🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 03:59:19 UTC No. 16499847
space traffic edition
previous >>16497705
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:02:26 UTC No. 16499850
>>16499847
is this the real thread or the shill thread?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:02:48 UTC No. 16499851
>>16499850
shill for what?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:05:13 UTC No. 16499853
>>16499851
I dunno, I heard there are fake threads sometimes to split us up.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:07:13 UTC No. 16499856
>>16499853
>pretending to be retarded again
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:07:47 UTC No. 16499857
fuck you
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:08:57 UTC No. 16499858
>>16499847
Glass the Earth, demigod war eventually
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:12:57 UTC No. 16499861
>>16499857
Bot alert!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:18:07 UTC No. 16499863
https://x.com/s2a_systems/status/18
>Observing the CZ-12 Y1 upper stage (62187) during the current launch was more interesting. There is currently a lot of stuff flying around the upper stage, possibly ice? It will be interesting to see how the parts behave in the coming hours. Image taken on 2024-12-01 at 06:41:35 UTC
Chinese upper stages not turning into debris clouds challenge (impossible)
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:18:15 UTC No. 16499864
Retard alert!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:20:29 UTC No. 16499866
>>16499863
this is the equivalent of a renter pouring cooking oil into the sink drain
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:24:44 UTC No. 16499870
I'm still a bit lost, is the next Starship launch a block 2?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:25:12 UTC No. 16499871
>>16499870
Yes.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:25:36 UTC No. 16499872
>>16499870
Yes the next launch will be a version 2 of the upper ship.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:27:45 UTC No. 16499874
>>16499871
>>16499872
fucking finally, that front flap always gave me anxiety on the block 1
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:27:56 UTC No. 16499875
>>16499872
Back off bud I answered him first that (You) is mine
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:28:12 UTC No. 16499876
>>16499875
reeeee
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:34:51 UTC No. 16499880
>>16499879
Bergers law
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:35:04 UTC No. 16499881
>>16499847
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1R
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:38:59 UTC No. 16499882
>>16499881
Pretty cool. Should be documented more like this
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 04:43:20 UTC No. 16499885
>>16499879
it was all for show. they wont be doing a static fire any time soon
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:07:29 UTC No. 16499891
remember that new missile that russia used on ukraine? analysis says that its formerly a space rocket developed by roscosmos that was changed into a ballistic missile. the rocket/missile uses methalox.
>There is a project in the history of Roscosmos named Oreshnik, and this missile system was specifically developed as a launch vehicle.
>The Oreshnik carrier rocket, developed by Roscosmos, represents an innovative approach to launching small satellites. This is part of Russia’s efforts to capture a larger share of the global market for compact satellite systems, which are rapidly growing due to commercial and scientific applications.
>The rocket was conceived as a cost-effective alternative to larger and more complex launch vehicles, such as the Soyuz and Angara rockets, which are designed for larger and heavier missions.
>Technologically, the Oreshnik uses environmentally friendly fuels, primarily liquid methane and oxygen. This makes it competitive with international systems like rockets developed by SpaceX and Rocket Lab
https://bulgarianmilitary.com/amp/2
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:08:30 UTC No. 16499892
>>16499891
russia taking credit for soviet technology again
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:09:41 UTC No. 16499894
>>16499891
?
military missiles are solid fueled, not liquid fueled
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:10:38 UTC No. 16499895
>>16499891
>methalox
don't they have SRBs for their IRBMs? i get it with Satan-ll but for a IRBM that seems overkill
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:15:58 UTC No. 16499897
>>16499894
>military missiles are solid fueled, not liquid fueled
some are liquid fueled
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-28
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nodon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaha
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:32:01 UTC No. 16499906
>>16499897
not cryogenic though
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:35:56 UTC No. 16499908
>>16499847
saw what i believe to be a starlink train in nevada a couple days ago. 10 sec exposure with an iphone camera.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:41:06 UTC No. 16499910
>>16499908
Rare rural Nevadafag
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:49:27 UTC No. 16499912
>>16499908
mine without any particular exposure from England
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:51:25 UTC No. 16499913
>>16499912
>filename
do bongs really?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:53:47 UTC No. 16499915
intuitive machines isnt profitable. all of their landers are operating at a loss. they're in dire need of a real business model.
>In its 10-Q filing this month, Intuitive Machines noted that its IM-1 lander mission in February, along with its upcoming IM-2 and IM-3 missions—all part of CLPS—are considered “loss contracts” by the company as the cost of executing those missions exceeds the revenue expected
https://thespacereview.com/article/
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:54:47 UTC No. 16499916
>>16499910
northern nevada too, i dont live anywhere near vegas. really in the middle of fucking nowhere lol.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:54:58 UTC No. 16499917
I hate solid rocket boosters and hydrolox.
Anyone shills for any of those two deserves to be [CENSORED FOR VIOLATIN 4chan COMMUNITY GUIDELINES]
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 05:59:36 UTC No. 16499918
>>16499916
Are you an /sfg/ regular or just dropping by? If regular why havent we seen more photos from you when you have the rare case of no light pollution?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:00:44 UTC No. 16499919
>>16499917
>violatin
>scared of a ban
>trying to fit in
do newbabas really?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:02:17 UTC No. 16499920
>>16499915
delightfully _______
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:03:19 UTC No. 16499923
>>16499918
i am a regular but up until recently i had a shitty iphone 7 and i couldnt really get good night sky pictures with it.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:05:22 UTC No. 16499925
>>16499923
Post more anon. Also how does it feel to jump 9 generations ahead
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:07:07 UTC No. 16499927
I should buy an 8" dob
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:07:21 UTC No. 16499928
>>16499925
Feels like how I imagine tech priests feel when discovering new stc fragments. ill post here occasionally but im not posting every shitty sky image i take, will wait until i start getting actually decent to post those. until then ill only post somewhat extraordinary shit
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:10:06 UTC No. 16499929
>>16499849
Starliner better watch herself or she will come home without her hymen one day...
