Anonymous at Thu, 4 Jul 2024 23:15:40 UTC No. 16268208

>>16268178
He'll just keep doubling down because he believes he's right. It's like he doesn't understand how anything except a government could build a large functioning rocket.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:04:16 UTC No. 16268265

>>16268178
>after the tower catches the booster successfully
lol. lmao, even.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:23:56 UTC No. 16268272

>>16268178
Maldingf00t

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:25:14 UTC No. 16268273

>>16268178
Once Starship is flying regularly, he will switch into
>HURR BUT THERE'S NO MARS COLONY
mode. And should a Mars colony ever be constructed (I am personally skeptical of this, FWIW) he will shift into
>HURRR BUT IT'S NOT X NUMBER OF PEOPLE BY YEAR Y LIKE ELON PROMISED, SO HE LIED
mode.
And if it ever becomes that, he'll just say that Elon is a liar because it's not a fully self-sufficient replacement to Earth or something. He basically has an infinite runway of calling Elon Musk a liar because Elon Musk's ambitions are so far out there that they'll never be realized in any of our lifetimes.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 00:26:08 UTC No. 16268274

>>16268265
Retards like you were saying the same thing about F9 landing and being reused, let alone profitably.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 01:29:22 UTC No. 16268316

don't give thunderp00t any clicks.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 02:39:22 UTC No. 16268364

>>16268273
he's already accepting Starship will work and it saying
> T-THRES NO MARKET FOR A ROCKET THAT BIG
> THERE'S NO REASON TO SEND MEN BACK TO THE MOON

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 02:46:47 UTC No. 16268369

>>16268364
He's right about the second part, a Moon base is little more useful than an Antarctica base. Just science-prestige projects. But there is a market for a rocket that big; building massive LEO constellations. In particular, launching and maintaining Brilliant Pebbles for the US Government.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:00:55 UTC No. 16268379

>>16268369
>He's right about the second part, a Moon base is little more useful than an Antarctica base
bullshit, imagine all the technological innovations we will have by having a permanent moon base. That will also be testing grounds for actual human space colonization.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:08:23 UTC No. 16268383

>>16268379
There's no money to be made in space, and aside from throwing rocks, not much military value in it either. All the satellites which make money are pointed at Earth. Besides commercial value, there are only a very small handful of satellites with practical value to humanity which aren't pointed at Earth, and those are pointed at the Sun.

Anyway, I hope I'm wrong so I can get a space tomboy gf.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:23:41 UTC No. 16268398

>>16268265
you're literally the one at the bottom but on the side of oldspace tho

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 03:26:49 UTC No. 16268403

>>16268383
>There's no money to be made in space
Yet. Space tourism might be huge in the future, I would personally pay a lot of money to go to the moon.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:00:03 UTC No. 16268430

>>16268403
How much do you have?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:25:47 UTC No. 16268465

>>16268178
I'm a big SpaceX fan, and have been following development. The tower design has been massively overhauled and the catch tower used in IFT-5 is likely going to be demoed soon. So it's not that SpaceX is confident they'll make the catch, they're just confident that it's no loss if they don't. Phil of course has not understood or ignored these destructive testing nuances so he'll probably just scream from the rooftops about how SpaceX missile striked their own launch facilities

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:28:36 UTC No. 16268469

>>16268430
NTA but I've got some significant liquidity and I'm basically planning on a $20k-$40k moon vacation around when I retire in 2065 or so. Even if the Starship second stage doesn't become reusable, that's where we're headed

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:40:00 UTC No. 16268475

>>16268178
>Will he transition
Judging by his hair, that shirt, and his penchant for painting his fingernails, he already has.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 04:47:02 UTC No. 16268484

>>16268383
>There's no money to be made in space
16 Psyche has quadrillions of dollars worth of valuable resources.
And that is one (admittedly fairly large) asteroid.
Whoever figures out asteroid mining (and the accompanying zero-g refining tech) will be the richest man in human history. Even small metallic asteroids can be worth trillions.

