🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 09:43:41 UTC No. 16256348

OK chink shill

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:35:20 UTC No. 16256400

>>16256348
>sending a ton of useless trash to (very) low Earth orbit is a good thing

🗑️ Barkon at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 10:39:24 UTC No. 16256403

>>16256400
There's nothing I don't know bro, even people and now - in reference to your 00 of intellect. Knew it.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 11:29:08 UTC No. 16256455

>>16256339
The problem isnt the private space industry.

Any private or govt industry that promotes / embraces equality of outcome vs advancement by merit is doomed to fail.

Its also worth noting that every major invention this century- from flight to semiconductors has been based upon non-govt , private and often small organizations that practice equality of opportunity.

Both NASA and Boeing are rooting for equality of outcome and not equality of opportunity


Both are failing.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:05:11 UTC No. 16256575

>>16256339
Are you trolling or what? It's been a massive success

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 13:45:38 UTC No. 16256614

>>16256575
No it hasn't, over budget and under delivered. Every new "success" is just some gimmick to wow the clapping seals on social media. I live in deep rural America and I will never get Star Link. The cost of equipment and monthly fee is too much. I use a prepaid cellular plan on unlimited data as internet and it works just fine for 5% the cost and 1% the power usage. I live off grid so wasting 300+ watts on all that Star Link gear vs 5 watts of a cell phone(modem) is silly. In a few years 5G and more towers will mean I have tons of super fast internet with no data caps. Cell towers are cheaper and more effective than spamming space with satellites and starting a Kessler cascade in Earth orbit. Or just doing the hard work of laying fiber. Even though I live in rural America on a dirt road the closest paved road has fiber optics running down it. Only another 3000 feet and I have fiber too. No need to Star Link, it's a gimmick only good for military applications. "Reusable rockets" are not really that reusable, it takes week or months to REFURBISH them into a flyable form. Not reusable, refurbished. For all the time, man hours, billions of dollars, and big promises Space X has provided a literal handful of meager successes at basically meaningless levels of improvement. Starship is a run away disaster and will go down in history as one of the biggest con jobs ever. Think The Spruce Goose.

Yes, all the other private space companies suck too, Boeing about to kill to astronauts. RIP

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 15:37:28 UTC No. 16256745

>>16256614
??????
Satellite launches are cheap as shit now thanks to falcon 9 and the U.S has something to replace the space shuttle for manned missions, everything beyond that is extra relative to what NASA wanted in 2010 or so

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:46:03 UTC No. 16256893

>>16256614
Starlink may not make sense for your personal situation, but it certainly does for a lot of other people; they are now at over 3 million subscribers and still growing, and by most estimates it is now a solidly profitable service. And it not just for residential or military use (though those are good for money) - there is a very large market for airlines, commercial shipping, cruise ships, and the like which are starting to pay very good money for Starlink service, and obviously those use cases simply can't be done by fiber or cell towers.

I also think you are grossly overestimating how much it costs refurbish a rocket for another flight; SpaceX is basically launching rockets every 3 or 4 days now, so if the process was that expensive they would have needed more rounds of VC funding than they have actually done.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:49:34 UTC No. 16256899

>>>/sci/sfg/

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:52:31 UTC No. 16256901

>>16256614
Also, claiming Starship is a "run away disaster" after the last mostly successful test flight is pretty dumb. It still has a few issues to solve, but those all seem quite solvable.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 17:58:56 UTC No. 16256909

>>16256339
Exactly how is it a failure? SPACE x is building satellites to connect remote locations and telecommunications

Cope and seethe

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:16:42 UTC No. 16256950

>>16256339

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:18:00 UTC No. 16256955

>>16256400
Go eat your boiled dog before it gets cold.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:19:17 UTC No. 16256957

>>16256901
Every launch SpaceX makes with the thing is an improvement on the last. Pretty sure OP is just faking. I mean granted most private space sucks ass, and some is actively malignant, like Below Orbit.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:21:50 UTC No. 16256961

>>16256339
America is rapidly decaying into a sort of northern Brazil. There won't be any space exploration coming from there after another few decades regardless.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:23:50 UTC No. 16256965

>>16256961
Two more decades, thirdie? lol

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 18:28:49 UTC No. 16256979

>>16256965
You're already at the beginning stages of not knowing how to build planes anymore. Keep coping.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:22:31 UTC No. 16257083

>>16256614
357 successful launches faggot
cope and sneed

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:29:15 UTC No. 16257089

>>16256979
Keep believing that if it lessens the burden of being the species' chaff.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:37:34 UTC No. 16257106

>>16256965
The USA is already known throughout the developed world as a third world nation in a Gucci belt.

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 19:49:25 UTC No. 16257121

>>16256339
it's not private. they're sending military satelites into space

Anonymous at Thu, 27 Jun 2024 20:06:05 UTC No. 16257148

>>16257121
The military hires private companies all the time to do assorted tasks. That does not make those companies not private.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 01:26:07 UTC No. 16257524

>>16256400
>China to launch first satellites for megaconstellation in August
https://spacenews.com/china-to-launch-first-satellites-for-megaconstellation-in-august/
Here is your "useless trash" dumbass

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 14:52:29 UTC No. 16258186

>>16256614
You're so fucking stupid it's painful to witness. you come across like some demoralist faggot who doesn't even believe the garbage coming out of his mouth. I didn't read your giant rant because everything you said leading up to it is so patently false. Are you just some chatbot whose sole goal is to spread the opposite of the truth?

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:02:35 UTC No. 16258201

The private space flight industry has shown no impressive achievements compared to what the US and Soviet Union did in less time.

sage at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:04:36 UTC No. 16258203

>>16256339
We all hope that biden will give NASA a boost from next year onwards, and that we'll once again be able to have useful and interesting space-related projects. A new international space station would be nice, for example.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:13:20 UTC No. 16258212

>>16258201
retard. 2014 was the first flight of grasshopper. 2024 has starship flying around the Earth (mostly). Thats pretty fucking close to Apollo with a fraction of the people working on it.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:13:49 UTC No. 16258213

>>16258212
In 10 years, we got to the moon

sage at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:21:16 UTC No. 16258224

>>16258213
With 4% of the entire yearly budget of the United States. If SpaceX was handed $250 billion dollars per year you'd have a point, but they're a private company with a yearly revenue of less than a percent of that until recently

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:25:58 UTC No. 16258235

>>16258224
cope
technology is much better now and private comps are meant to be more efficient

sage at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:30:58 UTC No. 16258244

>>16258235
It's also worth noting that in 2018 when Elon Musk planned a private Mars landing, he was overtly threatened by senator Shelby via the retraction of all NASA funding. SpaceX has been actively disincentivized to do private exploration missions. It isn't a matter of ability whatsoever.

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:38:39 UTC No. 16258256

>>16258244
>muh conspiracy theory

sage at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 15:53:46 UTC No. 16258269

>>16258256
Shelby is well known for this sort of thing. Falcon Heavy would've demonstrated the same capabilities as the SLS which would mean less money for the state Shelby was representing. You can actually see the 90° shift in NASA's fundamental infrastructure plans shortly after he retired.
If the idea of senators engaging in backroom deals and threats is too much of a conspiracy for you then I just don't know what to say kek

Anonymous at Fri, 28 Jun 2024 16:34:31 UTC No. 16258318

>>16256614
>The cost of equipment and monthly fee is too much
Funny how it always boils down to losers being resentful.
The issue is not Starlink, but the fact that you don't have have enough income.