Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:14:08 UTC No. 16228618

SPACE SEXXXXXX

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:15:18 UTC No. 16228620

>>16228612
would rather see her legs if im honest

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:16:04 UTC No. 16228622

>>16228620
Best I can do

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:17:47 UTC No. 16228626

TIK-TOK

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:18:42 UTC No. 16228628

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/as-nasa-watches-starship-closely-heres-what-the-agency-wants-to-see-next/
latest berger is mostly fluff but a couple of key lines you can read between:
>Officially, NASA maintains that the agency will fly a crewed lunar landing, the Artemis III mission, in September 2026. But almost no one in the space community regards that launch date as more than aspirational. Some of my best sources have put the most likely range of dates for such a mission from 2028 to 2032.
>If SpaceX completes this test during the first quarter of 2025, NASA will at least theoretically have a path forward to a crewed lunar landing in 2026.
translation: nobody in nasa expects the prop transfer demo to be finished by q1 2025
>>16228626
you stole my pic literally seconds before i was gonna post it...

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:19:38 UTC No. 16228631

spam thread
the other one was started first

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:21:08 UTC No. 16228636

>>16228631
if you weren't a baiting retard people wouldn't do this you know

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:21:24 UTC No. 16228637

>>16228630
Is he trying to look up her skirt?
>>16228631
Look at the timestamps, this one was first

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:21:24 UTC No. 16228638

>>16228599 is the real /sfg/

>>16228612
you lost by over 4 minutes

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:21:52 UTC No. 16228639

>>16228626
>>16228628
i thought the propellant transfer demo failed

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:23:41 UTC No. 16228640

>>16228638
Why are you trolling outside of /b/

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:23:59 UTC No. 16228643

>>16228626
>>16228639
spacex and nasa fudging their criteria of success so they can move on kek

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:24:03 UTC No. 16228644

>>16228638
Nigger

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:26:24 UTC No. 16228653

>>16228637
no he's doing maintenance on her skirt it is extremely wholesome

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:26:54 UTC No. 16228655

Dumbass spam thread

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:27:11 UTC No. 16228656

>>16228637

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:34:23 UTC No. 16228666

>>16228610
dw I got it, took me a while lul >>16228603

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:36:00 UTC No. 16228667

>>16228666
good job

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:36:44 UTC No. 16228671

Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
Another stupid thing is attempting a landing on Artemis III, which is too early for brand new rocket and lander.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:38:44 UTC No. 16228675

>>16228671
This

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:39:38 UTC No. 16228678

>>16228638
fuck off

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:40:40 UTC No. 16228681

>>16228671
nasa cannot even be sure the capsule coming back on Artemis I was a fluke or not
the heat shield got way more damaged than nasa predicted

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:42:40 UTC No. 16228685

janny is going to delete this thread soon, don't know why you fags are wasting your time posting in it

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:44:25 UTC No. 16228687

>>16228671
>Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
it was impossible but bridenstine used the fake 2024 deadline to force commercial HLS much in the same way congress used a fake 2016 deadline to get SLS mandated in the first place. it's a dirty business.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:45:52 UTC No. 16228691

>>16228639
It failed, they didnt show any numbers and didnt test it again last flight

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:49:19 UTC No. 16228697

TIK TOK

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:50:22 UTC No. 16228702

>>16228687
> it's a dirty business
Lets also not forget the bullshit lawsuit BO tried that delayed HLS and that the original 2024 target was setup to be a legacy item for the end of Trumps' second term and even that was before COVID fucked everything for 2yrs

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:50:40 UTC No. 16228703

>>16228697
I am fine with letting the yellow man beta test the moon for us

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:51:27 UTC No. 16228704

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QybbBmrRvcY
>Ars Live: How Profitable Is Starlink?

live, discussion starts in 10 min
Eric Berger with dude from Quilty Space that did the analysis of starlink profitability and concluded that starlink should be profitable this year

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:52:27 UTC No. 16228706

>>16228637
you lost by making the edition and picture non-relevant

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:54:48 UTC No. 16228715

>>16228704
why would you name your company after a fictional pedophile

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 17:59:41 UTC No. 16228728

https://www.vastspace.com/updates/vast-signs-with-the-exploration-company-for-second-haven-space-station-cargo-services
>Vast, a pioneer in space habitation technologies, and The Exploration Company, builder and operator of the Nyx reusable space capsule, signed a cargo services agreement for a 2028 mission to Vast’s second Haven space station. Walther Pelzer, Director General of the German Space Agency at DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt) and Bale Dalton, NASA Chief of Staff, attended the signing event along with Max Haot, Chief Executive Officer of Vast, and Helene Huby, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of the The Exploration Company.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:00:00 UTC No. 16228729

>>16228715
wtf are you talking about nigger
its an irish surname
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilty

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:00:41 UTC No. 16228730

>>16228703
Its better than a nig and a whore waving LGBT and BLM my amerimutt friend

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:01:00 UTC No. 16228731

>>16228704

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:03:23 UTC No. 16228737

>>16228728
seem to have a lot of these things now
did this with ESA a few days ago

https://spacenews.com/esa-and-vast-to-study-cooperation-on-future-commercial-space-stations/

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:04:00 UTC No. 16228739

>>16228731
Does berger have a glass eye?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:04:56 UTC No. 16228741

>>16228739
I don't think so, but I guess its possible

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:05:36 UTC No. 16228743

>>16228741
His right eye looks weird.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:05:41 UTC No. 16228745

>>16228639
Proofs

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:05:43 UTC No. 16228746

>>16228739
just a lazy one maybe

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:05:44 UTC No. 16228747

Have they found any medicine or materials that are economical to produce in zero G yet?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:05:50 UTC No. 16228749

>>16228671
Artemis II is gonna be delayed to 2026 anyways due to Orion issues

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:10:43 UTC No. 16228757

>>16228730
true the thought of the first person returning and stepping on the moon after such a long time being some type of DEI hire would kill the moment for such a historic event.
don't know much about taikonauts but would rather it be some seasoned Chinese space man, they seem pretty based.

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:15:00 UTC No. 16228764

>>16228626
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/as-nasa-watches-starship-closely-heres-what-the-agency-wants-to-see-next/
>During her remarks, Koerner was also asked what SpaceX's next major milestone is and when it would need to be completed for NASA to remain on track for a lunar landing in 2026. "Their next big milestone test, from a contract perspective, is the cryogenic transfer test," she said. "That is going to be early next year."
>The test will entail a lot of technology, including docking mechanisms, navigation sensors, quick disconnects, and more. If SpaceX completes this test during the first quarter of 2025, NASA will at least theoretically have a path forward to a crewed lunar landing in 2026.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:20:52 UTC No. 16228777

>>16228622
every time i watch these videos i am distracted by judys BARE FEET. Very disrespectful.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:23:40 UTC No. 16228781

https://x.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1800588388313264530

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:31:32 UTC No. 16228792

>>16228737
I thought this was a bit weird since Europe currently has as much station-building experience as nations like Russia and China and they've had plans for an ATV-based station for years. Now Europe is going to contract an American company to lead their post-ISS station plans? Something seems off.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:31:38 UTC No. 16228793

>Bill Anders is my favorite astronaut because he tried out the Apollo shitting device at home before Apollo 8, decided it wasn’t for him, asked to be put on a “low residue” diet, and then just didn’t shit for the entire six day mission.
https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1799691319780298754

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:32:04 UTC No. 16228794

First of the dozen or so planned Chinese F9 copies is going to its S1 test stand, launch planned in September (fall launch actually isn't impossible based on their test schedule for their previous launcher)

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:32:53 UTC No. 16228795

>>16228792
>Europe currently has as much station-building experience as nations like Russia and China
In what world?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:33:10 UTC No. 16228796

>>16228639
Based on what?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:35:13 UTC No. 16228802

>>16228793
What's the shitting device used in Orion?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:37:25 UTC No. 16228806

>>16228792
>Europe currently has as much station-building experience
Thales-Alenia has a lot of it, Airbus has lesser amount
Thales-Alenia is building the Axiom modules
Airbus is participating in Voyager Space and effectively replacing lockheed in it

That's the private companies, ESA just wants to fly astronauts there, and more importantly, they realise its minor member states (aka everybody no France Germany and Italy) have a desire for flying astronaut more often than once in 20 years and so ESA tries to get a step ahead in cooperating those who offers the service (american companies) instead of losing control of its minor state's crewed spaceflight activites had they sent their astronaut bilaterally without ESA

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:39:01 UTC No. 16228810

>>16228795
They built most of the western side of the ISS and if you count Cygnus as temporary station modules, then Italy has been churning out two per year since 2013. They're also the primary contractors for HALO/I-HAB for the Lunar Gateway.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:40:56 UTC No. 16228811

>>16228795
Definitely not China (who's the only single country currently capable of making and launching independent complete modular station by themselves), but definitely above Russia, bulk of Nauka is a quarter century old and while there is *some* hardware for ROSS it's going very slowly.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:42:31 UTC No. 16228814

>>16228781
I am elated that this balding faggot is NOT going to the moon

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:44:34 UTC No. 16228818

>>16228810
>all modules they have built have effectively just been empty tin cans, life support systems, propulsion and the like have to be relied on by the US or Russia
>has never had the capability to build their own space station, always had to rely on the Shuttle
I'm also a yuro but you're retarded. Building a few modules for an already built station is not the experience you make it out to be.
>>16228811
I don't think you know what "experience" is. The nation that has built and launched the most space stations are somehow not the ones with the most experience? Capability is a better word perhaps.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:45:16 UTC No. 16228820

>>16228781
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800597113635545184

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:46:17 UTC No. 16228821

>>16228626
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800595236416364845

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:47:08 UTC No. 16228823

>>16228810
Thales Alenia is also making module(s?) for Axiom station.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:57:11 UTC No. 16228846

>>16228823
They're contracted for AxH1 and AxH2. I can't find anything clear about the other modules.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:58:07 UTC No. 16228848

https://x.com/rfa_space/status/1800558612835922275

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:58:29 UTC No. 16228849

>>16228814
You were just envious.
Who wouldn't have jumped at the chance.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 18:59:24 UTC No. 16228852