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 07:05:12 UTC No. 16268623

>>16268465
Phil Mason? I should send him a package

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 11:39:48 UTC No. 16268837

>>16268484
Retard

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 13:14:12 UTC No. 16268927

>>16268623
a package of poop?

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 17:56:57 UTC No. 16269223

>>16268465
>not understood or ignored these destructive testing nuances
its easier to just fabricate your own standard and then compare reality to that. it allows him to bitch and whinge and feel superior which is clearly what he wants to do. sad

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:02:43 UTC No. 16269231

>>16268484
bringing all that back would make it worthless

Anonymous at Fri, 5 Jul 2024 18:13:22 UTC No. 16269250

>>16269231
the Spanish had this problem with gold

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 02:49:02 UTC No. 16269859

>>16269231
Good. One step closer to eliminating scarcity.

🗑️ Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 02:55:56 UTC No. 16269869

>>16268383
Planetes was gay and got worse with its whites bad nigger relative shit

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 03:03:29 UTC No. 16269881

There's a new "water from dry air" project for Phil to make a video about.
https://newatlas.com/technology/water-harvester-arid-air-mit/
Will he even bother or will he stick to the Musk stuff because it requires no work?

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 04:43:00 UTC No. 16269966

>>16268383
This show was edgy wish fulfillment garbage. Space Brothers was the superior space kino.

>>16269869
Based

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 08:14:51 UTC No. 16270066

>>16269869
It was definitely obnoxious, don't remember any black characters though, just asian-style violent separatists like in Akira

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:10:53 UTC No. 16270316

>>16269869
Planetes was great

Anonymous at Sat, 6 Jul 2024 14:14:50 UTC No. 16270326

>>16269881
Is this just a giant dehumidifier

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 00:08:54 UTC No. 16270947

>>16268178
Thunderf00t here, if the tower ever catches the booster, I'm going to finally transition

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 00:24:57 UTC No. 16270961

>>16270947
you go sister

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 01:40:17 UTC No. 16270992

>>16268265
>My Mars waifu is waiting!
Y e s

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 01:45:20 UTC No. 16270996

>>16268178
yes the more absurd he becomes the more engagement and ad revenue he makes, ironic given the premise of his channel

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 02:04:55 UTC No. 16271006

spacex literally has no payloads left for the falcon 9 and they want a bigger rocket???

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 03:19:33 UTC No. 16271034

>>16270326
Not quite, it looks like it passively absorbs water from the air without using cooling to make it condense. It only uses energy to re-evaporate the water afterwards so it can be condensed and collected.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 03:31:00 UTC No. 16271036

>>16271006
ever heard of Artemis?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 14:05:58 UTC No. 16271489

>>16268484
>>16269231
Is there really any path to bring back an ounce of gold for less than the current cost of getting it out of the ground?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 17:31:47 UTC No. 16271663

>>16271489
yep, because space gold will be much more expensive than earth gold

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:49:39 UTC No. 16271840

>>16268398
>Yeah bro lets just rely on a single company and hinge our entire plan for the future of spaceflight on a single rocket design that is still a prototype that explodes a lot

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:51:31 UTC No. 16271843

>>16271489
No. If the price of gold increased 100x we would just open more or less efficient mines on earth. Even for a fully industrial Mars where launch is materially cheaper. Even for constructions in space, mining and processing is easier on the ground. We're looking at centuries before the problem is approached seriously

🗑️ Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 19:52:41 UTC No. 16271845

>>16271840
Oldspace niggers like you act like Falcon 9 never landed. Remember how much it exploded? Pay attention and and you'll be less wrong

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:01:08 UTC No. 16271856

>>16271489
No, but bringing asteroid material to LEO could be cheaper than launching material from earth, which could make refueling upper stages (such as starship) cheaper.

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:03:40 UTC No. 16271862

>>16271845
I like what spaceX is doing and they are about a decade ahead of the competition, but thats still only a decade ahead. Do you really think in 2040 spaceX will be the only decent launch provider around?

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 20:34:42 UTC No. 16271900

>>16271862
why does he keep naming companies "X"
??

