🧵 its up
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:12:47 UTC No. 16440750
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:24:08 UTC No. 16440757
Ad.
Buy one.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:25:15 UTC No. 16440759
>>16440757
dont see elon shills buying one.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 04:45:39 UTC No. 16440770
>>16440759
I haven't seen Elon promoting his YouTube channel here.
I don't think Elon has a YouTube channel.
Then again, Elon is actually highly successful instead of some washed-up nobody whose greatest claim to fame is losing spectacularly in a debate with Ray Comfort.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 06:28:13 UTC No. 16440852
>>16440750
BUY AN AD
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:30:23 UTC No. 16440996
>>16440750
umm, actually, according to the laws of thermodynamics, it was up 16 hours ago.
BUSTED!!1!!1
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 10:54:50 UTC No. 16441014
>>16440750
He completly ripped up Space X, muskboys are seething and dilluating
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:19:19 UTC No. 16441025
>>16440750
I dare any MuskRats to counter his points with facts and science. Pro-tip, you can't. All you will do is come here and post worthless cheap shots at the stunning and brave transwoman ThunderShit. Then you'll slobber all over your scam artist fag boy Musk like you always do with tired fucking talking points from 2019. It's fucking tiresome and retarded, KYS....heartfelt.
>>16440770
SEE WHAT I MEAN! Elon literally spends all day and night on Twitter pissing away time so much that the faggot bought Twitter so he can spend all day on it just like he wants. He's a do nothing social media addict. He can't have a YT channel as he'd actually have to work to make videos. He's too busy scamming people with fake robots, and fake robotaxis, and fake solar roofs, and fake tunnel companies, and fake everything.
Elon Musk was born rich, illegally immigrated to the USA, and then started scamming people and never stopped. He was PAID TO LEAVE PAYPAL because he was going to destroy it and no one could stand to work with him. He's a loser with bullshit patents that mean nothing. He is a rich faggot who pays low esteem scientists to sell him their life's work for pennies on the dollar then claims credit for it.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 11:53:13 UTC No. 16441056
>>16441025
based musk
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:13:30 UTC No. 16441070
>>16441025
No wonder he's rich when he lives rent free in your head
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:24:55 UTC No. 16441084
>>16440750
oh oh busted oh oh seething he should get some pills and therapy for that terminal musk derangement syndrome
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:28:20 UTC No. 16441088
>>16441025
>No wonder he's rich when he lives rent free in your head
noo it cost 3B tax money for a this
meanwhile the development of the space shuttle cost 136B tax money
hmm
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 12:50:00 UTC No. 16441106
>>16441073
>Levels of liquid oxygen and...
>uhhhhhhh
>(...)
>t. chemist
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:00:49 UTC No. 16441111
>>16441088
so this $3bn is part of the $15bn that spacex have been paid by NASA for various services rendered since 2003?
Doesn't sound so bad.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:01:00 UTC No. 16441112
>>16441025
this is how mad he made all the trannies he fired from twitter.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:01:01 UTC No. 16441113
>>16441104
saved
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:05:47 UTC No. 16441115
>>16441025
Trannyf00t
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:07:09 UTC No. 16441120
>>16441104
>doesn't look right
is this guy on his way to being a flat earther? Or just a space is fake and gayer?
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:20:13 UTC No. 16441138
Just imagine it. Getting shaken by an ugly outdated rocket and spending days in a cramped utilitarian capsule, finally you open the doors to the lander. Clean white panels, room to stretch out, your own quarters with a touch screen television that greeted you by name, offering stylized info about the ship. Wood, plants, furniture, 400,000km from earth. This will be the most significant first step of the Artemis program. In a very visceral way, stepping from the old to the new.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:22:55 UTC No. 16441145
>>16441138
very true
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 13:37:18 UTC No. 16441169
>>16440750
you have mental health issues.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:05:26 UTC No. 16441449
>>16441025
>his points
We all know that it's you thundercuck
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 18:54:26 UTC No. 16441507
>>16441056
>>16441070
>>16441112
>>16441115
>>16441449
>I dare any MuskRats to counter his points with facts and science.