>>16228848
>Only one way to go from there
Yeah, fire 9 instead of 4 engines

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:00:31 UTC No. 16228854

>>16228849
estrogenaut is still not going

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:02:43 UTC No. 16228858

>>16228814
should wrote made FAGGOT in capital letters too

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:02:52 UTC No. 16228859

when?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:05:17 UTC No. 16228866

>>16228818
>for an already built station
What? NASA didn't consider their core part of the ISS complete until harmony was attached
>life support systems...have to be relied on by the US or Russia
So tranquillity just doesn't exist then.
>Empty tin cans
t.cupola hater

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:09:05 UTC No. 16228871

>>16228821
>Progress is accelerating
this is the fundamental mistake that makes him predict wrong timelines way too optimistically.
progress is more constant than accelerating.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:09:24 UTC No. 16228872

Also some of the ISS construction photos are pure kino

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:11:01 UTC No. 16228877

>>16228859
never

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:11:32 UTC No. 16228878

>>16228671
>Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
Just focus on your end of the job and everything will turn out peachy.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:12:28 UTC No. 16228880

https://x.com/StarshipGazer/status/1800563250851164363

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:13:25 UTC No. 16228884

>>16228880
Have they stated why or has it just been guesses so far

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:13:27 UTC No. 16228885

>>16228866
>What? NASA didn't consider their core part of the ISS complete until harmony was attached
I didn't say "for an already arbitrarily decided to be complete station". I said an already built station. ISS functioned before Harmony (who btw is mostly based on the MPLM and is the exact thing when I mentioned it being empty tin cans)
>So tranquillity just doesn't exist then
The lift support system was developed in the US.

It's just plain retarded to say Europe has the same experience as the two nations that has built modular space stations entirely on their own (well, if you ignore China blatantly using Soviet module designs). Europe has experience building empty tin cans in comparison to that.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:13:31 UTC No. 16228886

>>16228880

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:14:34 UTC No. 16228887

>>16228886

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:15:18 UTC No. 16228889

>>16228877
>digit status
BObros...

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:15:36 UTC No. 16228890

>>16228887

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:16:31 UTC No. 16228892

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1800575018448846914
>After 14 hot fires on stubby engines, a full length Miranda engine is up next! Thanks to the co-located manufacturing and test facilities at our Rocket Ranch, we can test and iterate rapidly to accelerate development for our MLV engines and structures.
Everyone is building their own engines these days. Aerojet on suicide watch

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:16:35 UTC No. 16228893

>>16228889
never reply to me ever again

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:16:46 UTC No. 16228894

>>16228880
Wouldn't it be faster just to shake them off?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:17:14 UTC No. 16228896

>>16228884
they are going to put an ablative backup layer beneath them and replace the tiles with upgraded tiles that are two times as strong (strong meaning what exactly is not known)
musk said this yesterday during a 5h diablo 4 stream

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:17:42 UTC No. 16228897

>>16228894
no, setting up for a static fire takes all day and only ever shakes one or two off

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:18:43 UTC No. 16228901

>>16228894
rude

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:18:47 UTC No. 16228902

>>16228897
Just keep pumping in more fuel to keep the raptors fed continuously for a long burn

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:19:59 UTC No. 16228906

>>16228896
Are they also getting rid of that insulating blanket then

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:20:16 UTC No. 16228908

>>16228896
>musk said this yesterday during a 5h diablo 4 stream
I love that this is how we're getting major spaceflight news in this timeline

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:20:51 UTC No. 16228910

https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1800608968341176439
>Catch tower....What..?
>New EIS for 39A...Wow

https://faa.gov/media/80626

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:20:52 UTC No. 16228911

>>16228878
>Starship vertical landing
Shouldn't this be checked off

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:22:14 UTC No. 16228913

>>16228906
I think the point is to replace that with an ablative layer but that might be speculation, I haven't listened to the whole 5h thing
the info was spread out here and then with long periods of just playing or talking about AI or talking about diablo 4 builds with the people he was playing with

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:23:27 UTC No. 16228914

>>16228656
If there's any drawfriend with time to waste:
>captain of a secret agent organization with plenty of military experience
>literally a squid girl
>canonically shy
>scarred tentacles
She's perfect enough to be ika musume's substitute if need be.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:24:12 UTC No. 16228915

>>16228910
https://www.faa.gov/media/80626

12 page pdf for LC-39A EIS

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:24:17 UTC No. 16228916

>>16228872
gay little modules are a waste of time and money

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:28:01 UTC No. 16228921

>>16228872
Met the guy on the right here. He came to our school. Pretty neat.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:28:15 UTC No. 16228922

https://x.com/Starlink/status/1800603222861889965
>Starlink is available in Sierra Leone!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:28:22 UTC No. 16228923

>>16228914
no

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:29:36 UTC No. 16228924

>>16228916
We need to be assembling 100 ton chunks

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:30:52 UTC No. 16228925

>>16228924
Could have done that if the US just bought Energia launches from Russia in the 90's

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:31:45 UTC No. 16228927

>>16228916
>>16228925
Next one will also cost >100 billion but we will actually get our money’s worth.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:32:25 UTC No. 16228928

>>16228922

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:32:57 UTC No. 16228929

>>16228821
Starship hardware seems to slow. Their door didn't work, and it wasn't ready to retry for the next flight. And that's the money maker. It should take a long time to make propellant transfer docking stuff and I don't think anyone sleuths have photographed pathfinders for them

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:33:21 UTC No. 16228931

>>16228911
he probably means a landing with a recovery

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:37:30 UTC No. 16228937

God this is so ugly

Artemis3 at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:37:47 UTC No. 16228938

>>16228911
Okay, removing that one off the checklist...the HLS never returns (of course) and the consensus seems to be that the tanker will be expendable. Any vertical landing is part of the re-usable variant and not critical to Artemis III.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:40:15 UTC No. 16228940

>>16228929
Wrong. Starship docking system has been built, NASA tweeted about it recently.
Just need to add a fluid interface and whatever method of settling and transferring prop they've decided on.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:40:40 UTC No. 16228941

>>16228892
What vehicle are these engines for?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:41:26 UTC No. 16228943

>>16228937
Not gonna happen. Ship to booster ratio needs to stay approximately the same or you're not making it to orbit.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:42:55 UTC No. 16228945

>>16228938
>consensus seems to be that the tanker will be expendable
it won't. they're not gonna expend 10 ships when landing has literally already worked that'd be stupid.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:44:38 UTC No. 16228948

>>16228941
MLV and Antares 3

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:45:16 UTC No. 16228949

>>16228910
>35 engines on superheavy
based throoostmaxxer

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:46:59 UTC No. 16228951

>>16228945
>>16228938
I believe it would be more accurate to say that reusability is not on the mission critical path, although if the capability exists it will be used
I find it likely that with the current trajectory the capability will exist

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:49:46 UTC No. 16228954

>>16228922
>>16228928
not space flight

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:50:01 UTC No. 16228955

>>16228910
>catch tower
I don't understand this catch tower meme.
Now the booster is not needs to be put on an SPMT and all this extra complexity.
They can practice catches at Boca are they expecting this many crashes?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:51:43 UTC No. 16228958

>>16228949
>35 engines on booster
>9 engines on Starship
ITS LIVES

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:52:01 UTC No. 16228959

>>16228938
>changing the checklist rather than checking off items that were completed in older versions of your checklist
doesn't the fact that you have to keep changing your list of mission-critical milestones indicate that you have no idea what's mission-critical and what isn't and nobody should pay attention to your infographics?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:52:06 UTC No. 16228960

>>16228955
It might just be some regulatory requirement to make Starahip launches out of the cape happen

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:52:35 UTC No. 16228963

>>16228848

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:53:22 UTC No. 16228964

>>16228910
https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1800614902408663280

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:53:38 UTC No. 16228966

>>16228963
>that quick flash of green
It's a beautiful thing to see anons

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:54:27 UTC No. 16228968

>>16228958
Booster will revert to carbon fiber structure when design is really nailed down.
Nobody can pass on free mass efficiency and it doesn't get nearly as hot as Ship.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:55:47 UTC No. 16228970

https://x.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1800503390864339051
>Checking in on Launch Complex 39A at 35cm/pixel with @umbraspace
>Captured just about 10hrs ago.

original pic is over 4mb
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPydEZ6aMAAG9Xz?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:55:59 UTC No. 16228972

>>16228968
you need to save 10kg of dry mass on the booster to gain 1kg of payload in orbit. it's almost certainly not worth the trouble.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:57:17 UTC No. 16228973

>>16228958
itsification

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:57:23 UTC No. 16228975

>>16228954
shut up fag

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:58:13 UTC No. 16228976

>>16228730
Yes I love gutter oil, concentration camps, building collapses and a low trust society. China is so much better

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:58:34 UTC No. 16228977

>>16228820
So minor damage then.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:58:40 UTC No. 16228979

>>16228792
European private companies are HIGHLY capable, when permitted to operate. But any European quasi-government endeavor is destined to be an absolute boondoggle.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 19:59:48 UTC No. 16228982

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:00:32 UTC No. 16228984

>>16228982
jump scare

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:01:55 UTC No. 16228986

> As Starship slows down during its
landing approach, a sonic boom would be generated.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:02:29 UTC No. 16228988

>>16228986
yeah? shuttle did the same thing

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:02:29 UTC No. 16228989

>>16228976
Building collapses are pretty funny so long as I'm not in one.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:02:33 UTC No. 16228990

>>16228984
>LET ME OUT!!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:02:53 UTC No. 16228991

>>16228880
This has to be the most tedious job in the program.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:03:03 UTC No. 16228993

>>16228982

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:03:26 UTC No. 16228994

muh turtles oh no

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:03:34 UTC No. 16228995

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:03:39 UTC No. 16228996

>>16228990
>UNTIL NEXT TIME I'M SCOTT MANLEY, DIE SAFE

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:04:27 UTC No. 16228998

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:05:13 UTC No. 16229001

>>16228991
>ahh finally I've got the last tile affixed, a job well done
>wait a minute, boss is calling

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:05:23 UTC No. 16229002

Per the EIS
>Super Heavy is expected to hold up to 4,100
metric tons of propellant and Starship up to 2,600 metric tons of propellant.
Maximum lift-off thrust of the launch vehicle is anticipated at 103 meganewtons1
(MN). Starship would have a maximum lift-off thrust of approximately 28 MN.
Those numbers are close to the original ITS estimates, glad to see that there's some thought behind the final design.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:06:47 UTC No. 16229006