Anonymous at Sun, 7 Jul 2024 21:39:31 UTC No. 16271992

>>16271856
Fucking retard, putting processing equipment and heavy mining machinery in orbit and then towing an asteroid will literally never be cheaper than just launching a rocket full of fuel
>>16271862
I'd bet my mortgage that their only competition in 2040 is China

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 01:18:38 UTC No. 16272291

>>16271840
i never said this

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 01:21:54 UTC No. 16272293

>>16268265
>defending SLS

Nah. It is literally designed to be a waste of money.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 08:48:42 UTC No. 16272604

>>16271992
"launching a rocket" is expensive, so yes all that equipment could be competitive. Also if you knew what you were talking about you would know no one seriously considers towing a full asteroid, there would be too much useless mass on it compared to the material you actually want.

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:43:41 UTC No. 16272740

>>16272604
You are so fucking stupid I don't even know what to say. Even ignoring launching the machinery and tanks, ignoring operating costs in space, and disregarding what percentage of processed material becomes fuel, it is still more expensive to bring 1200 tons from a NEO to LEO than it would be to launch 15 fuel starships. You're off by a factor of 1000

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:43:54 UTC No. 16272741

>>16271006
Starlink 2 satellites are big af

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 12:56:56 UTC No. 16272757

>>16268178
hilarious when he wanted to say "your tax money is gone" or whatever
this guy is the epitome of the eu-leftist living off taxpaer funding and thinking they know better than anyone else so everyone else should just shut up.
well he probably makes more off youtube now anyway

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 13:20:09 UTC No. 16272768

>>16269231
10000x the supply of titanium would result in massive improvements as it could be used much much more widely. anyway my idea of dropping an asteroid in the middle of australia to then mine makes perfect sense

Anonymous at Mon, 8 Jul 2024 19:01:44 UTC No. 16273082

>>16271034
There have been dozens of these and they all fail to produce much water. It's one of the few things Phil complains about that actually deserve his sickly autism attention.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 12:06:11 UTC No. 16274040

>>16272757
>he

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 13:10:47 UTC No. 16274083

>>16268178
TDS thread

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:06:25 UTC No. 16274131

>>16271840
>lets stop the only company openly daring to break the mold, lead the charge, developing various innovative technology, lower the baseline cost, increase access to all
>because UHH NOOO THEY UHHH CANT UHH JUST DO IT AND LEAVE ALL OF US BEHIND!!!!
>NOOOOOOOOOOO

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:14:21 UTC No. 16274141

>>16272757
Yep he's a government-lover.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 14:16:46 UTC No. 16274144

>>16271840
Nobody's forcing you to rely on them at all. They're just providing the best value product.

In a free market (which we don't have) monopolies can only form if they deserve it: They make the best value product.

Anonymous at Tue, 9 Jul 2024 18:38:01 UTC No. 16274610

>>16274083
what's a TDS?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:47:00 UTC No. 16275504

>>16272740
15 fuel starships would cost at least 150 million for a single mission given musks most optimistic opinion, most likely more since musk is always an optimist. Again, towing all of that useless material would be stupid, if it ever did become cost effective it would probably be processed before going onto a tanker. Additionally, not only does going from a NEO to LEO take less delta V than launching from earth, it is also cheaper delta V since you can use low TWR spacecraft without staging to move that material. I never said its inevitable I just said its very possibly a good idea.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 02:50:41 UTC No. 16275508

>>16275504
I should probably specify, setting up all of the asteroid mining shit would probably cost several billion dollars, but it could save money if there was demand for several hundred interplanetary starship flights.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:02:47 UTC No. 16275517

>>16272768
titanium isn't rare on earth at all, it's expensive to refine.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:06:32 UTC No. 16275522

>>16275504
you could not do a round trip mission to any NEO even with a tiny probe and zero physical contact with the object itself, for less than $150m.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 03:38:17 UTC No. 16275542

>>16275522
You can't launch a 100 ton orbital rocket for less than a billion dollars either right?

🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:21:22 UTC No. 16275984

>>16274610
It's a play off of TDS meaning "Trump Derangement Syndrome", which is a label applied to those whose lives revolve around being outraged by the continued existence of Donald Trump. In this case, since Thunderf00t also starts with the letter T, that anon was making an accusation, possibly with humorous intent, that this thread is due to an obsession with being outraged over the things Phil "Thunderf00t" Mason posts. It's also a bit meta since Phil is accused of having EDS, Elon Derangement Syndrome, which itself is play off of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:22:54 UTC No. 16275988

>>16275517
Open question to anyone who knows: would titanium sourced from asteroids likely be more pure and thus need less refining?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 13:47:21 UTC No. 16276004

>>16275988
yes because there are magic asteroids that are all a single element....
idiot

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:17:34 UTC No. 16276031

Why doesn't Bezos just finish New Glenn and have it launch the Amazon sats?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:32:13 UTC No. 16276042

>>16276031
Because he's not hack and it's actually impossible or very hard to launch a rocket. Elon has still not launched a single rocket. only blown them up.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 14:36:05 UTC No. 16276048

>>16276042
>Elon has still not launched a single rocket. only blown them up.
what is Falcon 9?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 16:19:00 UTC No. 16276126

>>16276048
>what is Falcon 9?
Not Elon's work and really a culmination of tried and true methods, materials and designs mastered by engineers decades before him.
Landing the booster is just mostly a party trick and impossible to discern if it provides meaningful cost savings as finances are private.

Atleast that's what EDS sufferers would say.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 19:20:35 UTC No. 16276341

>>16276126
> <literally_anything> is really a culmination of tried and true methods, materials and designs mastered by engineers decades before

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:24:21 UTC No. 16276464

>>16276004
How does that relate to 2% titanium being more difficult to refine than 22% titanium?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:56:05 UTC No. 16276514

>>16272293
>defending SLS
>Nah. It is literally designed to be a waste of money.
Name the other functioning launch system in its class that has already placed and returned a capsule from around the Moon with a single launch. Protip: it's not Starship.

You ready? It's a Long March 5. So your "solution" is that the US wait until Elon gets done blowing up LEO rockets that need twenty refueling trips while the Chinese surge ahead. Good plan, little MuskRat.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 20:58:27 UTC No. 16276518

>>16276514
when will you transition, Thunderfagg0t?

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:08:52 UTC No. 16276528

>>16276126
>Not Elon's work

So elon hasn't blown any rockets up either, interesting

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:18:26 UTC No. 16276547

>>16275542
Holy shit you're the faggot with the asteroid prospecting idea in /sfg/, aren't you? Starship does not run on magic and it doesn't make other magic real. You can do the math of delta v and mass and so on and figure out yourself that the numbers don't work. Not an engineering problem, a physics problem that causes you an economic problem.

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:21:52 UTC No. 16276550

>>16276514
Falcon Heavy could do it but isn't allowed because of how much money the SLS makes for senators

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 21:25:09 UTC No. 16276555

>>16276550
this, but unironically

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:05:10 UTC No. 16276678

>>16276555
It honestly might've changed now that senator Shelby is retired, but I doubt SpaceX is even interested now and they're going to spend the effort on Starship

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:29:42 UTC No. 16276702

>>16276514
lol nuke china

Anonymous at Wed, 10 Jul 2024 23:33:46 UTC No. 16276710

>>16272757
He's probably funded by grants.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 00:45:16 UTC No. 16276759

>>16275508
Yeah it's notoriously easy to get heavy machinery into space, support people to maintain and operate it, and do all this further out than any human being has ever been. It'll surely be much cheaper than Earth with its free air, gravity, cheap labor force, and supply chain.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 01:29:43 UTC No. 16276787

>>16276528
I mean, Starship is Elon's brain child, almost fully.
Falcon is dismissed because it's an aluminum alloy kerolox gas gen rocket, done to death, big deal so what.

Falcon's reliability is precived as nothing to do with Elon.

