Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 18:41:10 UTC No. 16456112

The Chinese have already built a far superior station

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:21:46 UTC No. 16456282

>>16456109
Elon has his own fraudulent trainwreck to deal with.

>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 Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:51:51 UTC No. 16456300

Between the useless space station, the useless supercollider and the sausage telescope how many trillions of dollars has the scientific community wasted on completely useless ostentatious bling?

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 21:55:23 UTC No. 16456309

>>16456282
its a pt barnum world.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:00:49 UTC No. 16456312

One (1) starship has a pressurized volume higher than the ISS
>$150 billion space station built from 40 space shuttle flights
vs
>~$50 million space station from 1 starship flight
I know the government is inefficient but a 3000x cheaper solution is unprecedented

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 22:32:03 UTC No. 16456346

>>16456312
>3000x cheaper
JWST was originally proposed as a project with an estimated price tag of a mere $500 million.
And it ended up costing $88 billion.
But to the scientific community its always cheap when they're spending other people's money, the more money they waste the bigger they can brag about how important they are.

Anonymous at Wed, 30 Oct 2024 23:27:15 UTC No. 16456388

>>16456312
>pressurized volume
>3000x cheaper solution is unprecedented
Since when is that fucking thing "pressurized", you deluded twat? I don't mean at some "future date"...since when is that useless suborbital tin can "pressurized" NOW?

Retard.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 05:42:50 UTC No. 16456685

>>16456388
What would be required to pressurize it

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:38:05 UTC No. 16456864

>>16456388
EDS is a sad thing to see

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:43:13 UTC No. 16456866

>>16456388
They're just 'doing our jobs' for the paycheck. Don't expect them to listen to justice other than what their dumbass boss thinks.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 12:46:22 UTC No. 16456870

>>16456866
Most professionals in this world are scamming us to earn their paycheck. There's little order. There's little governance beyond finance and war. This is a game where the rich get to decide what they want to do even if it's stupid to the most of us. Take mars for example. It barren

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:02:49 UTC No. 16456880

>>16456685
Pressure.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 13:07:21 UTC No. 16456883

>>16456880
do we have this technology?

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 15:16:55 UTC No. 16457059

>>16456109
Tardigrade Ranching will be a huge space industry. Screenshot this.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:03:46 UTC No. 16457121

>>16456346
Money well spent, given that it proved God.

Anonymous at Thu, 31 Oct 2024 16:05:29 UTC No. 16457124

>>16456112
>The Chinese have already built a far superior station

highly superior inflatable from alibaba.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 10:49:38 UTC No. 16458002

>>16457124

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 11:44:43 UTC No. 16458046

>>16456883
Elon doesn't

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 13:15:48 UTC No. 16458124

>>16458046
is elon in the room with you now?

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:56:04 UTC No. 16458681

>>16458002
hardly a fair comparison though since the chink version has had just a handful of gooks on it and not for very long. ISS has hand hundreds of people from all over the world carrying out thousands of projects for 25 years. crap tends to just build up, you know, plus its an old design, older technology.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:58:13 UTC No. 16458689

>>16456112
>CHYNUH NUMBUH WUN!
Impress me by doing something original for once.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 18:58:59 UTC No. 16458693

>>16456388
Lol they're working on reentry. Getting to orbit is easy. If they wanted to send up a station like I described they could've done it already.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:04:34 UTC No. 16458704

>>16456346
JWST was originally proposed as a project with an estimated price tag of a mere $500 million.
And it ended up costing $88 billion.
Wat? Where'd you get the 88 billion from? thought it was 10.

Anonymous at Fri, 1 Nov 2024 19:11:27 UTC No. 16458712

>>16458704
sunk cost fallacy (especially easy with taxpayer money). they should have abandoned it as soon as it passed a billion.

Anonymous at Sun, 3 Nov 2024 03:55:10 UTC No. 16460494

>>16458704
it was already over 10 million ages before it launched. they stopped counting the cost just before they reached to 10 billion mark, everything after that came from the general nasa budget.
really shows you how ashamed they are of their own wastefulness that they decided to change the accounting to hide how much money they were spending. if it was $88 billion or only $14 billion doesn't make all that much of a difference, the point is that it was originally promised to be a tiny percentage of either of those numbers.