>>16228993
>Valeri Polyakov
Imagine spending 15 consecutive months stuck in MIR yikes

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:07:43 UTC No. 16229009

>>16229006
I'll do it if they let me go up alone for that long. Also I will screen calls from the ground.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:08:17 UTC No. 16229010

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csIYsnzl8OI
>Amid Flight 5 preps SpaceX readies Second Tower Construction | SpaceX Boca Chica

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:09:34 UTC No. 16229012

>>16228998
does it have anything about the environmental injustice of a rocket that's ugly because it's so skinny and the disproportionate cognitive burden placed on autists who have to look at it?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:12:09 UTC No. 16229016

>>16229012
The faster you grow up and accept that high fineness ratio rockets are more aesthetic the sooner you’ll be happy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:12:37 UTC No. 16229017

>>16229010
>no apparent damage
it's charred black

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:12:46 UTC No. 16229018

>>16228990
Please stop bro I just got over the nightmares from Event Horizon

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:13:11 UTC No. 16229019

>>16229017
painted black

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:13:13 UTC No. 16229020

>>16229012
>>16229016
Obviously the solution to this is to strap two more Starships onto the side as b**sters.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:16:50 UTC No. 16229023

>>16229002
Starship 1 had a liftoff thrust of 7130 tons and a max thrust of 7590 tons (33X230t). So max thrust is 6.5% higher than liftoff.
Starship 2 has a liftoff thrust of 8240 tons, so we can assume its max thrust is probably 8775 tons. With 33 Raptor 3 engines, each engine probably produces 266 tons of thrust at maximum (266X33)
Starship 3 has a liftoff thrust of 10,000 tons, and a max thrust of probably about 10,650 tons. With 35 Raptor 3 engines, the thrust per engine at maximum is 304 tons each (304X33).

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:18:20 UTC No. 16229025

>>16229017
surface char is not damage

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:18:57 UTC No. 16229026

>>16228910
The catch tower is probably specifically for ship, it has a completely different method of being held than booster and would allow both ship and booster to land in a short period.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:19:17 UTC No. 16229027

>>16229020
ultrasupermegaheavy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:21:39 UTC No. 16229030

it can't be good for the turtle hatchlings to have to look at this pencilneck trash either. they'll grow up with no sense of proportions.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:22:36 UTC No. 16229033

>>16229030
the sooner they scrap this trash and invent the 18m variant the better.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:24:47 UTC No. 16229037

>>16229033
Do you post here just to fuck with me?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:28:54 UTC No. 16229042

I hate the elongated Starship

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:29:07 UTC No. 16229043

>>16229037
I don't know what that guy's deal is, obviously the correct diameter is 12 meters

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:31:44 UTC No. 16229047

>>16229042
Please don't post juggalos in this thread.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:32:31 UTC No. 16229049

>Based on data released directly by SpaceX, an ASDS landing comes with a performance penalty of 30 to 35% while a land-based recovery (RTLS) requires approximately half the rocket's performance. Preliminary performance data for Falcon Heavy indicates a penalty of approximately 55% when recovering the vehicle's cores.
I really don't understand why SpaceX sold the oil rigs. They could have repurposed them as catching vessels.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:32:56 UTC No. 16229050

If you're concerned about the implications of skinny starship for the future of spaceflight, NOW is the time to contact the FAA. Tell them that you believe the FAA should include a mitigation requirement that SpaceX develop wider-diameter tooling for any Starship launch license.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:34:26 UTC No. 16229054

>>16229049
the oil rigs weren't suitable for conversion into a catching tower for various reasons, but it wasn't a total loss because ripping all of the rigging out of them was cheaper than buying that stuff elsewhere

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:36:05 UTC No. 16229057

>>16228928
New whiteness map just dropped.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:38:59 UTC No. 16229060

How much volume did ITS have? Starship has 1000 m3 I think

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:40:27 UTC No. 16229062

>>16228818
>I don't think you know what "experience" is. The nation that has built and launched the most space stations are somehow not the ones with the most experience?
Experience gets lost over time as people age out of the industry or otherwise get dropped due to budget cuts; happened after Apollo

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:44:57 UTC No. 16229069

>>16229060
with a 17m diameter and a roughly similar geometry to starship it's probably around 3500

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:48:00 UTC No. 16229076

>>16229026
>>16228955

Its probably just a second launch tower. Might as well add a launch mount too.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:51:44 UTC No. 16229081

So we're using this thread right? Damn /sfg/ doesnt even need my OP spergery to know when to split threads anymore

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:56:07 UTC No. 16229087

I love this little guy like you wouldn't believe

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 20:56:19 UTC No. 16229088

>>16228968
You will take your cheaply constructed, rugged launch hardware and you will like it.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:00:16 UTC No. 16229091

>>16228948
Wonder how much of Antares first stage Northrup Grumman is developing, or if Firefly is just doing the engines.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:01:17 UTC No. 16229094

>>16228963
Thanks king

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:05:40 UTC No. 16229104

>>16229027
Omegaheavy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:06:39 UTC No. 16229106

>>16229087
>*crashes*

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:10:34 UTC No. 16229113

>>16229087
What were the benefits of this system again?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:12:35 UTC No. 16229119

>>16229113
you aren't a sharks lunch

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:17:48 UTC No. 16229131

>>16229113
Pulls fewer Gs on reentry. Nicer on fragile cargo.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:19:03 UTC No. 16229134

>>16229030
ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:21:49 UTC No. 16229136

Starbooba

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:25:00 UTC No. 16229141

>>16229087
Die

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:29:07 UTC No. 16229151

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800606627319456065

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:31:55 UTC No. 16229156

next OP img

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:33:00 UTC No. 16229159

>>16229151
>first reply is a bitcoin scam
Fix your website elon

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:33:39 UTC No. 16229161

>>16228626
Maybe I am strawmanning here but I just KNOW the niggers within NASA will be quick to say
>ummm we are ready for Artemis III but SpaceX are holding us back
knowing full well the serpentine half-truth that this is

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:36:16 UTC No. 16229167

>>16229081
shut up nigger

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:38:09 UTC No. 16229171

>>16229050
KEK. This is how 18m chads will win.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:38:56 UTC No. 16229175

>>16228866
it's funny to me that most of the graphic design found on and within the International Space Station is sort of soft-locked in the late 90s/early 00s ('y2k aesthetic' as the kids are calling it, these days) because that's when a majority of the hardware was built and sent up

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:43:37 UTC No. 16229178

what the fuck is Richard Branson's master plan here

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:43:55 UTC No. 16229180

>>16229043
The correct diameter is whatever can fit an NT engine with enough ISP to reach Titan

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:44:48 UTC No. 16229181

>>16229091
None or all, depending on how far along Northrop's inevitable acquisition of firefly is.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:45:22 UTC No. 16229182

>>16229180
Nuclear thermal is gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay GAAAAAAAY, and I am a tried and true nuclearfag

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:46:57 UTC No. 16229184

>>16229106
>>16229141
>Elon can blow up 20 trillion rockets testing them but when someone else does it it's bad

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:47:14 UTC No. 16229185

>>16229182
the only correct choice is nuclear pulsed

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:47:57 UTC No. 16229186

>>16229178
he already cashed out

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:48:15 UTC No. 16229187

>>16229182
>triple the isp with caveman technology
the only gay one is you

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:48:47 UTC No. 16229188

>>16229182
if you've got 12m+ diameters to work with it's a lot less impractical

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:49:13 UTC No. 16229190

>>16229184
Dreamchaser would be based if it were even remotely close to on schedule.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:49:31 UTC No. 16229191

>>16229187
Glowing rock bad. Trust in burning stick!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:51:11 UTC No. 16229193

>>16229184
I know you know the answer, and are just posting this because you equally enjoy cock down your throat and (you)s... but I am too autistic to let it slide without correcting you: the point of each dream chaser test (including the upcoming maiden flight) was/is to be a complete success, without failure.
The point of the SpaceX Starship campaign (including the hop tests through the most recent starship test and future tests) was/is to "do as good as possible, try not to blow up, if it blows up it is because we are learning as we go"

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:51:45 UTC No. 16229194

>>16229184
It's bad when any destruction of hardware sets your program back years. Wrecking a spacecraft should only delay you by a few months at the most and should be easily absorbed as a development expense. Anything else is poorly planned and even more poorly designed

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:56:05 UTC No. 16229198

>>16229188
Not really. The mass of your reactor is going to have to increase. The math is always trying to play catch-up. And yes, normally the utter advantages of NT would outweight the costs regardless... but Raptor has [arguably] already gotten good enough to make NT useless. Raptor is an insanely good chemical engine that will, more likely than not, only further increase in benefit (not even mentioning the extreme decrease in cost compared to a fucking NUCLEAR REACTOR; yeah how is that $/kg of shipment going for you?)
If you have the theoretical green light to use nuclear, and handwaiving any costs (i.e. "the government pays whatever I ask so who cares about making this thing cheap?") then the better alternative is pulsed fission fragment, or R&D into electric fission-fusion

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:56:19 UTC No. 16229199

>>16229113
looks cool
gentler g-forces for cargo
more crossrange capability
capable of evading point defense and strategic SAM fire during terminal phase

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:57:54 UTC No. 16229203

>>16229188
diameter doesn't matter once you're bigger than about a meter

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:57:58 UTC No. 16229204

>>16229161
If they took the flaps and fins off of the booster and starship, no heat tiles, zero cargo, full fuel, fully expendable I wonder if it could land in the moon
Just as a fuck you to SLS

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 21:59:27 UTC No. 16229209

>>16229191
Burning stick good, make plane go far!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:01:11 UTC No. 16229214

>>16229198
>If you have the theoretical green light to use nuclear, and handwaiving any costs (i.e. "the government pays whatever I ask so who cares about making this thing cheap?") then the better alternative is pulsed fission fragment, or R&D into electric fission-fusion
it isn't because it doesn't exist. NTP is good because it's already been built. No chemical engine will get close to NTP. Faster travel times are needed for practical Mars travel