Starship's failures people like to attribute directly to Elon because the design decisions are seldom used for a good reason.
Stainless is heavy, metholox is new, closed cycle is too complex, 33 engines is too complex, the whole scheme of relighting these complex engines so quickly in such turbulent environments and trusting these engines to work to not destroy things or kill people is deemed as too ambitious and risky.

It's just so very easy to point at Elon to an audience every time a starship launch "fails", especially when said audience is NASA brained where no hardware can ever be "thrown away" without payloads because government pork makes hardware cost 10x more than necessary.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 05:05:53 UTC No. 16276921

>>16276759
And launching shit into space is so fucking cheap as well right? Isn't space travel such a wonderful and easy cheap endeavor, I can hop into LEO just right now after swinging by 711!

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 05:10:13 UTC No. 16276922

>>16276547
What the fuck are you talking about? I literally gave you something resembling numbers, you haven't given me back shit. CO2 and water ice are fortunately volatiles so they can be liquified and pumped around easier than those metal mining schemes need to worry about. I am pretty sure launching fuel starship from ground is all they plan on doing currently, but if there were ever a deep space economy it would make more sense, so the whole "no one has done it before" argument is kind of dumb since at this point I would assume there is already more of a presence in space.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 05:19:54 UTC No. 16276927

>>16276921
I should probably specify, currently starships costs actually are pretty magical, 10 million a launch like I was assuming would be incredible if spaceX pulled that off. That being said, the asteroid mining idea only becomes more attractive as starship gets less "magical" and more expensive, if it costed 100 million per launch it would cost 1.5 billion for an in-orbit refuel which is certainly makes asteroid mining worth looking at for possibly as few as dozens of launches.

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 11:12:50 UTC No. 16277150

>>16276927
>>16276922
>>16276921
No one is seriously considering this and the fact that you think it's remotely feasible shows how little you know about this

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:27:50 UTC No. 16277476

>>16276550
Falcon Heavy's launch capacity to TLI is ~60% of the SLS Block I, so I'd love to see you qualify that statement. Not to throw shade on the FH, because it's a great rocket, just running the numbers.

The thing I'll never understand is why that magnificent Super Heavy booster has a fake Space Shuttle sitting on top of it and not a second stage that could simply launch a ~50 tonne (or more) HLS to the Moon in one go instead of all this orbital refueling shit. Maybe that's the plan, but Elon wants his Starlink Shuttle first...?

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 16:42:46 UTC No. 16277486

>>16276787
All of this was informed by his engineers. I highly doubt his engineers thought the risks outweighed the benefits of these decisions and he's like "nah dont be a pussy".

Anonymous at Thu, 11 Jul 2024 17:09:08 UTC No. 16277511

>>16277486
>he's like "nah dont be a pussy".
This entirely discribes the starship program tho.
It's just most everyone outside the program are the pussies. Afraid to do something new, complex or letting prototype hardware fly because muh PR

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 06:14:07 UTC No. 16278326

>>16277150
It isn't a serious consideration yet because there is currently not enough interplanetary spaceflight for it to be worthwhile, I said it myself.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:34:10 UTC No. 16279300

>>16277476
I thought an expendable FH was like 90% of SLS. On Starship, the goal is the full reusability meme. If it actually works it'll be huge, if not then we'll probably see a giant expendable steel shell that brings 500 tons anywhere for not much more of a price hit than the cost of the engines attached to it

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:43:54 UTC No. 16279310

>>16277476
Because there's nothing on the moon so far. Elon wants sustainable profitable access to space as a starting point, not one off expendable "missions"

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 20:44:11 UTC No. 16279311

>>16268383
>not much military value in it either
the more people in space the more it's military and economic value will increase. that's how it works; you cannot separate these things.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 21:40:42 UTC No. 16279402

>>16279311
Give examples of military activity in space that doesn't exist yet

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 22:13:00 UTC No. 16279453

>>16276514
>placed and returned a capsule from around the Moon
Literally useless.

Anonymous at Fri, 12 Jul 2024 23:24:17 UTC No. 16279538

Thunderfart is retarded and so is everyone who idolizes him.