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:11:07 UTC No. 16499930
>>16499849
this is why she's getting canceled
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:13:15 UTC No. 16499932
>>16499929
What a feral subhuman coombrained mutt you are
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:23:06 UTC No. 16499936
>>16499929
>back when we used to love Starliner
feels bad man
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:24:01 UTC No. 16499937
>>16499916
>northern nevada
How many cryptids have you battled?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:37:18 UTC No. 16499947
>>16499937
Woah, I hike in the ruby mountains all the time. Pretty sure ive been to several of the spots in those pictures. havent seen anything i could conclusively say was supernatural myself... but i have encountered some weird shit before for sure
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:47:27 UTC No. 16499949
>>16499947
Here's another story set in that same area, presumably from a different anon. Don't know if it's just multiple people making shit up about this area, or if there's actually something weird in those mountains.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:49:30 UTC No. 16499951
>>16499949
>>16499937
>he thinks people ARENT making up stories on 4chinz
wngts
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:52:10 UTC No. 16499952
/k/unt here. Can something like the strategic defense initiative with its goal being to counter a full scale nuclear exchange be realized with the Space Force and companies like SpaceX?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:55:11 UTC No. 16499957
Your time to shine, Brilliant Pebbles shill.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:55:42 UTC No. 16499958
>>16499937
If your ever decide to ascend Humboldt Peak, Nevada. I have seen an entity that looks like the mascot for jack in the box white circular head and triangle hat. The guy is tall and pale. I noped the fuck out, since I was running low on water. I only ever told my cousin about the encounter in 2005. stupid as clown was looking at me.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:55:53 UTC No. 16499959
>>16499955
In space, do all you see is just a black void? Or do you see stars and shit? Why is space so spooky looking?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 06:56:59 UTC No. 16499960
>>16499952
I wont care about Space Force until they fund their own cool looking spaceship. Preferably a space plane just because I think they're neat.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:02:45 UTC No. 16499964
>>16499959
depends if there is the sun or big thing reflecting sunlight in view
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:07:06 UTC No. 16499966
>>16499960
The Space Force is no better than all of the other three letter spy agencies. Most of them are redundant, stupid, fake, gay, and should be eliminated immediately
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:09:36 UTC No. 16499968
>>16499952
I remember seeing a presentation by a USSF officer on what he expected the service to be doing by 2035. It was pretty interesting
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:10:56 UTC No. 16499970
>>16499968
IIRC basically it was a mix of the coast guard and navy's roles but in space (but more heavily coast guard). Search and rescue, law enforcement, helping to maintain infrastructure, and countering chinese influence/aggressive actions/deterrence.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:15:29 UTC No. 16499971
>>16499970
forgot to mention if a spacelift command is activated they would be largely responsible for that as well. and ofc all their current roles will be continued. later into the future they might begin focusing on asteroid defense.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:17:38 UTC No. 16499973
>>16499966
They tried to absorb the NRO and the NRO fought them off. Presumably with any technology in some DUMB.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:21:59 UTC No. 16499977
>>16499966
The Space Force makes sense both for now and for future proofing. The only shit part of the Space Force is that soldiers are called Guardians which has to be the gayest fucking thing there is.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:24:05 UTC No. 16499979
>>16499977
One of the best things about it is that a lot of the funding for more ambitious space related military shit that the air force denied is now actually being granted
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:33:02 UTC No. 16499983
>>16499977
>can't issue launch licenses
Soiled. Scrap the whole thing and start over.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:33:05 UTC No. 16499984
>>16499979
The budget for the Space Force is fucking insane. Even just specifically for its R&D it's many multiple times more than the entire budget of NASA.
Space belongs to the United States of America
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPp
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:34:07 UTC No. 16499985
>>16499983
I don't think the US military has to bend the knee to the FAA anon.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:36:54 UTC No. 16499987
>>16499985
They literally do. They have no authority over granting launch licenses. All they can do, like the Air Force, is tell retards to fuck off when they want to launch something but ultimately both of them have to petition the FAA to handle the license and the NOTAM and all that shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:39:13 UTC No. 16499989
>>16499987
dude what?
the DoD does not have to get launch licenses
the FAA specifically does not do launch licensing for government entities
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:43:51 UTC No. 16499995
>>16499989
The FAA is a government entity. The reason why Elon seethes so much about the FAA is because they can cockblock his ability to launch. The SpaceX IFT launches have all ostensibly been NASA missions as part of the lander contract because they have to hit certain goals to satisfy NASA, and to do that, they need to launch. It's under the contract. Yet despite this, the FAA dragged their balls all over the entire process. The FAA inherited the ability to hand out launch licenses because no one else knew who to give it to, and the government didn't think that they should create an entire department just for launch licenses. The Air Force has to go through them, NASA has to go through them, Space Force has to go through them, the fucking Navy when they want to do a classified Trident test has to go through them.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:50:50 UTC No. 16499999
>>16499879
I CANNAE HOLD HER CAP'N SHE'S ALREADY GOING AS SLOW AND STEADY AS SHE'LL GO
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 07:53:59 UTC No. 16500002
>>16499984
That patch looks so badass...
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:01:06 UTC No. 16500006
>>16500003
>literally one guy can kill entire station by making a hole in walls
very shit.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:04:18 UTC No. 16500010
>>16499995
wrong
launch licensing is specifically for commercial space launches
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:09:24 UTC No. 16500014
>>16500006
>multiple meters worth of armor/structure
>multiple meters worth of regolith and top soil/infrastructure
>entire bodies of water
>"one guy could kill everyone"
You could probably detonate a low yield nuclear bomb inside of an O'Neill cylinder and it would still be fine. It's not comparable in any way to a flimsy spacecraft or something like the ISS.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:43:50 UTC No. 16500030
>>16500014
>he says confidently providing no evidence and with none in existence
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 08:58:48 UTC No. 16500038
>>16499952
Could it? Yes. Will it? No.
With there being 10x fewer missiles to worry about, launch costs 100x cheaper, and technology much more advanced than when the program was first proposed it is absolutely possible. Quite easy, even. For just a single digit percent of one year of their military spending they could get it done.
But it would never get done because it'd rock the boat too much and make the US too invincible. The US gaining the ability to be untouchable by nukes is something China, Russia, Israel, and Europe would all do everything they could to prevent happening. And given Russia being Russia, them preemptively nuking isn't off the table.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:19:38 UTC No. 16500045
>>16500038
>And given Russia being Russia, them preemptively nuking isn't off the table.
calm down, war hawk, we're not fighting wars for you people anymore
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:30:07 UTC No. 16500048
>>16500045
>stating the obvious that an unstable state is not stable makes you a war hawk
Anyways I'd consider myself more of a nuke hawk. Why bother fighting a war when you could just wipe them off the face of the Earth instead? Skip the fighting part and go straight to the part where they're dead.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:35:03 UTC No. 16500049
>>16500038
>Russia being Russia, them preemptively nuking isn't off the table
You are delusional.
The children of the Russian high officials and oligarchs live in Western Europe or US, doing coke and getting piped all night.
They just want to keep their hard earned mansions and live hyper-aristocratic lifestyle.
If it means throwing hobos and low value males into meatgrinder, they are all for it, but putting anyone from their class into danger is out of question.
This is why all the "Putin and everyone close to him must be hanged for warcrimes" are idiots.