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:01:40 UTC No. 16229215

>>16229187
Who gives a fuck bro, would you fly your human mission to Mars on ion engines just because that 3,00 sec isp?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:03:11 UTC No. 16229218

>>16229215
No because the thrust is too low. If it wasn't I would. I don't get your point

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:03:45 UTC No. 16229219

>>16229187
You get 900 Isp, double that of hydrolox, and for that you have to put up with hydrogen storage bullshit and all the other headaches from the reactor.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:04:23 UTC No. 16229221

>>16229209
>Hold my grog

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:04:35 UTC No. 16229223

>>16228820
Who's the judge of what major damage is?
Sounds like sugar coating to me

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:04:53 UTC No. 16229224

>>16229219
You can use other fuels

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:08:31 UTC No. 16229228

>>16229224
And then deal with an isp that's a lot lower than ~900s.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:09:21 UTC No. 16229230

>>16229218
That was exactly my point. The thrust-to-weight of NT engines is awful. There are practical realities that can make good designs on paper bad in reality.
Hydrolox is similarly championed for high isp but look at the tradeoffs. Low volume fuel requires massive tanks, blah blah blah... in the end, methalox becomes a way better alternative because a variety of factors end up changing the game. Same thing with NT. It has a lot of advantages; it has a lot of DISadvantages that make it suck ass. And chemical engines are almost rendering them completely useless as they catch up in other categories (cost, thrust, higher and higher isp obv not as high as NT but still getting better nontheless, reusability and ease of maintenance, readily available fuel sources such as CH3 and O2 that are probably going to get spammed into space for the next 100+ years around Earth + Moon + Mars + Asteroid Belt, etc.)

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:11:21 UTC No. 16229234

>>16229223
ummm he is literally the chief engineer sweaty

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:11:22 UTC No. 16229235

>>16228896
>(strong meaning what exactly is not known)
He immediately said 'half as likely to crack' afterwards so strong in the structural sense.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:14:29 UTC No. 16229236

>>16229224
Yeah but then your Isp drops to the chemical range or just above. If your reactor is tolerant of lots of propellant types its a different story because then ISRU could tip the balance in its favor. Boosting to Ceres with hydrogen and coming back with water as reaction mass for example.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:15:37 UTC No. 16229239

>>16228728
>>16228737
Taking from the Starlab playbook

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:15:48 UTC No. 16229240

>>16229219
>You get 900 Isp, double that of hydrolox, and for that you have to put up with hydrogen storage bullshit
But...you already have to deal with hydrogen storage with hydrolox, because hydrolox uses hydrogen as fuel. ??

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:16:10 UTC No. 16229241

>>16229223
"Standard pad maintenance" as seen after flights:
>paint, QD refurb, launch clamps, prop hose change
"Minor" damage:
Raptor powered unplanned pad excavation
"major" damage:
It's gone, FUBAR

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:17:04 UTC No. 16229244

>>16229236
i just don't see what the downside of methane NTRs is if they still beat out hydrolox by 150s+

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:17:53 UTC No. 16229245

https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1800649850305851498

rocketlab posting cope

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:18:18 UTC No. 16229247

>>16229230
>The thrust-to-weight of NT engines is awful

stop basing NTP mass on NERVA

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:18:54 UTC No. 16229249

>>16229244
People are scared of nuclear. It's disgusting.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:19:10 UTC No. 16229250

>>16229247
Blue Origin is designing your next engine :)

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:19:20 UTC No. 16229251

>>16228626
This is actually hilarious because it shows how far along spacex is

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:20:21 UTC No. 16229254

>>16229245
>Stoke posts FFSC hot firing
>Firefly posts an engine with many hot fires
>Hobbits post their bootleg BE-4 that hasn't fired once
Pathetic

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:20:31 UTC No. 16229255

>>16228728
>RAUMFAHRT
German is a funny language. Side note, are they allowed to like von Braun or do they pretend he doesn't exist?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:21:00 UTC No. 16229256

>>16229245
Day late and soon to be a dollar short

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:21:05 UTC No. 16229258

>>16229250
BWxT and Blue might both start with the same letter but are not the same company.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:21:24 UTC No. 16229259

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMlV4W_CLU
>IFT-4 and the Future of Starship: All You Need to Know (with @scottmanley and @MarcusHouse )

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:21:38 UTC No. 16229261

>>16229250
*Spacex, for the Pentagon

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:23:12 UTC No. 16229267

>>16229235
more like half as likely to smoke crack hehehehe FREE MY NIGGA H

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:24:17 UTC No. 16229269

>>16229259
who is the non balde dude?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:25:23 UTC No. 16229271

>>16228995
Kino. Imagine seeing this when you look up.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:27:28 UTC No. 16229275

>>16228656
>>16228667
>>16228914
Begone pedo

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:27:38 UTC No. 16229276

>>16229236
Doesn't really matter anyway. Any chemical engine also needs to deal with boiloff. Difference is it needs to not boil off for 9 months instead of 3 on a trip to Mars. That adds a lot of mass

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:28:30 UTC No. 16229278

>>16229240
Hydrogen storage for missions where you have to keep tanks full for months until you make the insertion burn at Mars/Callisto/wherever is a huge challenge. Its not like doing TLI a few hours after launch like Apollo did.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:28:52 UTC No. 16229281

>>16228995
the tail looks like a guy with a missing tooth when an engine is out

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:28:54 UTC No. 16229282

>>16229230
Thrust to weight is not bad enough to make the spacecraft impractical for human spaceflight. The whole trip would be much shorter so I'm not sure what point you're making.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:29:01 UTC No. 16229283

>>16229276
Starship can do chemical three month Mars transfers

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:29:20 UTC No. 16229284

>>16228872
What the ball do?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:29:55 UTC No. 16229285

>>16229283
No it can't. What do you gain from just making things up?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:30:35 UTC No. 16229286

>>16229285
just shut the fuck up troll.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:30:38 UTC No. 16229287

>>16229278
just don't do insertion burns, easy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:30:53 UTC No. 16229289

>>16229285
Starship can do one week transfer

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:31:28 UTC No. 16229291

>>16229285
7 km/s is plenty to do short transfers, anon, especially if you aerobrake instead of doing an insertion burn

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:32:02 UTC No. 16229292

>>16229291
especially especially if you set off from NRHO instead of LEO

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:32:44 UTC No. 16229294

>>16229286
starship has enough delta v to do a standard honman transfer and land and that's it. That will take about 8.6 months. So what are you smoking

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:32:50 UTC No. 16229295

>>16229292
do not do this it makes mustard gas

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:33:02 UTC No. 16229296

>>16228916
the cost looks a lot worse due to inflation.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:33:40 UTC No. 16229298

>>16229244
Downside is not being able to go near the engine once its been used because the decay products are too gamma spicy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:34:05 UTC No. 16229299

>>16229294
youre baiting and also gay.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:35:21 UTC No. 16229300

>>16229241
>single use paint
What an innovation

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:36:32 UTC No. 16229304

why doesn't elon use the diamonds from his mines to make an unbreakable launch mount?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:43 UTC No. 16229307

>>16229304
diamond is the strongest metal, but doesn't have the highest heat tolerance.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:37:49 UTC No. 16229308

>>16229294
standard Hohmann transfer to Mars is like 3.6 km/s, anon
Starship has 7 km/s of delta V
please stop lying

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:39:11 UTC No. 16229310

>>16229308
it needs to land though dickhead

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:39:29 UTC No. 16229312

>>16229298
Radiation is the biggest scam in history.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:39:50 UTC No. 16229314

>>16229310
you need what, 700 m/s for that?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:40:14 UTC No. 16229315

>>16229308
>makes claims about delta v
>posts porkchop c3 chart as if that proves anything
just as expected from an ignorant muskrat shill

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:40:38 UTC No. 16229317

>>16229285
It can, are you retarded?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:41:05 UTC No. 16229320

>>16229308
where's the lie? You literally just agreed with me

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:41:09 UTC No. 16229321

>>16229304
>>16229307
Yep, they can shatter easily from thermal abuse. Also it was an emerald mine, not diamond mine, that Musk's father had an investment in.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:41:58 UTC No. 16229322

>>16229284
measures wind speed

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:42:17 UTC No. 16229323

>>16229317
>Musk is going to get there 2x faster and do a 24km/s areobrake into a precision landing at the land site
I simply don't believe this

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:43:22 UTC No. 16229325

>>16229315
C3 is directly convertible to delta v from LEO if you're not a brainlet
I'm currently trying to figure that equation out but uh

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:43:37 UTC No. 16229326

>>16229308
this chartmakes no fucking sense. you postd one for the moon not for mars.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:44:35 UTC No. 16229327

>>16229323
yeah GG ez no re
>>16229326
it says "earth mars ballistic transfer trajectories 2031" right there up top, anon

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:44:39 UTC No. 16229328

>>16229325
Pedo

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:45:00 UTC No. 16229329

>>16229323
it's pretty easy to do when you have an 18m diameter

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:45:07 UTC No. 16229330

>>16229323
>Elon simply can't
Gee whiz, never heard that one before

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:45:44 UTC No. 16229332

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:46:45 UTC No. 16229334

>>16229332
That interstage would crunch in on itself from the sheer thrust

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:47:01 UTC No. 16229335

>>16229245
KEEEEEEEEEK

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:47:25 UTC No. 16229337

>>16229330
I'm not a bling musk hater but just assuming incredible capabilities without actually seeing testing is retarded sorry. The current iteration of starship will get there in 8 months like everyone else

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:48:03 UTC No. 16229338

>>16228731
what the fuck is that?!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:49:12 UTC No. 16229339

>>16229328
probable frogposter

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:50:49 UTC No. 16229340

>>16229337
It's basic physics buddy boy

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:51:49 UTC No. 16229341

>>16229338
some kind of broccoli

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:53:27 UTC No. 16229343

>>16229341
Hey afros are cute

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:56:48 UTC No. 16229347

>>16229340
Standard transfer take around 3.6m/s so I'm not sure what physics you practiced. Even if you burn 100% of starships fuel that's still over 4 months of travel

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 22:59:19 UTC No. 16229351

>>16229334
>Teledyne Brown Engineering, the prime contractor on the project, along with several small business partners, has worked to design and build the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA), a highly engineered and weight optimized piece of spaceflight hardware. LVSA provides the fundamental structural strength required to withstand the launch loads and the maximum dynamic pressure (max q). It also provides the critical separation system used to separate the core stage of the rocket from the second stage, which includes the astronauts in the Orion crew vehicle. The cone-shaped adapter is roughly thirty feet in diameter by thirty feet tall and consists of sixteen aluminum-lithium 2195 alloy panels.
If SpaceX can't build something better than these clowns, human spaceflight is doomed

>16229332
The sad thing is this rocket would still cost something like $1.5B

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:04:40 UTC No. 16229356

!!!SEPARATE CATCH TOWERS!!!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:04:44 UTC No. 16229358

>>16229332
its not that easy in space. please understand.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:05:58 UTC No. 16229359

>>16229347
Who cares? They can chill out for eight months.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:06:05 UTC No. 16229360

>>16229347
>Standard transfer
Uh oh, stinky!