See what I mean. These are all bots if I'm betting. It's always the same generic loser short responses that mean nothing and have no anchor to the conversation. Just generic bland insults. Like the 'Insult Bot 2000' programed by some 12 year old.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:08:03 UTC No. 16441526
>>16441138
You search for your sleeping quarters and find what looks like a massage table with zero G retention straps, you immediately notice a strange hole in it, seemingly for your penis. You and your first officer are shocked and exchange glasses while suppressing your laughter. The training mock ups back on earth omitted this feature. Too embarrassed to radio the flight director, you assume there must be some clinical reason, perhaps to protect yourself from injury or complications from prolonged spaceflight. Or more likely, Elon was able to squeeze in one of his practical jokes unnoticed.
"My hole is bigger" your first officer boasts as he floats away to his quarters.
After undressing and strapping yourself in, you are startled with a piercing rush of adrenaline as you hear was is, impossibly, the sound of a female voice behind you. Forgetting you are bound, you clumsily attempt to free yourself from the table.
"Oh I'm so sorry, I didn't mean to scare you"
You're able to turn your head far enough to witness another one of Elon's "surprises". A female tesla robot awaits your reply. Her facial display blushing with pink pixels.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:48:54 UTC No. 16441592
>>16441088
>noo it cost 3B tax money for a this
not enough, every dollar spent on exploding boosters is a dollar that isn't sent to israel
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:49:49 UTC No. 16441595
>>16441507
If you have a better design architecture for hauling everything up to a moonbase, post it then
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:51:55 UTC No. 16441598
>>16441138
I actually find Orion's MFD cockpit to be super comfy, same reason I prefer physical buttons on cars over touchscreens
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:54:03 UTC No. 16441605
>>16441598
buttons are shit and cringe, the amount of systems on board can need far too many for such a small space
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 19:54:58 UTC No. 16441608
>>16441598
The reason why I prefer physical buttons in cars is because looking away from the road for a second to find a screen button can result in a collision. This isn't an issue with a space capsule.
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 22:11:39 UTC No. 16441785
>>16441507
>These are all bots if I'm betting
>anyone who disagrees with me is a bot
>im such a victim
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:06:22 UTC No. 16441830
>>16440750
Based Phil making em seethe like always
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:42:48 UTC No. 16441886
>>16441073
"Now the hard part is getting the fuel out"
He's so clueless about rocketry
Anonymous at Sun, 20 Oct 2024 23:48:47 UTC No. 16441900
>>16441025
lmao
imagine being this butthurt
trump will win btw
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 00:40:27 UTC No. 16441964
>>16441598
>touch screen stops working
>lose control of your spaceship
it's called single point of failure
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 01:04:07 UTC No. 16441984
>>16441964
The touchscreen controls in the Dragon capsule are just shortcuts. All controls have physical versions that can be used and are considered primary while what's in the touchscreen is an associated control that can be disregarded if need be.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 19:58:06 UTC No. 16443016
>>16441608
You won't be saying that after you wreck your spacecraft into a space deer.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 20:04:32 UTC No. 16443020
>>16443016
>space deer.
starship will enable these in the same way that the falcon 9 gave us space rats. i love progress.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 21:42:07 UTC No. 16443148
>>16440759
>implying trillionaire needs shills
do thundertr00ns really
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 22:48:14 UTC No. 16443273
>>16441138
>touch screen television that greeted you by name
lol. MuskRats are such fucking cringelords.
Anonymous at Mon, 21 Oct 2024 23:00:41 UTC No. 16443288
>>16441598
So the reason you prefer physical buttons is because they're "super comfy"
Can you make that a little more articulate? It's hard to know what you're getting at.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:33:08 UTC No. 16443363
>>16441025
wtf I love musk now
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 00:52:11 UTC No. 16443376
>>16440750
Booster catch further reduces weight of the launch vehicle and works towards higher launch cadence requirements of orbital depot fueling.
Thunderloop has zero genuine concerns left, all he's holding on to is his obsessive narcissistic personality at this point.
Starship has also demonstrated it's extra-planetary landing profile 5 times so far, with two complete successes even if you discount the "partial" ones.