You are effectively giving the guy with nuclear button two options:
a) don't press the button, die
b) press the button, die
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:41:05 UTC No. 16500052
>>16500049
Yeah, and they'd choose to bring you down with them if you tried and they had the option. Do you really think they'd just sit by and allow what is by far their greatest piece of leverage to be totally nullified?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:44:16 UTC No. 16500054
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 09:52:46 UTC No. 16500056
>>16499955
>something like 15% of the solid ground of the entire fucking solar system is inaccessible on Venus
>another 10% is under Earth's oceans
>another 2-3% or so is inhabited by hostile urfers
I now understand spinhabs.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 10:27:25 UTC No. 16500064
>>16500053
they sett the goal way too high before any reuseables or their new commercial spaceport are ready
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 10:45:04 UTC No. 16500071
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Kc
very VERY cool video from mark rober
launching a selfie satellite
good info on sat building
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 11:05:15 UTC No. 16500085
>>16500071
>camera in space
reporting this fag to NOAA
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 11:27:57 UTC No. 16500092
>>16499999
>>16500000
nice 9s
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 11:57:55 UTC No. 16500104
>>16500071
mark roper is gonna hang no amtter how much you spin it.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:14:06 UTC No. 16500112
>>16500038
What if the nuclear powers launched a joint effort to create defense systems in tandem so no one has an edge over the other?
Downside: You're giving your enemies equal footing.
Upside: Strategic level nuclear war becomes a thing of the past as any exchange just gets shot down.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:18:48 UTC No. 16500113
>>16499915
Didn't they just get five billion for moonlink?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:19:51 UTC No. 16500116
>>16499976
this game taught me that space combat will be even more retarded than I expected, literally just throwing machine gun drones at each other
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:20:59 UTC No. 16500117
>>16499955
Mars really is perfect huh
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:25:44 UTC No. 16500122
Last night's CZ-6A delayed to the 4th
6 orbital launch are planned for December 4th.
If tomorrow's soyuz is delayed and moves to its backup on the 4th we may hit 7.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:28:47 UTC No. 16500125
>>16499952
Yeah but space based kinetic interceptors is kinda already an obsolete idea.
Future are space based laser interceptors.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:35:34 UTC No. 16500130
>>16500104
What did he do
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 12:38:04 UTC No. 16500132
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:08:45 UTC No. 16500143
>>16500116
COADE doesn't have EW or any sort of combined arms at all. "Fighters" launched from a carrier will most likely be manned to either act as a skirmisher line ahead of the capital ships or to skim past during an orbital intersection that might be too risky for the capital ships or unnecessary if they have good range. There also is zero infrastructure in place or heavily coordinated fleet/defense system tactics. No minefields of loiter munitions, no stations, no concern for logistics, etc.
The game is probably the most "realistic" space combat sim out there, but it's still missing a lot. One big thing I never see addressed in games or stories like these is if you have dozens to hundreds or even thousands of ships in each faction, let's say a classic Mars vs. Earth scenario. What do you do? You just full send a fleet to Mars where you not only have to contend with the Martian fleet but also all of its defense systems including its planetary ones? I think people vastly underestimate the delta-v requirement for interplanetary space combat. You not only would not have to make a transfer to get from Earth/Moon to Mars, but you would most likely fire your payload and then do a massive fuck you burn to cancel out your forward velocity and uno reverse your ass back on a trajectory to Earth because you're not just gonna full send it straight into Mordor in the same way an infantry company isn't just gonna full send it towards an enemy mechanized division by itself, that's just suicide.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:15:18 UTC No. 16500145
>>16500143
Just throw rocks at each other
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:34:33 UTC No. 16500161
>>16499920
counterintuitive/retarded
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:37:12 UTC No. 16500165
>>16499952
SpaceX, yes
Ground Non-violence, no. It would violate the sacred principle of ahimsa.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:42:01 UTC No. 16500166
>>16499995
>>16499987
confidently wrong and gay
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:43:27 UTC No. 16500167
>>16500006
>movie aircraft depressurization guy shows up
real eurohours garbage today
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:47:31 UTC No. 16500168
>>16500030
How wide is the hole? How deep is the hole? How big is the volume with the hole in it? You could at least attempt to put some bounds on the flow rate of the air and the change in pressure. You're the one making unfounded assertions.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:49:18 UTC No. 16500169
>>16499885
They still haven't done a static fire? wtf are they doing?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:49:33 UTC No. 16500170
How likely is artemis iii for september 2026? I heard elon musk is way behind schedule
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:50:32 UTC No. 16500171
>>16499936
I still love her, but like how you love a retarded sibling
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:52:43 UTC No. 16500173
Is starliner canceled yet?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:54:17 UTC No. 16500174
>>16500173
I think the last thing we heard about starliner is a rumour about how boeing was trying to sell it (or it's entire space arm)
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 13:59:33 UTC No. 16500177
>>16500171
me? I want to fuck her
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:12:24 UTC No. 16500182
>>16500169
It’s called gradatim
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:37:10 UTC No. 16500196
>>16500143
I wish there was another game like this, for all it's flaws it's still very fun
>I never see addressed
interplanetary combat (may God save us from that being a possibility) would be the largest game of pool ever, there would be no great armada invasion or even direct ship to ship combat, it'll be an unglodly amount of one-way drones and sending tungsten pellets at 30km/s while abusing gravitational fields to bend trajectories and catch ships/bases by surprise
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:46:44 UTC No. 16500203
>>16499984
The entire USSF budget is only a bit larger than NASA's.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 14:49:25 UTC No. 16500205
>>16499987
Neither NASA launches or USSF launches require FAA approval.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:02:11 UTC No. 16500211
>>16500196
The more I learn about rockets the more insanely cool the Voyager 2 alignment looks.
>Earth to Jupiter in TWO YEARS
>Jupiter to Saturn to Uranus to Neptune in twelve years
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:34:03 UTC No. 16500240
>>16500116
No, the lessons that can be extracted from CHOADE are
>You either have retardedly fuckhuge powerful lasers or don't even bother, because for the mass and cost of a laser on a spaceship you can do a thousand times better on a killstar that is just going to melt anything that gets close, and even if you manage to coordinate a two-front attack a laser can still have 360º defense
>Drones are going to be, hands down, the meta in Space. The author went into autistic ramblings about how space crews are needed to reduce lags and "just in case" but in reality his game has just shown how at best you will want to fill your fleets with suicide drones that send nuclear projectiles from extreme distances, nullifying the point of defense in most spaceships. No only due to Casaba Howitzers(that were modeled into the game) but because a well designed drone doesn't need to shoot that much. This in turn means that future spaceships are going to be communication relays and command and control systems, and that is if it can't be simply done on the ground safely and away from combat.