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:06:06 UTC No. 16229361

>>16229356
your dad, my pussy, NOW.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:08:56 UTC No. 16229365

>>16229325
>>16229325
don't quote me on this but [math]\Delta v = \sqrt{2 \frac{\mu}{r} + C_3} - \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{r}}[/math], assuming you're starting from a circular earth orbit with an altitude of 0.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:17:47 UTC No. 16229369

>>16229230
>>16229282
i don't want to hear any bellyaching about how NTRs don't have enough thrust after artemis I did TLI on a single rl-10

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:18:46 UTC No. 16229370

How come the Chinese video sites have more relevant content than the US ones on Starship? Like what the fuck? Youtube is full of bot channels when you search Starship and lot of negative takes. The chinese one seems to be following pretty closely to the development and lot of cheers on that.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:23:19 UTC No. 16229375

/sfg/s thoughts on Stoke, Vast, Firefly and Gravitics?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:26:04 UTC No. 16229376

>>16229370
yeah because they're trying to steal their technology

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:27:18 UTC No. 16229377

>>16229375
1) Not real company until they start flying.
2) Interested in Stoke/Vast, other 2 are meh

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:27:27 UTC No. 16229378

>>16229375
deserves to make it but who knows, definitely gonna make it, gonna make it but they're gonna turn to shit in the process, not gonna make it

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:29:36 UTC No. 16229381

>>16229375
>Stoke
Stoked
>Vast
cool but I don't see the business case
>Firefly
small sat meme
>Gravitics
same as vast but based that they want to launch on starship

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:30:23 UTC No. 16229382

when musk says its a strech goal to reach uranus is he trolling?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SH4GsGRZ4

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:31:44 UTC No. 16229385

>>16229382
Its a stretched goal, aka long term stuff.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:33:44 UTC No. 16229386

>>16229385
i'm pretty sure what elon means is that it's gonna take some real stretching to hit the tight entry corridor for uranus

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:34:26 UTC No. 16229387

>>16229375
Firefly has been doomed to irrelevance as soon as they decided to partner with Northrup instead of doing their own thing, Polyakov and Markusic were just the nail in the coffin.
Stoke is exciting and real and given what they've done they can credibly get the investment needed to make Nova fully and rapidly reusable.
Vast and Gravitics are cool but I fear profitability is a long way out for orbital destinations, maybe too long for a startup to survive.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:35:21 UTC No. 16229388

>>16229381
Hey retard Vast is launching on Starship too. Just their later Havens

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:35:24 UTC No. 16229389

>>16229381
>>16229387
vast has somehow managed to pull in some actual contracts with actual customers. gravitics hasn't.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:36:35 UTC No. 16229391

>>16229389
Speaking of
https://x.com/vast/status/1800583548942074032
>Vast signs with The Exploration Company for second Haven space station cargo services

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:37:48 UTC No. 16229392

>>16229382
I think it's a half-truth (i.e. "hopefully the long-term future of 18m+ Starship is going to every planet from Mercury to Pluto and even beyond") but in this instance he was more just making a joke about le funny butt planet XD

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:37:48 UTC No. 16229393

>>16229391
>The Exploration Company
>SpaceX: Space Exploration company

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:41:28 UTC No. 16229397

>>16229375
Stoke is proving that propulsion is a lot easier than previous generations were led to believe, and that's a very good thing. They're also the only group designing a launch vehicle for an industry defined by Starship instead of one defined by Falcon 9.

Vast is doing good work taking back market share from Thales Alenia and is likely to claim the first commercial space station prize that everyone was expecting to go to Axiom. If they can mass produce small-module stations that be launched cheap on Falcon they have a lot of possibilities they can follow.

Firefly is doing good work keeping Northrop Grumman just relevant enough to still exist in the industry, but doesn't seem to have much ambition beyond serving specific government needs. They'll never prosper, especially with Alpha being out lifted by Stoke's Nova, but you can survive on intermittent high-price DoD contracts.

Gravitics has great ambition but they're going to run into problems relying on a launch vehicle that hasn't quite figured out how it wants to handle its payload doors.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:44:40 UTC No. 16229403

Well, Musk?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:44:50 UTC No. 16229404

>>16229245
>Engine install & leak checks complete
>Test stand infrastructure checks complete, incl. LNG/LOX system flow tests
>Engine and stand operations validated
>Next up: Engine firing dry runs
So fuck all basically and you just posted this because Stoke had a hot fire and people were noticing Archimedes is a strictly worse, less complex engine that's been in development for longer.
Holy fuck public companies suck and Peter Beck is at the very heart of this faggotry.
Trying his hardest to emulate oldspace then wondering why they're getting undercut LMAOO

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:47:08 UTC No. 16229410

>>16229403
you do not need any bell nozzle walls if you have infinite combustion chambers

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:47:21 UTC No. 16229411

>>16228995

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:48:21 UTC No. 16229413

>>16229410
Would an annular aerospike be better or worse?

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:49:54 UTC No. 16229417

What do we think of this? Waste of money? Who's even funding it?

https://youtu.be/q5em38GeWiA?feature=shared&t=72

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:51:24 UTC No. 16229418

>>16229020

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:52:02 UTC No. 16229419

Rocket lab used to be pretty much universally liked on /sfg/, from what I recall. It's so interesting to note the rapid decline in popularity. I always rooted for them as the underdog but around the third redesign of Neutron it became apparent that things were stagnating

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:54:26 UTC No. 16229422

>>16229417
If they're not living at 2 bar at least then it's totally worthless

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:55:36 UTC No. 16229426

>>16229403
>>16229418

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:56:55 UTC No. 16229427

>>16229417
Ultimately the people who sign up for these things are major LARPers but I certainly do not blame them. I would absolutely participate in one, but they usually require masters/PhD degrees just to be considered.
I think they are useful though. You can't really waste time putting your real astronaut corps in long-duration missions like these. And spending money on good candidates who can accurately simulate months/years in a confined base teaches you little tricks and tips that will be needed on actual hardware you are designing for use with real astronauts

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:57:00 UTC No. 16229428

>>16229403
You sacrifice modularity, increasing cost of maintenance. Increases costs of time/installation. Increase costs of manufacturing since you cant produce deformed bells as easily as you can a proper bell shaped with a machine and slows down manufacturing.

Anonymous at Tue, 11 Jun 2024 23:57:39 UTC No. 16229429

>>16229284
Propellant is stored in the balls.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:00:37 UTC No. 16229432

>>16229419
the love of the crowd is forever a fickle thing and once he started complaining about spacex undercutting electron with rideshares he stopped being the loveable hobbit larping as a mini-elon

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:04:41 UTC No. 16229436

>>16229426

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:05:34 UTC No. 16229438

>>16229042
>>16229050
Now hold on a moment, let Elon cook.
Erectship only looks dumb in cargo variation because it's featureless and bizarre.
But could Erectship serve as the Space Shartle orbiter's proper successor?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:06:23 UTC No. 16229439

>>16229432
Nah it was when he SPACed and the whole company turned ever more conservative such that number doesnt go down.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:06:51 UTC No. 16229440

>>16229113
It can land at any nearby runway. Plus, it's like the space shuttle that was supposed to be, rather than the massive and chunky pile of disaster that still managed to perform quite well.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:07:35 UTC No. 16229441

>>16229428
NTA but
>You sacrifice modularity
What do you even mean by this, can you provide an example?
>increasing cost of maintenance
What
>Increases costs of time/installation
Whaaaat, you are just speculating. Who cares if it takes two more hours to install these wacky engines... for a reusable booster that's NEGLIGIBLE when it's awaiting flight and/or flying most if its life span
>Increase costs of manufacturing since you cant produce deformed bells as easily as you can a proper bell shaped with a machine and slows down manufacturing
I am not sure how Raptors are manufactured, but there are some rocket engine bell manufacturing techniques where it would be negligible. Such as autoclave forming from individual pipes.
I am not saying its a good idea I guess I am just playing devil's advocate but in some stupid alternate universe where this engine was a good idea, it is not impossible to imagine a company like SpaceX being able to do it, and do it at a low cost at that

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:09:13 UTC No. 16229442

>>16229403
Turn on part-clipping in editor to achieve this

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:09:25 UTC No. 16229443

>>16229441

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:12:12 UTC No. 16229446

Just make it 40 engines and take the differential thrustpill

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:12:26 UTC No. 16229448

>>16229375
I'll praise them when they accomplish something notable

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:14:59 UTC No. 16229449

>>16229403
So no engine bells? except the outer engines?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:15:43 UTC No. 16229451

>>16229438
>But could Erectship serve as the Space Shartle orbiter's proper successor?
no? shuttle was like 6:1 length:diameter and that was pretty consistent across all concepts studied. they understood the looks-good-flies-good principle as well as anyone. without proper wings you're going to want to go a little squatter, but v3 is already up to 7.8:1. i'm not going to let elon throw away his life's work over something this irritating to look at. 5.5:1 or fight.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:16:20 UTC No. 16229452

>>16229449
The opposite

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:16:23 UTC No. 16229453

>>16229417
Wouldnt mind doing a Mars breeding experiment with her

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:18:40 UTC No. 16229457

>>16229451
I meant spiritual successor to shartle in the sense that all crewed starships can carry cargo.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:20:57 UTC No. 16229461