There's not actually a way to swing it and say they're not working towards Artemis goals, they've done more than all of the other contractors and NASA combined.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 03:58:02 UTC No. 16443543
>>16443376
>There's not actually a way to swing it and say they're not working towards Artemis goals, they've done more than all of the other contractors and NASA combined.
Except the SLS Artemis I mission was a complete success so your "done more" is demonstrably a gay lie. Even the Peregrine lander made it to orbit before it failed, which is still further from Earth than Starship has flown after nineteen years of development and $3 billion in taxes.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 04:03:19 UTC No. 16443554
>>16443543
Spending 93 billion dollars of taxpayer money to send a camera around the moon once is absolutely a crowning achievement of NASA these days.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:37:37 UTC No. 16443661
>>16440750
REMINDER THAT PHIL MASON PAINTS HIS FUCKING FINGERNAILS
any man who paints his fingernails cannot possibly be taken seriously
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 05:59:53 UTC No. 16443679
>>16440750
Not a trannyfoot fan nor a Musk enjoyer.
What's the benefit of catching the rocket? They've done pretty well landing them upright, either back on land or on the barges, why the need to catch it?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:00:17 UTC No. 16443680
>>16440750
Based
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:12:29 UTC No. 16443693
>>16443679
There's quite a few benefits.
Obvious ones are weight reduction in booster/second stage and reduced wear and tear on engines/skin/etc leading to more re-uses.
Less obvious are decreased turn around time, as you can just plop the booster down, shuttle it off for refit in a bay, then shuttle it back. Might even be able to just install semi-permanent conveyors instead of putting it on a roomba.
Reduced turnaround times means more re-flights which means less starships need to be built (less government bullshit too). The Artemis mission goals and SpaceX long term goals overlap quite a lot.
So basically it translates to a more powerful and durable rocket that can be flown more frequently and cuts down on logistics dramatically. No need for landing boat>crane>transport vehicle>crane if you just land it on the final crane. All this shit means better outcomes for the Artemis mission, as more mass to orbit more frequently means more propellant depot filling.
Long term future goals, they may be able to just re-fuel the booster on the tower, stack another starship on top and launch it again 30 minutes later which is kind of nutty.
Just another step towards actually fully re-usable rockets, instead of the current meta of "profitably refurbished rockets".
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:20:56 UTC No. 16443704
>>16443554
Still better than $3 billion to pollute the Indian Ocean.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 06:28:09 UTC No. 16443715
>>16443679
1) No legs = lighter booster = substantial gains to orbit
2) Puts it right back where it needs to be for the next launch - on the tower.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:04:08 UTC No. 16443766
>>16443693
>>16443715
The landing gear, that I get. Landing on the pad seems like less of a gain, with the possibility of damaging what's necessary for launch and all that if something goes awry, whereas just a piece of concrete nearby doesn't have that issue. Still, I'm sure they've done their cost-benefit homework.
I must say, I used to seriously doubt Starship as a pipedream. I'm happy to have been btfo'd.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 08:18:48 UTC No. 16443785
>>16443766
Yeah the risk of nuking the launch site is real. desu I think we see one more catch attempt and then they should stop using it until mission flight certification processes, I don't think starship or superheavy are done exploding yet.
We'll see though. There's a pretty good chance now that starship will actually deliver a fully re-usable, robust launch platform that doesn't suffer from the aerospace industry's long-running explosion proclivity.
I'm a little sketchy on it too, as the inclusion is entirely Elon's choice, but if they can reliably pull it off/mitigate disaster it's a huge win.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:41:20 UTC No. 16443869
>>16443766
>>16443785
It's a hollow metal tube with barely any propellent in it coming down at a low velocity. It won't do shit towards the sureounding area beyond creating a bunch of metal scraps you have to spend a week cleaning up and at worse having the tank farm take some damage from.a debris strike.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:43:52 UTC No. 16443870
>>16443543
>success
>the orion heat shield got so fucked they need to spend half a decade and another billion to fix it
Lmao
EBOK at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 09:44:48 UTC No. 16443872
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:08:01 UTC No. 16443889
>>16443869
What effect would it have on the local beetle population?