>There are no dogfights but there is a lot of jousting. Like Space combat is going to be about spending a whole day/s preparing for a few minutes flyby of shooting at each other and then waiting for the next orbit, unless the gravity is low enough and the enemy is willing to engage that much deltaV. This also means that you should aim for kinetic advantage, that is, having a higher relative speed over your enemy, in that way any missile will not only impact much harder but it won't be as easy to intercept or fool
>The game has also made me realize that shooting the life support radiators should be considered a warcrime. The main radiators? Fine they are feeding lasers/railguns, but life support radiators cannot sustain other systems by themselves at all, and should you shoot them off the crew would burn slowly and in agony.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:35:05 UTC No. 16500241
>>16500240
>As an addedum to the last, we can infer that space stealth is possible without question. The real problem of that always was the crew's heat, but for a drone? Just make it efficient and small enough to emit a few watts and send it into a collision course towards wathever station/spaceship you feel like, even if they detect it at best it could still be a strange piece of black debris
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 15:40:52 UTC No. 16500244
>>16500143
I hope I live to see the day when spaceships look cooler than solar powered dildos
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:09:06 UTC No. 16500261
>>16499891
>bulgarianmilitary.com
this is a pretty well known shill site that constantly gets peddled by ziggers nonstop, it's part of their blowfish doctrine.
i'm interested in russian missiles, but please don't share this slop with the class.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:11:07 UTC No. 16500263
>>16500177
pussy is pussy, her IQ does not matter when you're about to cum
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:12:03 UTC No. 16500264
^^^^
this guy spaces
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:12:30 UTC No. 16500265
>>16500177
do not fuck your retarded sibling, you'll get even more retarded imbred babies.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:17:15 UTC No. 16500269
>>16500261
i mean, it's only a shill site in that it basically directly quotes the russian ministry of defence word for word and takes it at face value as a truthful, honest source. that is really silly, but not necessarily malicious, they're either intentionally doing that or they're too stupid to understand that russians lie when their mouths are moving.
basically what i'm trying to say is total journalist death.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:19:15 UTC No. 16500271
>>16500116
That's only because the ai is stupid and doesn't maneuver against your launches and flak missiles just straight up don't work at all. You should be able to intercept with them. Drones become total shit if you get them to expend even most of their dv.
>>16500143
I also noticed that there is no RCS or gyroscopes for control only the main engine. Sometimes drones have enough dv to make a second pass but just shut off before they get in range. Also ranges of lasers should be much much longer and should have an option to blind sensors or make their ship hot
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:24:44 UTC No. 16500277
>>16500112
the threat of nuclear war also prevents conventional war between nuclear nations due to the fear of escalation to nuclear war
if nukes were eliminated conventional wars would be more likely to happen
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:26:37 UTC No. 16500279
>>16500277
This is called the stability-instability paradox if you wanna look up a ton of literature about it.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:31:13 UTC No. 16500282
>>16500277
This is also why it's so important for Iran to get nukes. We're so close to world peace
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:36:13 UTC No. 16500286
>>16500277
It's worth noting that blocking all strategic nukery opens the door for tactical nuke use. Possibly a lot.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:41:27 UTC No. 16500289
>>16500277
The other option is one in which only a single nation has a credible nuclear strike capability and can dictate terms to everyone else. Brilliant pebbles or something similar could make this real if it's implemented now while the US has an insurmountable lead in space.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:44:53 UTC No. 16500292
>>16500053
Probably could be said that the 100 target was dependent on 30 launches from private/semi-private
companies which was always unrealistic*: As it is right now it looks like the State owned companies will reach about 80% of their goals, while the private/semi private will be around 50% max
But main reasons IMO:
>New commercial pads in Wenchang had a good 6 months of delays, may have caused 5+ missed launches, there's like 3-4 unlaunched CZ-8 stored there rn, they'll be lucky to fly one before end of the year.
>Private sector shat the bed around june/july (Space pioneer Tianlong accident prevented their 3 planned launches in H2 and caused a private launch regulation reviews, I-space hyperbola had a failure, Galactic energy Ceres had a reportedly bad abort that delayed it by 2 months and occupied the single launch barge available for other launcher at the time)
>Qianfan and Guowang megaconstellation deployment start got delayed, especially Guowang, was suppoed to be mid 2024, still hasn't happened (probably will this month IMO).
Other reasons may include the recent political purge at the head of CASC having some effects, and potentially various private LSP focusing more on developping their reusable launchers and hoppers than on their operational launchers
*One exemple: the 30 private launches figure depended on Space Pioneer launching their Tianlong 3 three times in 2024...
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:53:11 UTC No. 16500299
>>16500269
They posted an article saying that British navy ships are at risk from Anti ship missiles, which should really tell you all you need to know about the quality of the site.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 16:57:52 UTC No. 16500303
>>16500299
Are you retarded? Of course they're at risk!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:00:44 UTC No. 16500306
>>16500289
The final golive checklist for BP should involve a first strike on Moscow, Beijiing, New Delhi, and Richard Shelbym
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:01:42 UTC No. 16500308
Will I be able to being my Nintendo Switch to Mars? How will I charge it (on the ship? in the habitat?)
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:03:55 UTC No. 16500312
>>16500263
her IQ determines how many stupid tattoos she has though
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:07:49 UTC No. 16500317
>>16500308
Fuck off
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:09:14 UTC No. 16500318
>>16500314
>random inclusion of 5g in the middle of the paragraph
chatgpt ass shit
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:13:57 UTC No. 16500324
>>16500321
>could use lidar AND camera AI
>insteads to opt for ONLY camera AI
elon retard god
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:14:03 UTC No. 16500325
>>16500321
short form answer: "I have autism, please understand"
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:15:45 UTC No. 16500328
>>16500321
This guy loves sucking cock btw
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:16:21 UTC No. 16500329
>>16500328
parm looks like a girl
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:17:13 UTC No. 16500331
>>16500317
Answer me
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:17:57 UTC No. 16500332
Grim
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:18:44 UTC No. 16500333
>>16500321
Lidar costs a fortune is the main reason
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:20:27 UTC No. 16500338
>>16500333
lasers are not expensive
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:24:19 UTC No. 16500350
https://www.instagram.com/reel/DC3V
This is fucking funny
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:29:11 UTC No. 16500356
>>16500338
For Waymo specifically it adds about 15-20k in cost per vehicle. Competitors are much more expensive, as off-the-shelf sensors are upwards of 75k.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:29:26 UTC No. 16500357
>>16500350
? i didn''t laugh
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:32:03 UTC No. 16500358
>>16500292
funny how this post gets no replies.
i'm not saying china is a pushover that should be ignored, but this goes to show that chink companies are still as liable to have silly fuckups and massive setbacks as any american space company (that isn't spacex, they are as the zoomers say built different).