>>16229452
opposite of what

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:22:26 UTC No. 16229463

>>16229457
SUSIE hands typed this

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:27:45 UTC No. 16229467

>>16229033
>>16229043
Yeah, I know how difficult it would be to change EVERYTHING about ss/sh in an upgrade to a wider dimeter, but its the obvious course of action.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:30:01 UTC No. 16229472

>>16229269
Jerad Fogle

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:32:37 UTC No. 16229474

>>16229467
It's not happening because the longer rocket is not actually an issue.
Landers can stay reasonably short still until they have pads on moon and Mars.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:33:56 UTC No. 16229475

10 more years?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:35:12 UTC No. 16229478

>>16229475
felon husk. completely unironically.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:36:06 UTC No. 16229481

>>16228666
>>16228667
frog x cirno

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:39:19 UTC No. 16229483

>>16229475
>10 more years
he literally said so
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qSuwIQhGeyI

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:57:29 UTC No. 16229499

https://twitter.com/heospace/status/1800677349870211554
>These two angles of ESA and JAXA's EarthCare are our first images of the satellite moments after it successfully deployed its solar panel in orbit. Identification means mission success

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 00:58:00 UTC No. 16229500

looks like when spacex finlly make a reusable launch pad it will have a flame diverter

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:01:26 UTC No. 16229504

>>16229500
source my vague screenshot no context

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:02:07 UTC No. 16229506

>>16228943
why
block III ship has 6 rvacs

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:03:32 UTC No. 16229508

hi there. was the moon landing an hoax?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:09:16 UTC No. 16229512

>>16229508
I find that most of the evidence “against” it can be dismissed by even just moderate digging. That is to say; it’s more likely it actually happened than not. You would have to subscribe to the fact that even the Soviets were in kahoots to lie about everything ‘beyond the firmament,’ and that’s just too retarded to accept, sorry

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:09:25 UTC No. 16229513

>>16229417
>mars colony
>interstellar
what is it with normies calling everything interstellar or "intergalactic"?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:11:09 UTC No. 16229516

>>16229513
I believe she's saying it looks like the movie interstellar for the sake of the youtube algorythm

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:11:58 UTC No. 16229519

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1800688151389958381
>Since the images showing the proposed layout for 39A Starship are such low resolution I decided to put together this Soar Earth Draw project, allowing you to interact with the map in high resolution over recent satellite imagery
http://soar.earth/draw/1026

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:13:27 UTC No. 16229522

kinda funny how the american space program practically halted after the operation paperclip scientists left NASA
and isn't it curious how we don't have the full documentation from Apollo?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:14:29 UTC No. 16229526

>>16229440
The fact that the first space plane/lifting body to reenter from LEO weighed 78 tons rather than 5 tons is insane

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:14:35 UTC No. 16229527

>>16229522
>>>/x/

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:16:24 UTC No. 16229531

>>16229522
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=apollo which documents are missing?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:18:08 UTC No. 16229533

>>16229475
Impossible to late

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:18:10 UTC No. 16229534

>>16229214
NTP isn't particularly fast

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:18:53 UTC No. 16229536

https://twitter.com/raz_liu/status/1800697681935024402
>More detail pics of Tianlong-3 first stage.
>Will Arrive at hot fire test site at 0613.
>Hot fire test at end of June
>Need to go back to assembly factory to test with second stage at early July
>Ready to be shipped to Wenchang at end of July

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:19:26 UTC No. 16229537

>>16229417
>they have a urinal
i was jus thtonking, surely on the moon youwould get DIABOLICAL splashback? there would be PISS EVERYWHERE whenever you urinate in the toilet

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:19:37 UTC No. 16229538

>>16229531
the voices in my head told me we can't actually make more F-1 engines, not having the notes or the brains of the engineers who worked on them

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:19:41 UTC No. 16229539

>vast has lots of jobs available
>check https://www.vastspace.com/careers
>see gorillions of jobs listed
wtf

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:21:06 UTC No. 16229542

science fiction has brainedwashed into thinking space travel is infinitely easier than it is. even if we end up having a small colony on mars that's all it will ever be, it won't be self sustaining. and even if by miracle it managed to be that would be the maximum extent of our space travel. anything else is completely out of reach. we will sooner live in virtual reality

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:21:54 UTC No. 16229543

>>16229542
>it wont be because i said so
Show math

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:23:43 UTC No. 16229546

>>16229537
surely they would have a vacuum system to make things go the right way, not unlike the iss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VoeRAR0YgE

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:25:28 UTC No. 16229549

air-breathing superheavy when?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:28:25 UTC No. 16229554

>>16229538
it does kinda upset me to think that now that everyone knows you can cluster 30+ raptors and it'll be fine that we're probably never gonna see F-1/RD-170-sized engines again

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:28:35 UTC No. 16229555

>>16229543
blind hope cope

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:30:44 UTC No. 16229561

>>16229539
this is way too many real jobs and not enough jobs that i could conceivably qualify for

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:32:06 UTC No. 16229563

>>16229417
any serious colonist would consider applying for one of these missions

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:34:13 UTC No. 16229567

>>16229481
shes mean to frogs :(

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:35:43 UTC No. 16229570

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:35:55 UTC No. 16229571

>>16229539
>https://boards.greenhouse.io/vast/jobs/4373021006?gh_jid=4373021006
>IT Support Specialist L1: $26.98-$32.97/hour
lol

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:37:26 UTC No. 16229574

>>16229542
The seether recoils at progress, and gets angry at those with more ambition that he possesses.
Many such cases!

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:41:44 UTC No. 16229579

>>16229570
SSME got similar numbers to the advanced engine other than being way smaller. is the advanced air cycle just skylon or what?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 01:43:04 UTC No. 16229581

>>16229574
is this what delusion sounds like? I think it might be

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:11:04 UTC No. 16229604

i think we are doomed bros
no way we make it off this rock before society collapses, have you seen the absolute state of children? 1 in 9 have adhd now lmao

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:14:06 UTC No. 16229607

>>16229604
plastics will be banned on mars, use of which will always be punished by immediate death

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:14:57 UTC No. 16229609

SN15 Starship + IFT 4 booster

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:22:56 UTC No. 16229618

>>16229604
launches will be banned to save the climate. no way soacex could get away with multiple superheavy launches a week.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:28:17 UTC No. 16229624

>>16229618
>launches will be banned to save the climate
this is unironically going to happen

sage at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:29:06 UTC No. 16229625

>>16229618
I have a suspicion that they'll use carbon neutral methane despite a higher price specifically so this doesn't happen. There's a startup that made real progress towards that

unsage at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:30:32 UTC No. 16229629

>>16229625
Whoops forgot to change my name
>>16229624
No way man, they swapped to methane for a reason. By 2035 Starship will technically be solar powered

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:37:04 UTC No. 16229642

>>16229607
all plastic will be either imported from earth or manufactured whole cloth from methane
synplastic like this is a pain in the ass but once you've started it there's basically no reason not to do biodegradable plastics
that or the weird corn bioplastics that are biodegradable
either way it'll only be used for very specific high performance applications where plastic is required, like firearms
>>16229629
>>16229625
okay, but what about:
satellite reentries depositing aluminum and silicon in the upper atmosphere
Starship reentries creating mixed oxides of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere (a potent ozone depleteant)
uhhhhhhhhhh methane in the upper atmosphere? the exhaust is fuel rich and not all of it combusts and methane is a potent greenhouse gas

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:37:58 UTC No. 16229644

>>16229629
>>16229625
the public won't care
rocket bad
pollution bad
(it actually is bad since its above the atmosphere)

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:39:00 UTC No. 16229646

>>16229642
>biodegradable plastics
not actually a thing btw
fun fact, most things labeled as biodegradable are not UNLESS you bury them(being inside your body does not count either)

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:42:00 UTC No. 16229648

>>16229618
climate is a moot point now, solar is cheaper than any other energy source everywhere except Northern Europe with costs still going down rapidly, EVs are as good as ICE cars and the world population will start to decline in a few decades. Emissions per capita are already declining/flat and total emissions will start going down fairly soon

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:43:05 UTC No. 16229649

>>16229646
I guess we'll just need to engineer a plastic-eating microbe that eats nothing but plastic and unleash it upon the world

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 02:53:12 UTC No. 16229654

>>16229538
Manufacturing ability pretty much stops the day you stop manufacturing
If Maytag stops making a dishwasher model, in 2 years it would be impossible to remake the same dishwasher as fast. And that's something that has a full CAD
F1 has a bunch of hand crafted stuff. You can't even put that on paper if you try.

You would know this if you ever had any professional experience in any technical domain for like, 2 days

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:02:22 UTC No. 16229666

>>16229642
Do NOT let the public think anything beyond "carbon neutral".

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:03:57 UTC No. 16229668

>>16229649
Nature did it already with wood, I'm guessing we can speed up the process this time

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:05:30 UTC No. 16229670

>>16229534
yeah not by car standards. You're not thinking about it right

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:08:07 UTC No. 16229672

>>16229542
>we'll figure out how to send stuff to mars and then we'll just stop for no reason

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:16:10 UTC No. 16229681

>>16229649
i am sure that won't end in a disaster :)
not like we use plastic for basically everything in the medical industry or the food industry to keep thing sterile

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:20:28 UTC No. 16229686

>>16228990
in space no one can hear you jak

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:27:44 UTC No. 16229691

an essential piece of equipment for all survivors
working on my gyrocopter pilot outfit now
obviously I need to wear the survivor goggles and a bandana and wield a composite crossbow

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:32:53 UTC No. 16229698

fuck, I'm missing the helmet portion of the firefighter outfit
I also have the firefighter PCB but I'm wearing it because it's good

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:34:55 UTC No. 16229701

>>16229691
>>16229698
Wrong general, it would seem

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:35:31 UTC No. 16229703

>>16229701
based

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:38:48 UTC No. 16229709

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:40:12 UTC No. 16229711

>>16229709
It's hard to understate how true this is

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:41:14 UTC No. 16229715

>>16229536
Hope it ruds on the pad.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:41:30 UTC No. 16229717

>>16229691
>>16229698
>>16229701
based loadout. fight the ayys.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:41:32 UTC No. 16229718

>>16229709
>this is literally happening
wtf memes are real?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:43:20 UTC No. 16229723

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1800709666382770304

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:45:39 UTC No. 16229727

>>16229723

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 03:55:44 UTC No. 16229743

>>16229475

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:02:07 UTC No. 16229751

>>16229743
Wait, he told the truth???? He was RIGHT?>????