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:26:11 UTC No. 16443902
>>16440750
Spage travel is a monumental waste of time and money
EBOK at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:27:38 UTC No. 16443906
>>16443902
Good, we need more
Trvth
On sci
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:28:26 UTC No. 16443908
>>16443288
Old = good
New = bad
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 10:38:33 UTC No. 16443913
>>16443908
Something looks wrong with the Earth there.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 11:11:04 UTC No. 16443935
>>16443273
I don't know if you've ever been to a hotel, they have that now. I'm not sure why that would be cringe lol
sage at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:05:40 UTC No. 16443996
>>16440750
>Thunderloser
when will you give back the taxpayer money spent on your education booksmartie?
sage at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:06:42 UTC No. 16443997
>>16441073
in that moment his youtube career ended
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:10:59 UTC No. 16444004
>>16443554
>WHAT ABOUT NASA!!!
>t. losers at Space X who use logical fallacies to hide their shame
>>16443704
This is why Whataboutism doesn't work. You see NASA's failures have no meaning when we are discussing the failures of Space X. One must be accountable for their failures without screaming "WHAT ABOUT ________?"|
Dictionary
Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
what·a·bout·ism
/ˌ(h)wədəˈboudizəm/
nounBritish
noun: whataboutism
the technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counteraccusation or raising a different issue.
"the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism"
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:11:57 UTC No. 16444006
>>16441025
this!! so much this!!
nazis will disagree with you but you are right 300%!!
I'm trans btw not sure if that matters
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 12:17:19 UTC No. 16444018
>>16444004
So to be clear, it's not about whataboutism when comparing Starship negatively to NASA, but it *is* whataboutism when I compare SLS negatively to SpaceX.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 13:37:47 UTC No. 16444098
>>16443913
The surface has been transformed into glass. It was a radical choice but something had to be done to ensure the ideological infestation would never spread elsewhere.
>>16443935
That anon might have been commenting on how the previous anon's highlighting such a trivial nicety was weird to focus on given the context of spacecraft. But such niceties demonstrate something has become so routine that resources can be dedicated to such trivial matters.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 15:08:39 UTC No. 16444205
>>16440759
They do it for free.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:26:26 UTC No. 16444296
>>16440750
I can't believe they used money to build a reusable rocket instead of giving the money to people on food stamps to get more coca cola.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:31:32 UTC No. 16444305
>>16444006
It doesn’t. You be gay.
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 16:50:13 UTC No. 16444320
>>16444004
Whataboutism doesn't apply to competitors for your dollar retard. "This other launch provider costs more, has more delays, and makes a worse product" is exactly what you should be bringing up. Whataboutism is meant to point out "well this other regime committed this other atrocity so your argument is invalid."
Anonymous at Tue, 22 Oct 2024 17:10:11 UTC No. 16444358
>>16443288
that sterile cockpit + touchscreen is utterly soulless
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 06:30:20 UTC No. 16445368
>>16444296
Billions for space, pennies for the hungry.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:01:05 UTC No. 16445395
>>16440757
>>16440852
Why are musk faggots like this?
Only geeks, trannies and autists care about this whole landing thing.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:02:51 UTC No. 16445398
>>16441138
It will never happen you retarded musk fag. Space colonization will NEVER HAPPEN.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:05:56 UTC No. 16445502
>>16445398
it's happening right now which is why you sound so panicky.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 09:36:55 UTC No. 16445524
>>16441025
it crazy watching r*ddit soience fags going from
>based science man is going to take us to the stars
to
>fuck this far right chud he's a grifter
after he bought out twitter, you people are the definition NPC's
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:22:19 UTC No. 16445608
>>16445368
WHITEYS ON DA MOON
ah caynt feed mah keeds
BUT WHITEYS ON DA MOON
nigga got him dozen wives
BUT WHITEYS ON DA MOON
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 12:59:18 UTC No. 16445632
>>16444098
Yeah that was my point. If mass is cheap and software is free, your lunar lander can be a hotel room. Your comfortable bed can have blankets. On the moon! The juxtaposition
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 16:00:41 UTC No. 16445868
>>16445851
>His old RC-plane USA road trip was great
did he actually fly it across the US? that would be pretty neat. you could drive on back roads so they could keep up with you, land it for refueling, fly on 'till supper etc.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:20:54 UTC No. 16446025
>>16440759
>dont see elon shills
Me neither.