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:34:54 UTC No. 16500361
>>16500340
around flight 10 you guys will all be yawning like dopamine deprived schoolkids and wondering when something interesting or janky like a crease developing on the vehicle will happen again.
cherish these moments and don't get upset at spacex's failures, because eventually they won't have any and it will work like clockwork making it just as boring as falcon 9 launches.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:37:56 UTC No. 16500367
>>16500361
>another lunar cargo refueling mission
Boring. Why are they even still live streaming these
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:39:21 UTC No. 16500369
>>16500350
>boomer music for boomer rocket
>implications that it's a death trap
Funny on accident
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:40:17 UTC No. 16500370
>>16500329
Hard to tell with brownoids. Also I wasnt talking about the jeet.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:43:02 UTC No. 16500374
>>16500331
you wont have time for video games
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:44:46 UTC No. 16500378
>>16500369
No, funny on purpose. The joke is the kerbals are about to die which is funny
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:46:04 UTC No. 16500380
>>16500374
I think I would have at least 2 hours per day. Maybe more once the colony is in full swing
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:48:01 UTC No. 16500382
>>16500292
IIRC these were the goals of the various private LSP from earlier this year (sum of about 30), vs their achivements this year (9 success):
Galactic Energy:
10-11 Ceres (Electron size LV): 4 so far, at least another expected (NOTAM in Jiuquan out) with maybe a second, sea-launched one before end of year.
1 Pallas (Soyuz-class RLV): Still in final assembly as of early November, NET Q2 2025
I-Space:
2-3 Hyperbola, 1 failed, they want to launch the next one "ASAP"
Orienspace:
2 Gravity-1, ofc one worked, we saw footage of the various stages under assembly a few months ago but nothing since, may still be launched before end of chinese year (January 2025)
CAS Space
6 Lijian/Kinetica, 3 launched with one currently on its way to Jiuquan for launch in 2nd half of December.
Space Pioneer:
1 Tianlong 2, 0 launched as far as we know they abandonned plan to launch it, basically did like relativity space.
3 TIanlong 3, 0 launched on purpose.
Landspace:
3 Zhuque 2E, 1 launched, another at Jiuquan in preparation for launch in december
Deep Blue Aerospace:
1 Nebula-1; currently under assembly for a launch NET Spring 2025
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:48:07 UTC No. 16500383
>>16499847
Xeon Ion powered by Cobalt60 power cells when?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:48:25 UTC No. 16500384
>>16500361
>guys remember when flappy survived getting a hole burnt through her on IFT-4
>oh man that was a while ago, fun times, newfags will never understand.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:51:45 UTC No. 16500388
>>16500384
I remember clearly, I bought the patch
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:52:35 UTC No. 16500389
>>16500384
>oh man that was a while ago
Probably 2 years ago by the fartshit cadence so far
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:54:11 UTC No. 16500392
>>16500384
>>16500388
Good times. I wish I could have caught that one live.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 17:59:06 UTC No. 16500397
>>16500358
Yeah
When looking at chinese space forums there was a lot of optimism going into this year that the private sector would have a record breaking year, indeed 2023 had some serious achivement (Zhuque being 1st methalox to orbit, Galactic Energy achieving bi-weekly launch rate at some point and quickly recovering from a failure, Orienspace and Space Pioneer managing to develop medium-launchers in merely 3-4 years from founding). But this whole year has curbed a lot of enthusiasm, I think most chinese space fans are now more likely to trust CASC in delivering RLVs.
One exemple is the difference in reaction to the CZ-12 in chinese circles from a year ago vs now, back then it was derided as an outdated LV at a time when RLVs seemed around the corner, now everybody gladly accept it since it actually flies and every ELV is needed to start launching their megaconstellations.
SpaceX are built different now but they still struggled early on, took them years to get there.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:07:35 UTC No. 16500404
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/18
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
>Falcon 9 reaches a flight rate 30 times higher than shuttle at 1/100th the cost
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:08:51 UTC No. 16500407
>>16500404
https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:10:55 UTC No. 16500410
>>16500404
>>Falcon 9 reaches a flight rate 30 times higher than shuttle at 1/100th the cost
>first stage VS second stage
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:12:51 UTC No. 16500413
>>16500407
The Shuttle killed a generation of rocketry in the USA
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:14:03 UTC No. 16500417
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:14:23 UTC No. 16500418
>>16500404
>>16500413
>https://x.com/dr_ed_tate/status/18
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:14:55 UTC No. 16500419
>>16500410
>smart design vs retarded design
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:16:51 UTC No. 16500422
>>16500418
>drawing a line based ONLY on spacex
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:18:16 UTC No. 16500425
>>16500407
spacex needs to push the yuro out of this century to complete the humiliation ritual
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:18:17 UTC No. 16500426
>>16500397
oh for sure, at this point, with the re-emerging importance of space and space assets, it's likely (at least for the moment) that any country won't really care whether it's govt owned, private, reusable or not, the most important thing right now if you want to do big space projects is that it flies, flies regularly, and flies reliably.
re-use might help exponentially with all of these but it's moot if you can't even do it without re-use.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:21:00 UTC No. 16500429
>>16500407
they are simply the main characters, it's that simple.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:22:48 UTC No. 16500430
>>16500418
>startship
indeed, it is merely the start.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:49:57 UTC No. 16500453
>>16500418
>cumulative payload tons launched
is this saying falcon heavy has launched more mass to orbit over its launches than falcon 9 in its hundreds?
how do I interpret this?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:51:47 UTC No. 16500454
Eric Berger is a fraud
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:53:53 UTC No. 16500457
>>16500367
>just another mars colonist landing flight
when will these assholes terraform Jupiter?!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 18:54:02 UTC No. 16500458
>>16500453
pretty sure its total payload for all combined launches world wide
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:05:01 UTC No. 16500464
>>16500454
shut up Tory
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:05:58 UTC No. 16500465
>>16500453
Notice that x axis is chronologically ordered.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:08:37 UTC No. 16500469
>>16500122
>6 on the 4th
CZ-6A
Starlink 9-14
KZ-1A? (just a NOTAM)
Starlink 6-70
PSLV - PROBA 3
Vega-C - Sentinal-1C
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:12:37 UTC No. 16500476
>>16499952
already has been
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:22:18 UTC No. 16500485
>>16500418
>pegasus that high
fraud chart. pegasus is great.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:52:20 UTC No. 16500501
How is it that the moon contains little to no carbon? Is it simply that any scans of the moon are only very surface level? How accurate are those same scans when used on the earth to find deposits?