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:02:20 UTC No. 16229752

>>16229743
are you really gonna pretend we'll get to mars in the next 10 years?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:02:44 UTC No. 16229755

>>16229752
there's a high chance

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:02:48 UTC No. 16229756

>>16229743
so worst case 2031 and anything beyond that proves elon perjured himself?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:02:49 UTC No. 16229757

>>16228612
i haven't paid attention to spaceflight since ift1, what have i missed?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:03:21 UTC No. 16229758

>>16229752
are u gonna pretend we wont

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:03:35 UTC No. 16229759

>>16229757
some absolute kino live reentries.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:03:48 UTC No. 16229760

>>16229757
ift2, ift3, ift4

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:04:13 UTC No. 16229761

>>16229756
everyone thinks 2033 is the date for humans, but they'll likely send unmanned ships by 2029

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:04:21 UTC No. 16229762

>>16229752
Are you really going to pretend headlines are reality?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:04:29 UTC No. 16229763

>>16229755
>>16229758
you poor souls. I envy your naivety

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:05:28 UTC No. 16229764

>>16229763
this isnt a nasa mission, there's a very high chance of death. you go into it knowing this.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:07:33 UTC No. 16229765

>>16229761
funny, futures markets indicate only 18% of everybody thinks 2033 is the date for humans https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3515/when-will-the-first-humans-land-successfully-on-mars/

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:09:00 UTC No. 16229766

>>16229018
THE WARP IS A SONG, LET ME PLAY A VERSE FOR YOU!

I PRAY THAT ONE DAY YOU WILL FEEL AS I DO, THAT THE PRIMORDIAL TRUTH SHALL RULE SUPREME!

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:09:53 UTC No. 16229768

>>16229752
The only reason this isnt crazy is because the HLS architecture overlaps so much with it. The delta V to the moon is higher, the only thing harder about mars is the long trip there and back, which isn't a problem when you have big mass. Really the biggest problem with the 10 year timeline is the orbits dictate the window. You could be ready in 10 years but the window could be 2 years away so EDS retards explode

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:10:55 UTC No. 16229770

>>16229764
if spacex had the hardware to go to mars there would be a nasa mission

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:14:06 UTC No. 16229775

>>16229770
i think so too but it'll have it's own requirements separate from the rest of the colony

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:15:51 UTC No. 16229779

>>16229770
NASA is run by congress and congress only understands SLS and jobs numbers
they'll setup a companion program to artemis around artemis 3

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:16:06 UTC No. 16229780

>>16229397
Based on rate of progress between IFTs, you seem extremely pessimistic about starship. Pretty sure they'll be able to handle cargo doors if they can handle orbital reentry and landing with half a flap buddy.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:16:47 UTC No. 16229781

>>16228982
>mouth on top
>eyes on the bottom
what the fuck is that thing?!

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:17:47 UTC No. 16229784

>>16228995
"There are 33 lights"

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:19:20 UTC No. 16229787

>>16229784
gul elon tortures captain philip mason

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:22:09 UTC No. 16229789

>>16229475
>only built one shitty megaconstellation that changed terrestrial communication forever
>only built one shitty rocket that changed spaceflight forever
what an asshole!

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:24:27 UTC No. 16229792

>>16229781
a man who is upside down

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:25:58 UTC No. 16229794

>>16229020
>You will live to see Kino you can hardly imagine

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:26:01 UTC No. 16229795

>>16229604
>adhd
A byproduct of information overload, in great excess of what evolution prepared people for.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:27:07 UTC No. 16229797

>>16229795
this is false
otherwise it would be more common
children in the 1900s learned far more at school too

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:28:00 UTC No. 16229798

>>16229691
Learn to speak snake

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:35:10 UTC No. 16229800

>>16229760
>>16229759
yeah, im caught up on the starship stuff mostly, but everything else im not
i have to say, the progression from starship is better then i expected. i didnt expect any successful soft touchdown of starship, damaged or otherwise, until 2025

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:37:50 UTC No. 16229802

>>16229752
First cargo flights in 2029, second round of cargo flights in 2031, and manned landing in 2033.
very reasonable timeline. people forget that 9 years ago spacex hadnt even landed falcon 9 once successfully, or launched a single crew into orbit. or even really started on starship development. 9 years is a very long time for spacex.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:39:05 UTC No. 16229804

>>16229765
a significant portion (>35%) of those people probably dont even know starship exists, so its probably pretty biased

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:41:01 UTC No. 16229806

>>16229802
Realistically you could throw cargo at Mars right now and probably be alright putting it into orbit for later use. Yes, using Starship as-is.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:42:33 UTC No. 16229807

>nasa goes to mars
ok but which would be the second american government agency to go? noaa? space force? usgs?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:43:26 UTC No. 16229810

>>16229804
and if there's one thing /sfg/ has been consistent about over the years it's unbiased and reliable predictions about spacex's timetables

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:47:20 UTC No. 16229813

https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1800750167462998516

Starlink dish prices drop 50%($300) for limited time deal for those in certain states. If any of you fucks are on the fence and want a spare starlink dish.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:51:42 UTC No. 16229816

>>16229807
either the IRS or BATFE
gotta stop those machine gun conversion devices on mars

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:53:57 UTC No. 16229818

>>16229810
sfg is just as known for people who make predictions about how starship will never do xyz. i remember when people were saying the whole program was doomed after sn1 failed during cryo testing and that they would never even static fire

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:55:57 UTC No. 16229819

>>16229806
you could, but i think spacex will mostly be focusing on artemis and starlink stuff until artemis III. i suppose its possible they'll send one starship to mars in the 2026 window to test Mars EDL and maybe land some extra cargo ahead of the 2029 window, but its not necessarily going to happen.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 04:58:13 UTC No. 16229820

>>16229818
Do you really perceive this place as having as many pessimists about starship as optimists?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:02:30 UTC No. 16229823

>>16229820
ive been here for over 4 years.
yes. most threads ive been in, say one optimistic thing about starship and you get 2-3 replies telling you you're wrong. if you say something pessimistic, people will probably agree with you.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:04:05 UTC No. 16229826

>>16229823
those people are trolling and/or tourists

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:08:33 UTC No. 16229830

>>16229823
I'm incredulous but I'll try to pay attention next time anon

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:12:29 UTC No. 16229832

Next flight the engine relight test and door test are going to work, and starship will re-enter with no serious damage. I don't know when the tower catch will happen because the booster if the booster doesn't like something it suicides in the ocean, but if the booster decides to go for it, it will work because it can land on the grid fins.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:34:03 UTC No. 16229842

>>16229823
pulling up a random /sfg/ with some future predictions from july 2020:
https://warosu.org/sci/thread/11950077#p11950730
>I can see an unmanned flyby in 2022, I can't imagine a manned landing until 2024 though.
>I think we're not going to see reliable orbit and recovery before 2023-2024, but that Artemis and Dear Moon will likely happen in 2024-2025... Realistically, it's probably going to be cargo Starships on one-way trips prepositioning materials in 2026 followed by a manned launch in 2028, likely with intentions to stay.
>I'd be shocked if we see anything more than an unmanned flyby/landing in 2024... I doubt we'll see a truly reliably recoverable LEO starship before 2022, and it probably won't make a manned flight before 2023.
>We'll be lucky if starship gets to orbit by 2022, let alone to mars.
>We'd be lucky if starship got to orbit in early 2021. It'll probably get to orbit in mid or late 2021
of the anons making concrete predictions, 80% were wildly too optimistic. 0% were too pessimistic. that basically comports with my memory of the time.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 05:50:43 UTC No. 16229857

>>16229842
Anybody who knows a little bit of spaceflight knows you have to be pessimistic to be realistic, thats why I laugh at muskrats that talks about starship to mars or shit like that, they seem too inocent. Now were in mid 2024 and starship didnt get to orbit yet, but we dont have to be mean to muskrats, they start watching spaceflight in 2018

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:08:21 UTC No. 16229864

>>16228990
So he tries to keep his sanity
With the help of his robot friends

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:41:16 UTC No. 16229881

>>16229857
There was a 2 year delay due to EIS

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:53:42 UTC No. 16229890

>>16229881
and fortunately this is the last time ever that an unforeseen delay will push everything back by years

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 06:54:33 UTC No. 16229891

>5th helium leak detected on star liner
Lol, what a POS

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:00:13 UTC No. 16229895

>>16229890
Pointless to add that into predictions, its unkowable

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:02:39 UTC No. 16229900

>>16229807
USGS is not a bad prediction. They make maps of everything, even the Moon and Mars.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:28:38 UTC No. 16229916

>>16229895
>you don't get it, the predictions are SUPPOSED to have a wildly overoptimistic bias

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:31:46 UTC No. 16229919

>>16229916
Yes. Those predictions should be mandates too.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:31:53 UTC No. 16229920

>>16229916
not that wild

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:33:49 UTC No. 16229922

I mean you could put all kinds of retarded shit in there
what if there is ww3? What if a asteroid induced tsunami wipes out the whole east coast?
What if SpaceX gets nationalized and the project gets cancelled?
pointless
of course things could happen but then you just adjust the timelines for these unforseen things

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:48:11 UTC No. 16229931

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-embracing-spacexs-starshield-for-future-military-satcom/
>All of our users are on the commercial Starlink constellation,” Hopper explained. DoD has “unique service plans that contain privileged capabilities and features that are not available commercially.”
>She noted the flat-panel user terminals that CSCO purchases from SpaceX are designed to be compatible with commercial Starlink and government-owned Starshield satellites. “The terminal is capable of roaming on the Starlink and the Starshield constellation,” Hopper said.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:53:36 UTC No. 16229940

>>16229931
Total Muskrat Domination

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:58:07 UTC No. 16229945

>>16229881
>>16229842
don't forget covid fucked up the world way more than anyone realized back then