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 02:37:33 UTC No. 16461695

>>16456109
LEO space stations are just a massive cope for not being able to venture anywhere further.
>hurrr I'm uselessly in orbit 200 miles above the surface doing nothing worthwhile or going anywhere at all.
srsly who cares, what a stupid waste

Anonymous at Mon, 4 Nov 2024 12:48:06 UTC No. 16462037

>>16461695
t.guy who knows nothing about anything

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:21:04 UTC No. 16463874

b

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:22:24 UTC No. 16463875

bb

Anonymous at Tue, 5 Nov 2024 18:38:37 UTC No. 16463899

bbb

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 00:05:34 UTC No. 16465502

What are the coolest experiments done on iss or just outside it in vacuum lately?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 02:27:42 UTC No. 16465616

>>16458693
>Getting to orbit is easy
Reminder... by their sixth flight...
>Saturn V had landed astronauts on the Moon
>Space Shuttle had carried humans to orbit six times and deployed an EMU
Again, saying "It'll happen" is faggot talk...there's a long list of shit Musk said his companies would do but never did.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 02:44:11 UTC No. 16465628

>>16458002
>New thing, built upon decades of development and only tried-and-true, mature technologies, looks better than the initial prototype
Gee, I fucking wonder why.

I've no doubt the Chinks can produce something better than even the current ISS, but the thing is they're doing it NOW, after all the faults have been ironed out of the concept, and have had a ton of time ot improve upon the legacy Soviet hardware they started out with. Tiangong *is* a big achievment, but it isn't innovative in any real sense

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 12:31:09 UTC No. 16465929

>>16465616
>Saturn V had landed astronauts on the Moon
well, it got them on the way to the moon by giving the CSM the extra boost for TLI. But comparing the development of the SaturnV to that of Starship isn't such an honest thing to do since they have very different funding, time pressures, personnel and end goals.

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:05:18 UTC No. 16465951

>>16465628
Why isn't the West building a new space station?

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 13:13:30 UTC No. 16465956

>>16465951
The idea is that there will be several smaller private stations offering scientific facilities etc instead of one big government station.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:01:51 UTC No. 16466419

>>16465929
>comparing the development of the SaturnV to that of Starship isn't such an honest thing to do
The MuskRats started it, trying to tell us that a suborbital submarine was a "Mars rocket".

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 21:16:16 UTC No. 16466432

>>16466419
soon

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 23:01:52 UTC No. 16466555

>>16458002
sovless
sovl

Anonymous at Thu, 7 Nov 2024 23:16:23 UTC No. 16466567

>>16465951
space stations serve no purpose other than to allow nasa to pretend it still has astronauts.
it's like comparing the voyage of columbus to some retard who sails a few miles offshore and is fed resources from a continual line supply ships.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 03:49:31 UTC No. 16466761

erm
can it

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 03:53:52 UTC No. 16466765

>>16456109
>when is Elon going to decommission this fraudulent trainwreck
And do what instead? See if algae can grow on the Moon?
You're so fucking close to the truth but your (justifiable) fascination with space exploration just can't let you see the truth that it's completely pointless.

Anonymous at Fri, 8 Nov 2024 04:45:35 UTC No. 16466808

>>16466765
Don't interrupt them. Maybe one day all the space retards will finally leave this planet and move to the moon so they can be dissatisfied with that too. They're never going to realize that its themselves who are tedious rather than Earth and convincing them so only means we'd be stuck them.

Anonymous at Sat, 9 Nov 2024 04:33:57 UTC No. 16467970

>>16456109
There isn't login to be a formal decommissioning, they're just going to send up some female astronauts and a few drills and let nature take it's course

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 04:50:25 UTC No. 16469240

>>16466567
space travel in general is useless. earth is where humans live.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:49:44 UTC No. 16469282

>>16465951
There are multiple competing station designs in the works currently, the next one is going to be a commercial station.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rud7lad49-A

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 05:59:33 UTC No. 16469291

>>16457059
This shit is so far beyond our technological means or knowledge, this post will be referenced in history archives.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 06:03:17 UTC No. 16469295

>>16467970
>they're just going to send up some female astronauts and a few drills and let nature take it's course
That entire fiasco still pisses me off whenever someone even utters a mention of it.