I've been watching some of anthro futurism videos and one of the biggest limiting factors on any sort of industry is lack of carbon.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:54:57 UTC No. 16500502
>>16500501
i ated all of it
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:58:25 UTC No. 16500505
>>16500501
because no one has been there to check
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 19:59:36 UTC No. 16500508
>>16500501
Carbon is only a percent of a percent of the Earth's crust too. This is probably accurate and shouldn't be surprising.
>biggest limiting factors on any sort of industry is lack of carbon
For steel you don't need much, for aluminum it can be recycled. When you consider how far you can stretch a Starship load of graphite it isn't so bad.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:12:11 UTC No. 16500513
>>16500508
you didnt see graphite.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:17:33 UTC No. 16500515
>>16500306
Richard Shelby is already dead
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:18:20 UTC No. 16500517
>>16500418
>>16500453
>>16500458
>>16500453
Each launcher is shown at the total mass launched in history before it's debut. But how much payload launched before Pegasus started flying has no impact on that vehicle's performance or economics. Which makes the plot complete nonsense.
They could have just plotted time. That would made sense. The way it is now has the first two decades spread over two orders of magnitude on the x axis, and then the last 40 years is crammed into less than one.
Its also 100% bullshit as its cherrypicked to hell. They show small launchers (Pegasus XL) in the past, but remove recent ones (Electron, Falcon 1, Minotaur, Antares). Small launchers have higher cost/kg, they would be much higher than the tend line and screw up the nice correlation. Someone has picked the data they like to get the trend they wanted. Because it's bullshit.
People should be chemically castrated for being this dumb.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:23:00 UTC No. 16500524
>>16500517
the total cumulative experience of rocketry has no relevance at all in rocket design or cost to orbit?
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:27:07 UTC No. 16500531
Black science man is on the warpath against SpaceX
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jg
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:27:56 UTC No. 16500533
>>16500531
Because black science man made himself look like a dumbass and his ego won't allow him to admit his mistakes.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:29:12 UTC No. 16500534
test
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:32:25 UTC No. 16500537
>>16500533
Where have I seen this before
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:34:37 UTC No. 16500540
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:39:53 UTC No. 16500543
>>16500531
eds on display
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:40:22 UTC No. 16500544
>>16500524
If the correlation was as strong and tight as shown in the plot then Vulcan should be cheaper than Falcon 9. And New Glenn would be cheaper than Starship? Do you think that will happen? No, because cumulative experience doesn't mean much.
It might be a relevant variable, but are going to be at least a dozen more relevant terms.
🗑️ Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:41:55 UTC No. 16500545
>>16500540
>NASA: hmmm we can't builded shit so lets just claim that we built Starship, thats easier than actually learning how to build rockets
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:49:39 UTC No. 16500549
>>16500540
>a-actually it was NASA who curbstomped NASA to death
lol, i almost feel bad for these poor midwits.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 20:57:48 UTC No. 16500554
>>16500508
>Carbon is only a percent of a percent of the Earth's crust too.
>Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust, and the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen.
On the moon carbon is a tiny fraction of that despite this compared to earth
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:11:02 UTC No. 16500561
>>16500545
>>16500540
its true that falcon was so cheap to develop because NASA tech gave SpaceX many shortcuts. picaX is just pica with some inconsequential changes for for example.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:13:30 UTC No. 16500563
>>16500554
>Carbon is the 15th most abundant element in the Earth's crust
Yeah like I said, a percent of a percent
>despite this compared to earth
Not sure where you're confused. The Earth and moon are nearly exactly the same composition
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:14:03 UTC No. 16500564
>>16499952
>>16499957
The only technologically practical SDI proposal thusfar devised is "Brilliant Pebbles", a plan to put many thousands of boost-phase interceptors into low earth orbit. At the time this was first proposed, that many satellites wasn't practical but all other aspects of the proposal were. SpaceX has now made it practical to launch satellite constellations that large, so the only challenge left is finding the political will to actually do it.
>>16500125
>lasers
Huge meme. Lasers suitable for the task don't actually exist, direct energy proposals are just asking for blank checks to be given to researchers who will never get anything done.
>>16500038
>>16500277
>>16500289
> The US gaining the ability to be untouchable by nukes
>if nukes were eliminated conventional wars would be more likely to happen
>The other option is one in which only a single nation has a credible nuclear strike capability and can dictate terms to everyone else. Brilliant pebbles or something similar could make this real
It is a common misconception that Brilliant Pebbles would eliminate, nullify or somehow otherwise invalidate the nuclear deterrence of other countries. What it nullifies is their first strike capability by taking their ballistic missiles off the table. A submarine filled with nuclear armed cruise missiles able to erase US coastal cities would still be totally on the table and would provide ample deterrence against America.
>if that's true, then what's the point
Cruise missiles cannot reach America's heartland, where the ICBM silos are, so Brilliant Pebbles eliminates the possibility of a first strike intended to disarm America.
All rational first strikes are counter-force, meaning they intend to disable the enemy's military capabilities. If you don't do this, then your own cities get erased (euphemistically, "counter-value".) Brilliant Pebbles doesn't prevent counter-value retribution attacks against America.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:14:33 UTC No. 16500565
>>16500561
>falcon was cheap because NASA gave SpaceX pica
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:17:53 UTC No. 16500569
>>16499894
Not Russian ones. A lot of hypergolic liquid fuels still being used there.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:23:30 UTC No. 16500575
>>16500565
kkkkkk
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:34:43 UTC No. 16500580
>>16500540
Holy cope
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:36:18 UTC No. 16500581
>>16500569
my understanding of it (and i may be a complete retard here)
was that soviets struggled to develop the kinds of (relatively speaking) high ISP variants of solid fuels that the US used and hypergolics were their only way of getting the performance they needed to loft significant mass onto ballistic trajectories, and once they had the industry for manufacturing those kinds of ICBM's set up it didn't make sense for the soviets to switch over. which is why the vast majority of soviet era ICBM's were hypergolic
that kind of bit them in the ass though because while better than cryogenic stuff, hypergolic fuels do need quite a bit of attention and maintenance compared to solid fuels. most hypergolic substances are mildly corrosive and these ICBM's needed regular leak inspections and liner replacements, something i doubt they got much of during the hell that was the 90's.
it's not surprising that russia has tried as hard as possible to move away from hydrazine to try to develop more solid fuel systems, as most of their old stock has probably been written off at this point. bonus was that a lot of these refurbishment efforts happened in parts of the soviet union that are now not in russia anymore.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:38:04 UTC No. 16500583
>>16500531
Honestly it's a pretty reasonable video. SpaceX hasn't wasted money on frontiers, they're sprinting towards Mars and they're about to finally get there. He says this. He also says they've made space cheaper. His government funding concerns are baseless and outdated and he doesn't understand the Starship fundamentals but it's hardly malicious.