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 07:58:17 UTC No. 16229947

https://spacenews.com/fifth-helium-leak-detected-on-starliner/
>WASHINGTON — NASA confirmed that Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft has suffered a fifth, although minor, helium leak in its propulsion system as engineers work to prepare the vehicle for its return to Earth next week.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:15:21 UTC No. 16229961

>>16229891
>>16229947
NASA should unironically cancel the program. If Boeing can't get their shit together, they are just flying a literal death trap. I understand why they want dual launchers, but for the love of Christ, try someone else. They had no qualms allowing SpaceX fly alone for four years. What's another four?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:24:18 UTC No. 16229970

>>16229947
reminder that bobendoug's mission went so well that it got extended to 63 days

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:29:09 UTC No. 16229976

>>16229931
The hell are they going to accomplish with just 100 sats? Will they be connected to the greater network?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:30:33 UTC No. 16229978

>>16229947
lol

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:34:16 UTC No. 16229982

>>16229947
>engineers work to prepare the vehicle for its return to Earth next week
i got a bad feeling about this

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:37:26 UTC No. 16229986

>>16228821
hate to be the doomer but:
raptor doesn't work reliably
the heat shield doesn't work properly
they couldn't manage to make a door work

We're on schedule for a 2030 moon landing

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:42:54 UTC No. 16229991

>>16229986
Starship HLS doesn't need heat tiles

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:47:53 UTC No. 16229995

>>16228703
except we beta tested the moon for them 50 years ago.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:52:08 UTC No. 16229998

>>16229991
Are they going to make ten expendable tankers?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:52:56 UTC No. 16229999

>>16229991
But it requires reliable engines, it also requires multiple flight to fuel up. But really the engines are the biggest issue for Starship right now.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:53:57 UTC No. 16230000

>>16229998
they probably will if nasa want to land on the moon asap

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:55:50 UTC No. 16230004

>>16229999
Like I have been saying, hypergolic HLS would have been superior

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 08:57:13 UTC No. 16230005

>>16230004
well yes.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:00:14 UTC No. 16230008

>>16229947
FIVE

I

V

E

HELIUM

E

L

I

U

M

LEAKS

E

A

K

S

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:14:17 UTC No. 16230015

>>16230004
>>16230005
>you should build the wrong thing instead of the right thing
kys
>>16229999
>engines are the biggest issue
no actually it's the heat shield as could be seen on the flight and was confirmed by elon to be the most important remaining issue

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:15:21 UTC No. 16230016

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:20:11 UTC No. 16230022

>>16229016
For me, it's not the fineness ratio that bothers me, but the ratio between the stages. I feel like the booster should be longer compared to Starship. Aesthetically speaking

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:21:47 UTC No. 16230024

>>16230015
They can do the Artemis missions without the heatshiled, but not without the engines. Also they need to develop new engines just for the lunar landing.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:25:42 UTC No. 16230027

>>16230024
You either build a fully reusable rocket or you don't.
That is the primary objective and that is how they're prioritizing it.
Next flight will Booster catch and Starship relight in orbit.
They have no intentions of flying HLS tankers expendably.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:35:30 UTC No. 16230034

>>16230027
As far as we know, the tanker itself is expendable because it won't have flaps.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:38:08 UTC No. 16230037

>>16230034
that sounds kind of unrealistic
the depot will be "expendable" i.e. not coming back to earth but why would the tanker be expendable? For Mars missions the tanker is going to be the ship that is flown most often

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 09:43:16 UTC No. 16230042

I shall submit my alternative method of catching/landing the booster and ship on Earth that's more reliable than the arm thing.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:00:41 UTC No. 16230056

>>16230037
Sorry, I meant depot. My brain is fried from cooming.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:04:05 UTC No. 16230058

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:08:44 UTC No. 16230064

>>16230058
"Tis but a scratch" sounds like a cringy Electron mission name.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:10:24 UTC No. 16230065

>>16230058
Header tanks as soda can is clever.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:13:49 UTC No. 16230067

>>16228880
Surely it's literally faster to just scrap it, and build a new one.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:14:14 UTC No. 16230068

Do you think that well ever see a fairing version of Starship? How exactly does Vast plan on getting their shit into space on Starship given how big the modules are?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:15:58 UTC No. 16230070

>>16230065
So does that mean raptors firing = starship-chan peeing??

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:16:24 UTC No. 16230072

>>16230070
Braaping

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:23:10 UTC No. 16230076

>>16230070
>>16230072
Booster Raptor = braaaptor

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:26:44 UTC No. 16230082

>>16230076
she is drinking a liquid, the excreted fluid must be pee

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 10:37:50 UTC No. 16230094

>>16230082
>Liquid => Combustion => Gas

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:06:07 UTC No. 16230112

new Artemis lunar spacesuit just dropped

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

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:17:38 UTC No. 16230118

https://archive ph/QQxPE

WSJ with the deets about Elon fucking female SpaceX employees

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:19:27 UTC No. 16230119

>>16230118
Based

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:22:18 UTC No. 16230121

https://x.com/tzukran/status/1800839079132799067/


WTF Starlink confirmed for UFO tech?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:24:19 UTC No. 16230124

>>16230118
Fraudulent cancel culture trying to create fake shit.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:24:30 UTC No. 16230125

>>16230121
Imagine looking up and seeing this coming directly for you

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:27:53 UTC No. 16230127

>>16230118
>elon was fucking prime teen pussy intern and put her on executive staff at spacex after she graduated as a reward
wtf

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:42:34 UTC No. 16230136

>>16230127
fradulent hitpiece as usual, even the woman herself disputes much of the bullshit and they say it here
she is the one that asked Musk to get dinner

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:44:05 UTC No. 16230138

>>16230127
>Former employees said that while she was a talented engineer, they found it odd that someone so junior was given such a high-profile role so close to the boss.
>After she arrived in California, Musk invited her for drinks and came on to her, touching her breast, friends said she told them at the time. One of them said the woman recalled Musk saying, “Oh, I’m so bad. I shouldn’t be doing this.”
>She told friends that she was unhappy at SpaceX, had no authority and had trouble getting executives to take her ideas seriously.

>She visited Musk at his home multiple times, as she struggled at work to establish herself, according to people familiar with the matter and friends she confided in.
>“He would text her, like a lot,” said one of the friends. When she didn’t respond to a nighttime invitation to come over to his house, Musk texted her name repeatedly, the friend recalled.
>When she still hadn’t responded, he wrote, “Probably best if we don’t see each other.”
>“Well I mean I think he broke up with me this morning. If I interpreted that last text ,” she wrote.
>“Why are so many of the men in my life so weiiiiirrddddd,” she wrote.

>She said in one of the affidavits that she and Musk texted frequently as she supported him through difficulties, including issues at Tesla and his divorce from actress Talulah Riley.
>He was married to Riley when the teen and Musk were in a romantic relationship years earlier. They divorced in 2016.

>On the few occasions that she went to Musk’s house, the woman said in one of the affidavits, they watched TV and talked. In the email, she said they watched anime and talked about the Tesla Model 3 production ramp up and the “technical future of humanity.”

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:46:17 UTC No. 16230139

>>16230138
Whats musks favorite anime?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:47:18 UTC No. 16230142

>>16230136
>even the woman herself disputes much of the bullshit
Source?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:47:40 UTC No. 16230143

>>16230118
If I was Elon I would

>>16230127
So much for SpaceX being a meritocracy.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:47:52 UTC No. 16230144

>>16230142
the start of the article

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:48:52 UTC No. 16230147

>>16230121
Mass production series

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:49:43 UTC No. 16230150

>>16230139
probably some harem groomer show

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:50:11 UTC No. 16230152

>>16230118
They created thw whole russiagate and the pissgate with zero evidence. They created the whole covid lies about origin, efficacy, and funding. They created the whole cover up and lies about Hunter Biden laptop story.

Zerotrust in anything media says

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:52:32 UTC No. 16230157

>In the summer of 2013, a woman who reported directly to Musk left the company and later returned with a lawyer. She alleged that Musk had asked her on multiple occasions to have his babies, according to people familiar with the allegations.
>Musk, who has at least 10 children, has said that the world faces an underpopulation crisis and that people with high IQs should procreate. He has encouraged some of his employees to have children.
>But the woman at SpaceX declined Musk’s offer. She had continued working for Musk after he asked her to have his children, but their relationship deteriorated. Besides the baby allegations, Musk had denied the woman a raise and complained about her performance, according to people familiar with the matter.
>The woman received an exit package of cash and stock valued at more than $1 million, according to a person familiar with the agreement.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:53:14 UTC No. 16230160

>>16230127
>>16230138

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:56:25 UTC No. 16230165

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:57:12 UTC No. 16230166

>gwynne was triggered that a female spacex employee was alone with her husband so she tried to get HR to fire her immediately but elon wanted to keep her on
lol

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:57:19 UTC No. 16230167

>>16230157
damn what a creep. Reminds me a bit of Epstein's breeding ranch.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 11:59:14 UTC No. 16230168

>>16230157
I believe all women

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:00:33 UTC No. 16230172

Step aside Musk.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:00:45 UTC No. 16230174

Fuck off, this juvenile gossip isn't spaceflight.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:01:47 UTC No. 16230175

hitpieces have really ramped up
the vote for musks compensation package ratification ends today
kind of convenient timing don't you think?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:02:56 UTC No. 16230177

>>16230175
He might still get his $50B?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:03:18 UTC No. 16230178

>>16230172
What the fuck is that

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:03:55 UTC No. 16230180

If he gets $50bil, SpaceX gets $50bil. I hope he gets it

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:04:22 UTC No. 16230181

>>16229961
Rocket Lab or Locksneed could probably churn out a decent vehicle if funded

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:04:28 UTC No. 16230182

>>16230166
>elon fucked her too
but of course he did

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:05:06 UTC No. 16230183

Imagine showing your rocket factory to THIS guy

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:05:08 UTC No. 16230184

>>16230172
why is his bitch such a mess? he could have got anyone.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:06:04 UTC No. 16230185

>>16230178
it's the magical smiling negro of safety.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:06:08 UTC No. 16230186

>>16230184
We can only speculate.

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:06:14 UTC No. 16230187

>>16230181
Why do that when crewed dream chaser is pretty already finished?

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:07:20 UTC No. 16230189

Anonymous at Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:08:28 UTC No. 16230190