No. 16225536

>>16225529
Well it was nice knowing the wicked witch of LEO and the good ol boy while they where here

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:12:04 UTC No. 16225540

>>16225531
>I think Ballast had something to do with the pressure over the delays that were happening.
not really other than he'd launched on the mission right before and they'd gotten negative press coverage over scrubs. ballast was way too unimportant to affect anything in 1986.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:12:13 UTC No. 16225541

>>16225526
ballsack

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:13:13 UTC No. 16225543

>>16225520
His vocab seems pretty limited. He uses old phrases ("cope and seethe") that came around during the election tourist era. I think it's some twitter guy trying to fit in using lingo he saw last time he was here. Bizarre to say the least

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:13:28 UTC No. 16225544

>>16225526
tongue black ass

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:15:01 UTC No. 16225546

>>16225540
Yeah, but that mission was a major reason why they tried to rush the next one. The fact that ballast was a senator made it all very embarrassing.
>>16225531
Anyway, the problems can all be traced back to Mormons pressuring the Mormon in charge of shuttle contracting to give Thiokol the SRB contract. Thiokol was small, and had to make the SRBs in sections with O-rings between them rather than doing the whole thing in one go.
Mormons did Challenger.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:15:08 UTC No. 16225548

>>16225526
>Still zero mentions of FTS
Do you still not understand basic terminology? The tourists are out of control please go back

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:16:02 UTC No. 16225551

>>16225513
No

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:16:02 UTC No. 16225552

>>16225548
anon, what do you think FTS stands for?

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:16:44 UTC No. 16225553

>>16225546
he was just in the house. jake garn was the senator payload specialist (and much better-qualified to be an astronaut). presumably ballast was still insisting on being addressed as 'senator' back then though.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:17:10 UTC No. 16225555

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:17:18 UTC No. 16225556

>>16225485
Some celebrities are a "failure theater", by that I mean parties, like the media or anti-fanboys, can present a blueballing narrative that said celebrity is constantly failing and their end is imminent. They do this while the fundamentals of why this celebrity is successful are actually fine and they are never going away. Savvy parties like the media are aware of this, and they would never want elon to actually fail because then they can't continue to grift an audience over a day that will never come. Same thing with trump, while polarizing, he never fell in popularity with his base and he was never going to be caught colluding with russia, just like how Qanon was never going to expose hillary clinton for a pedophilia ring in comet pizza. Biden might actually have a stroke any day now though.

Ironically I think we have failure theater for people with EDS who are victims of failure theater. People like thunderfoot get engagement and ad revenue for inciting flame wars with bullshit. The more wrong he is, the more engagement powers him, there's no level of humiliation that would do him in.

Anyway yeah as I was saying, something, something space flight

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:17:24 UTC No. 16225558

>>16225520
>like a retarded
anon are you apoplectic or something? I'm sure your schizo rambles are usually more coherent and I don't see what this has to do with spaceflight

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:18:46 UTC No. 16225562

>>16225552
fat transexual siberians obviously

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:22:13 UTC No. 16225572

>>16225552
>implying all terminations of flights are done by FTS because of the acronym
I suppose next you're going to try to claim that second stage LRBs are "boosters" kek go back

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:24:01 UTC No. 16225575

>>16225531
The O-Rings weren't functioning according to the original design from day one, even when warm, and they all knew it and decided that was fine. Exhaust gases were never meant to touch the O-rings in the first place, but they knew from testing that it was, that the O-rings were being extruded, and that some gasses were even getting around the O-rings before they extruded.

Cold O-rings extruding slower was just the final straw which forced the defective design to ultimate failure.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:26:22 UTC No. 16225583

>>16225572
>>implying all terminations of flights are done by FTS because of the acronym
I'm stating it clearly. if you have a system that terminates the flight, it's a flight termination system.
>I suppose next you're going to try to claim that second stage LRBs are "boosters"
considering the acronym, yes. An anon even posted some second stage LRBs previously:
>>16225161

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:27:55 UTC No. 16225588

>>16225583
Those could be second stage SRBs tho.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:27:58 UTC No. 16225589

Hello friends
finally got some time to sit down and make some webms :D
please enjoy

https://images.nasa.gov/details/KSC-20240605-MH-AJN01-0001-Boeing_CFT_Isolated_Launch_Views-M7136

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:28:29 UTC No. 16225590

>>16225552
Fuck The Sun.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:29:01 UTC No. 16225591

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:29:02 UTC No. 16225592

>>16225558
i don't see what your constant cries for negative attention are doing for spaceflight either.

maybe you should go back to wherever you came from, you don't belong here.

5&#039;10 245lbs Mountain of a Man at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:29:56 UTC No. 16225597

It's very nice seeing the progress of these tests. Seeing it become reality is so great. It is like following the Pluto mission and seeing the planet get bigger and more high resolution and eventually making out geographical features. When the day comes where starship is launching in its final form, it will be a good day. Very exciting.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:30:14 UTC No. 16225600

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:30:14 UTC No. 16225601

>>16225589
nice

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:31:17 UTC No. 16225603

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:32:46 UTC No. 16225606

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:33:01 UTC No. 16225607

>>16225591
Kino. I remember seeing russians brag about the RD-180 on the atlas V.

Anonymous at Sun, 9 Jun 2024 22:33:24 UTC No. 16225608

>>16225583
Cool so point out where the term "FTS" is used in the report, I'm still waiting
>inb4 you can't because it isn't
>implying second stage boosters exist
you're going to singlehandedly bring one particular troll back to this thread