The comments are rabidly anti Elon though
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:39:03 UTC No. 16500585
>>16500581
*not hydrazine sorry, i believe most of them used nitrogen tetroxide and UDMH
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:39:29 UTC No. 16500586
>>16500540
with this logic, then it was actually Germany who went to the Moon.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:41:09 UTC No. 16500588
>>16500587
kino
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:41:11 UTC No. 16500589
>>16500581
They didn't really struggle, they just never bothered much in the first place. Hypergolic fuel were a lot better for their cold launch systems and the design bureaus that designed the ICBMs and the design bureaus in charge of developing ICBMs had been invested in hypergolic fuels since the late 1950's.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:48:07 UTC No. 16500593
>>16500587
holy shit, 4 falcons!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:50:29 UTC No. 16500594
>>16500531
you need to understand that Black Science Man doesn't have any agency in these videos, these are being created by his handlers
he's autistic enough that you can get him to rant about anything with the right context and then remove it from that context
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:55:42 UTC No. 16500597
>>16500594
>everything is a psyop
another victim of the psyop psyop
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 21:58:55 UTC No. 16500600
>>16500583
yeah, this
I don't think he has EDS but he's in a low-information environment re:Starship
John Carmack should give him a tour, I'd pay to see that
>>16500597
>the psyop machine produces psyops
>this is a controversial take
you don't hate journalists enough
you think you do, but you don't
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:04:55 UTC No. 16500605
>>16500593
the pedestal crane at the port looks kind of like a very used falcon 9
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:05:57 UTC No. 16500606
>>16500589
there was probably a strong push from people like korolev to keep liquid fuels as well because he and other engineers obviously used military interest as a springboard for their space ambitions, focusing on solids would've worked against that.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:08:53 UTC No. 16500609
>>16500540
why do people feel the need to even make this point? Let's just say it's 100% true. So what? The only people to operate reusable boosters, thus driving down their cost, is SpaceX. Making technology mass produced and commonly used is a huge achievement. Anyone who has ever tried to engineer literally anything knows this
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:13:25 UTC No. 16500613
>>16500597
spreading the psyop psyop psyop I see.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:16:48 UTC No. 16500614
>>16500606
Korolev didn't care much for hypergolics and he stopped being involved in the ICBMs game after the R-7 and focused solely on space launch systems. You should more look at people like Mikhail Yangel and his influance on using hypergolic.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:30:10 UTC No. 16500618
>>16500617
how well do they handle being rolled up into a ball?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:37:21 UTC No. 16500623
>>16500617
>And what's this thing coming toward me very fast? So big and deep and dark, it needs a big wide sounding name like 'Ei', 'Eis', 'Speis', 'Space'! That's it! Space! Ha! I wonder if it'll be friends with me? Hello, Space!
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:42:53 UTC No. 16500625
>>16500617
block 1? zero
block 3? two
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:49:44 UTC No. 16500629
>>16499977
>Guardians
I like how meme-tier it is. They're leaning into the anime space opera branding with their nomenclature, ridiculous song, and even their uniforms.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:50:53 UTC No. 16500631
>>16500623
>oh no, not again
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 22:52:20 UTC No. 16500633
>>16500501
Carbon is only concentrated on Earth because of biological activity.
I've seen you post before. You're forever blowing hopium smoke up your ass regarding carbon on the moon. Why is this?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:02:11 UTC No. 16500640
>>16500561
if its so easy, why didn't NASA do it?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:08:22 UTC No. 16500645
>>16500583
>SpaceX hasn't wasted money on frontiers
You must be retarded. The entire company is pushing frontiers one after another, frontiers that were thought impossible or improbable by others.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:10:40 UTC No. 16500648
>>16500640
space is hard.
except when spacex does it, then space is easy and nothing new, nasa did it decades ago, DC-X, etc etc
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:18:17 UTC No. 16500652
https://x.com/tony873004/status/186
>Newly-discovered asteroid 2024 XA passed only 843 miles above the Pacific Ocean yesterday. This shortened its orbital period from 4 years to 1.5 years, ensuring it will make more frequent close encounters with Earth. It is 1-3 meters wide.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:20:09 UTC No. 16500655
>>16500652
>1-3 meters wide.
*yawn*
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:21:24 UTC No. 16500656
>>16500652
what would happen if it smacked us? pretty light show and it doesn't even reach the ground?
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:22:26 UTC No. 16500657
>>16500652
our society needs an asteroid impact to wake up and start caring about space
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:24:30 UTC No. 16500659
>>16500652
imagine if it came just a bit later and hit australia haha
that would be so funny lol if sydney went up in flames amirite
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:31:49 UTC No. 16500663
>>16500659
filthy zeon hands typed this post
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:38:25 UTC No. 16500671
>>16500657
Just imagine
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzL
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:40:45 UTC No. 16500675
>>16500645
Neil is specifically talking about something like the moon landing. Boots on the ground, human expansion. I'm here so obviously I know what's happening engineering wise but SpaceX doesn't have something like Gemini. Again this is Neil's distinction
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:43:16 UTC No. 16500680
>>16500659
Pathos-II inhabitants typed this post.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:46:35 UTC No. 16500686
>>16500656
The Chelyabinsk meteor from 2013 was about 18m, so it'd be significantly smaller than that, but it could be bigger than the Turkish meteor from earlier this year which was around 1m. We'd definitely get a show out of it but the risk on the ground would be minimal. On average we get smacked with a 1-3m rock about once every 18 months.
Anonymous at Mon, 2 Dec 2024 23:48:41 UTC No. 16500690
>>16500675
They just did a fucking private space walk.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:02:04 UTC No. 16500697
>>16500690
NASA DID A SPACEWALK IN THE 60S...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:19:00 UTC No. 16500708
>>16500690
Neil is of the opinion that doing something privately instead of publicly is not doing something new. This seems to be the reddit consensus as well. Don't even worry about it though man, this argument won't be valid by the end of the decade
>>16500633
There isn't even a reason for him to cope. The entire burj kalifa only has a starship load and a half of carbon in it. You'll need to import more carbon in the form of food than for industrial processes. Total non issue, no one ever thought the moon could be self sufficient
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:22:56 UTC No. 16500711
>>16500708
>reddit consensus
How is that valid?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:26:47 UTC No. 16500717
>>16500711
Because Neil is reddit incarnate. Look I'm not personally making the case at all, I'm just saying I don't think his take is EDS. He speaks positively about Starship even though he doesn't get it.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:30:40 UTC No. 16500719
>>16500382
Aside from SP and i-space this is a decent year overall, they just overestimated their ramp up speed. LandSpace still looking great
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:36:59 UTC No. 16500721
>>16500314
They've been working on it for at least 2 years, tunnel construction ended late last year
They broke the train speed record in February
https://www.livescience.com/technol
And have done more controlled tests recently
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/sci
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:39:11 UTC No. 16500724
>>16500314
>>16500721
Meanwhile, current Federal gov is ghosting Boring Company's permit to drill under federal waters for few years now.