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 13:49:23 UTC No. 16469582

>>16469295
in space
nobody can hear you drill

Anonymous at Sun, 10 Nov 2024 16:18:00 UTC No. 16469709

>>16469291
Just imagine how good a juicy tardigrade burger will taste after a long day in the Titanian methane mines. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:28:22 UTC No. 16471593

>>16469282
>a commercial station.
how can a "commercial space station" even exist when space stations have no commercial use or value?

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 03:44:03 UTC No. 16471602

>>16471593
1. NASA will lease space without having to manage the entire operation.
2. Companies will lease space for microgravity R&D.
3. Tourism.

Anonymous at Tue, 12 Nov 2024 12:55:33 UTC No. 16471901

>>16471593
>no commercial use or value
maybe you just dont know enough to judge the issue?

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:10:39 UTC No. 16473921

>>16471602
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

Commercial space station would already exist if the private sector thought they could be profitable.
Musk spent billions building a massive satellite network because he thought it could be profitable, he would already have his own space station if he thought he could make money on it

Anonymous at Wed, 13 Nov 2024 22:37:03 UTC No. 16473953

>>16473921
1. Launch costs have been higher in the past.
2. Much of the profit will still come from NASA's operations, but it allows NASA to save money by splitting the cost with the private sector.
3. It may or may not end up being profitable, there's always a bit of a gamble with business ventures. Either way, NASA gets a new station to replace the ISS.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 00:35:11 UTC No. 16474105

>>16465616
Saturn V wasn't sustainable, reusable, or capable of doing anything but getting boots on the ground. You fundamentally do not understand what Starship is and represents.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 01:04:42 UTC No. 16474139

>>16473953
>muh free gibes for nasa
nasa is a trash agency that produces nothing but waste, they're leeches who stand in the way of progress, doing anything for nasa is shooting yourself in the foot

musk has been putting stuff in orbit dirt cheap for a decade now and nobody wants to build a space station because space stations are useless, their only purpose is to allow nasa to send up diversity so they can take selfies in space.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 13:40:51 UTC No. 16474744

>>16474105
theres zero point trying to reason with that kind of person. they dont care about details or understanding anything; its all just an excuse to bitch and complain and feel superior for them.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:21:53 UTC No. 16475092

>>16465951
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Gateway

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 19:36:30 UTC No. 16475113

>>16473921
Starship doesn't exist yet. While I won't say that Starship's costs and lift capabilities will make a commercial space station viable, it's silly to say that if such a station can be viable that it would already exist as the economics of cargo lift to orbit continue to change.
>>16471602
NASA would have to sign a very long term contract. Being at the whim of annual budget cycles would be too high risk for investors otherwise. R&D is one of those things that people always say but it remains to be seen if that will actually be economically viable or was something the government did to justify to spending on the Shuttle and ISS. Tourism is an interesting angle but that's something that already exists and becomes less desirable as the novelty of being able to say you've been to space wears off with more having been there. How quickly was Polaris Dawn forgotten about?
When it comes down to it, there's just not enough information yet to really know how viable a commercial space station would be. The US government could make it viable in an instant by simply making it a mandatory part of NASA's budget to least space on it.

Anonymous at Thu, 14 Nov 2024 20:16:52 UTC No. 16475183

>>16475113
theres plenty of evidence on the demand for research space aboard the ISS

https://issnationallab.org/about/annual-quarterly-reports-metrics/ar2023/in-orbit-activities-the-iss-as-a-research-platform

just search "demand for research time ISS'. it's busy.

Anonymous at Fri, 15 Nov 2024 23:56:11 UTC No. 16477119

>>16456109
yet another 'experiment' in seeing how much of the goyims' money scientists can uselessly waste.
imagine we spent $100billion just so some fags could take selfies in space

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 20:38:28 UTC No. 16478141

>>16477119
Space station holds the all time world record for the biggest waste of money

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 22:50:50 UTC No. 16478311

>>16478141
The costs skyrocketed, leading to astronomical waste.

Anonymous at Sat, 16 Nov 2024 22:57:55 UTC No. 16478317

>>16475183
>https://issnationallab.org/about/annual-quarterly-reports-metrics/ar2023/in-orbit-activities-the-iss-as-a-research-platform
the only people doing microgravity research are university retards burning through grant money.
no one who expects any sort of return on investment is spending money on this shit.

Anonymous at Sun, 17 Nov 2024 00:18:44 UTC No. 16478374

>>16478317
>80% commercial
did you not read it?