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 20:05:47 UTC No. 16446268
>>16445851
that's 300 kb
Anonymous at Wed, 23 Oct 2024 22:48:03 UTC No. 16446470
>>16440750
Threadly reminder that raptor engines are simply too pussy to boost the Starship to orbit. Clustering them doesn't "increase" the thrust, it only creates interference patterns in the exhaust and inevitably creates a bottleneck in the fuel supply...this is why green exhaust from cooked, exploding engines or fuel line blowouts are a routine on every flight to date. The efficiency takes a huge hit that the quantity of engines cannot possibly compensate for.
The net result is that a dead-empty Starship is still unable to achieve orbit and can only fly on a parabolic arc into the Indian Ocean, its maximum possible range. Landing the booster in Mechazilla is a hollow victory, because it's impossible to know the capacity of that given booster...it may actually be weaker than the Falcon Heavy or New Glenn, due to mounting inefficiencies.
To effectively test ANY rocket system, a ballast "dummy" load is typically used. Additionally, if Starship were capable of reaching orbit, this would be the best place to "park" it so its systems can be reviewed and a closer landing site can be prepared and the vehicle examined, post-reentry. Musk fans need to ask themselves why neither of these tasks are occurring.
What you are watching is the most elaborate vaporware demo in history.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 04:19:26 UTC No. 16446773
>>16443902
So's your life but you don't see us bitching about it
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 04:59:03 UTC No. 16446795
>>16446470
>Musk fans need to ask themselves why neither of these tasks are occurring.
We already know. FAA won't let them orbit until they demonstrate engine relight in space. Starship coasts at orbital speeds, its just pointed at the indian ocean, if it was traveling a different direction it would be in orbit. They probably don't relight because raptor 2 is sketch and they want the best chances of relight to test landing because that was the actual uncertainty in the program instead of basic bitch rocket shit like controlled deorbit. Raptor 3 relit something like 35 times in a row on test stand today. And who cares about payload simulation on a non orbital flight before any mass optimization has been done and your flight engine is a generation behind. Buy some knee pads for the apology blow job tour btw
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 13:14:31 UTC No. 16447128
>>16446470
and when they do occur?
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 16:41:55 UTC No. 16447424
>>16446470
This pasta is old, from back in the falcon days just reheated and some parmesan grated over top.
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:46:13 UTC No. 16447758
>>16447424
those little flavorful extras make it too good not tobite
Anonymous at Thu, 24 Oct 2024 19:48:25 UTC No. 16447762
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:10:37 UTC No. 16448469
>>16446795
>FAA won't let them orbit until they demonstrate engine relight in space.
Engine relight occurs on landing...wtf does that have to do with orbiting the craft? If the spacecraft were capable of orbit (it isn't) they could park it there and land it at will, meaning they would be able to get daylight images and data of it landing wherever...even the Gulf of Mexico or off Florida. Do you think "relight" has something to do with reaching orbit, lol?
The brand new Vulcan Centaur and the New Glenn were and are "okayed" for orbit (the FAA "okays" orbit?) with no "relight". Dafuq you even talking about.
>Starship coasts at orbital speeds
It reached 15,000 mph at 93 miles altitude. It would require a minimum of 17,500 mph for a stable orbit at this uselessly low altitude.
>Buy some knee pads for the apology blow job tour btw
Rhetoric is a dime-a-dozen without results, sweetie. Starship cannot reach the altitude or speed to orbit, let alone wait there for tanker flights to refuel it for some fantasy journey to the Moon or Mars. My money and knees are safe.
>>16447424
Both Falcons were walking in the footsteps of pre-existing rocket designs. Even the vertical landing was performed by the DC-X.
Catching a Saturn V sized booster and reusing it would be genuinely amazing...unless the booster is too fucking underpowered to do any useful work except look cool. Context, bitches.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 06:26:34 UTC No. 16448480
>>16446795
>And who cares about payload simulation on a non orbital flight before any mass optimization has been done and your flight engine is a generation behind.
>next generation of raptors will take it from zero payload and not enough velocity or altitude to stable LEO with 100-150tons
Doubt.jpg
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 11:10:18 UTC No. 16448731
>>16448469
>Even the vertical landing was performed by the DC-X
You are a parody of an EDSfag.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 11:18:20 UTC No. 16448733
fags
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 12:48:33 UTC No. 16448835
>>16448469
>park it there and land it at will
>wtf does engine relight have to do with landing the craft?????
obvious troll is obvious
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:30:10 UTC No. 16449702
>>16448731
Most of the DC-X team went to Blue Origin and a vertical landing is planned for the New Glenn's maiden flight, so we'll soon find out the level of "accomplishment" the SpaceX boosters are. Only two of the 27 suborbital New Shepherd booster flights failed and the payload was recovered intact on both. This is a relevant comparison, because at this point, Starship is just a mega-size suborbital craft, and will remain that way.
I'm already hearing flight 6 will be a repeat of flight 5. By "flight 6", the Saturn V had landed astronauts on the moon...the Space Shuttle was already performing EVAs.
>>16448835
You're only underscoring my point...leaving a vehicle in orbit and then successfully relighting the engines after long term exposure to space would be the ultimate test of the Raptors. Why pass on this opportunity to gather data? Because it can't reach orbit, that's why.
Anonymous at Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:43:05 UTC No. 16449724
>>16449702
>Because it can't reach orbit, that's why.
for all i know you are right. But, i must ask, what will you say when that happens? What if those engines perform well and enable landing, what then? Is there a scenario in which its not all bad?
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:16:05 UTC No. 16449769
>>16448469
>Engine relight occurs on landing...wtf does that have to do with orbiting the craft?
First sentence trying to educate and you already humiliated yourself. How do you think anything gets out of orbit? You have to burn the other direction to slow down, which requires lit engines not unlit ones.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 00:32:07 UTC No. 16449788
>>16449702
>This is a relevant comparison
The relevant comparison to DC-X and New Shepard was spacex grasshopper. Going straight up and down is easy. If you thought that proved you could recover a booster, you'd be wrong and have to wait until flight 20 of falcon 9 for that to happen, although propulsive return wasn't tried until flight 6 and legs weren't added until flight 9. Anyway I'm hopeful blue origin will achieve booster landings in less attempts than spacex but I would be surprised if it didn't crash a few times. But that's not going to hurt your feelings because you don't give a shit about space until someone posts an elon thread.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 04:03:34 UTC No. 16450044
>>16449724
>But, i must ask, what will you say when that happens?
When something that will never happen doesn't happen? I'll do what I'm doing now....ask why it didn't happen.
>>16449769
Could de-orbit by temporarily equipping the prototypes with proven tech like Dracos. Which is a moot point, because they've already demonstrated relight, and if you have a source confirming that this is an FAA concern, please post it because I can't find it and even ChatGPT is mystified about wtf you're talking about. Until then, it appears that SpaceX is all that's holding SpaceX back.
>>16449788
>The relevant comparison to DC-X and New Shepard was spacex grasshopper. Going straight up and down is easy.
lol, bullshit. Here's DC-X doing a "Swan Dive" AKA the "Belly Flop":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZL9
>you don't give a shit about space until someone posts an elon thread
I give a shit that this vaporware fraud could help defund Artemis, a real project using real rockets with real goals, because this liar whose dorky 1960s sci-fi version of the future is trying to convince gullible normies in Congress like Bernie Sanders to keep the money because he's going to fucking Mars all on his own.
So in the 2030s, Tesla and SpaceX finally go bankrupt from his mediocre vision, all the money that would've went to a US lunar base goes into food stamps to buy Coca Cola and Twinkies for urban families, and China laughs at us from the Moon's south pole. Because you're a 100IQ fanboy who doesn't sweat the details.
Anonymous at Sat, 26 Oct 2024 14:15:42 UTC No. 16450609
>>16450044
>.ask why it didn't happen.
but what about when it does happen? will you be honest and grown up enough to come, link to this thread, and admit that you were wrong?