The gov is what is blocking all of Musk's companies.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:44:13 UTC No. 16500730
>>16500724
>all of Musk's companies
All companies. It's unbelievable how far behind we are. The only reason computers got better is because our nonagenarian legislators didn't understand them enough to block that too. Imagine software from 1994 to 2024. Everything should have done that
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:44:24 UTC No. 16500731
Wwyd if your Starship Martian transfer ship had a redditor on board?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:46:17 UTC No. 16500734
>>16500731
There's a near zero chance you don't have a redditor on board. In six months I'd probably get close to anyone.
>hey man tell me about starwars again
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:47:14 UTC No. 16500735
>>16500652
>It is 1-3 meters wide
I want that thing for my living room please
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:47:56 UTC No. 16500736
>>16500731
Roundhouse kick a redditfag
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:56:04 UTC No. 16500737
>>16500671
I should put up one with this song
https://youtu.be/fJNMfDi2gho?list=P
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:57:19 UTC No. 16500738
>>16500731
of course it would. mars is very reddit
>le heckin wholesome godless vegan bugman society with minimal environmental impact! pog!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 00:57:33 UTC No. 16500739
>>16500531
Is he wrong?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:04:10 UTC No. 16500744
>>16500730
got worse and less useable even as capabilities increased?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:05:12 UTC No. 16500746
>>16500731
forcibly redpill him with mobile suit gundam and zeonic propoganda
>>16500738
I WILL NOT EAT THE BUG LEG BANANA BUNCH
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:08:46 UTC No. 16500747
>>16500746
You are ok in my book anon
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:18:03 UTC No. 16500758
>>16500730
they did try to ban cryptography in the 90s which would have hobled a lot of digital development
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:22:05 UTC No. 16500761
>>16500735
low cost flights on starship open up the market for space rock coffee tables, which the eventual post LEO economy will be based on.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:25:58 UTC No. 16500764
>>16500758
they're still trying to ban cryptography lol
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:26:48 UTC No. 16500765
>>16500739
judging by everything else he says, if he's right it's an accident
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:29:49 UTC No. 16500768
in the future of space will my shit be worth more than oxygen?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:39:52 UTC No. 16500774
>>16500768
The future of space is free of mass autism so both will be of negligible value
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:46:04 UTC No. 16500779
>>16500768
in the future people won't talk about poop like this
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 01:55:41 UTC No. 16500784
> Sources tell us SpaceX is now likely to be valued about $350B in a new tender offer, $100B MORE than what was discussed last month and would make it the most valuable startup in the world, surpassing Bytedance
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:01:40 UTC No. 16500789
>>16500784
What kind of harebrained definition of "startup" is being used here?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:04:00 UTC No. 16500790
>>16500779
People are going to talk a lot more than this about poop, Elon. I'm sorry.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:07:25 UTC No. 16500794
>>16500789
no IPO yet?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:09:00 UTC No. 16500795
>>16500794
That's just a private company
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:12:58 UTC No. 16500798
>>16500795
Yeah, I am suggesting that it is a harebrained definition not a good one
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:14:17 UTC No. 16500800
>>16500686
>500kt explosion at 97000ft altitude
Stupid rock should have kept its shit together for a bit longer and exploded at a lower altitude. The impacted areas would likely be between Lake Chekarbul and Korkino, let's say the village of Timiryazevski. Let's have a look at the damage using the Nuclear Secrecy blast radius simulator, set to airburst at 20000ft with a 500kt yield (it's not a nuke, I know): https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/
You'd be looking at maybe a few dozen fatalities, thousands of injuries, and a shit ton of ground damage. Probably some of those small hamlets getting totally levelled.
Maybe having some real visible destruction on the ground instead of some broken windows would help put the fear of god into the normie population.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:16:08 UTC No. 16500801
>>16500800
Rookie numbers. We need a meteor to hit a major city.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:17:07 UTC No. 16500802
>>16500794
No IPO? No, IPOoed my pants
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:18:16 UTC No. 16500803
>>16500784
Still too low
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:18:16 UTC No. 16500804
>>16500789
>>16500795
The vultures see that companies should not be private at all. Being private is a transitory period between founding and going public or being swallowed by another.
These people will stop at nothing to ruin a good thing as long as stock price goes up.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:20:51 UTC No. 16500809
>>16500784
to the moon
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:24:02 UTC No. 16500811
>>16500564
>A submarine filled with nuclear armed cruise missiles able to erase US coastal cities would still be totally on the table
And? A worthy sacrifice.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:25:27 UTC No. 16500812
>>16500804
Dodge v. Ford was the biggest mistake in US history
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:43:10 UTC No. 16500817
Spacex is now worth $350b
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:44:54 UTC No. 16500818
>>16500564
The Ohio class SSGNs can carry 155 nuclear capable Tomahawks. They exist now. China and Russia don't have equivalents.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:50:45 UTC No. 16500822
>>16500817
Musk will hit ~$400B this year or the next
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:50:46 UTC No. 16500823
>>16500818
They aren't nuclear capable anymore, the warhead for the tomahawks were retired and dismantled long ago.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:51:40 UTC No. 16500824
>>16500823
That was due to the Intermediate Forces Treaty which we pulled out of years ago.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:53:03 UTC No. 16500825
>>16500824
Doesn't really matter as they got dismantled and there's no replacement for them.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:54:20 UTC No. 16500828
When Elon gets into government he won't be able to gibb contracts to his own company, which he will probably leave.
Starship will be transferred to the Air Force and will complete the spatial grid of surveillance in semi-expendable mode.
Mars will be cancelled and oldspace will return to normal.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:57:36 UTC No. 16500830
>>16500828
Cool story bro. You forgot one detail. Rules don't apply to trump.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 02:59:03 UTC No. 16500831
>>16500828
nice fanfic, when are you publishing it on AO3?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:00:43 UTC No. 16500832
>>16500730
>Imagine software from 1994 to 2024. Everything should have done that
Everything has done that. (gotten worse)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:03:26 UTC No. 16500833
>>16500811
>>16500818
The point is that Russia and China can still deter America even if Brilliant Pebbles is deployed and renders their ballistic missiles useless, therefore everybody keeps their cool and peace is maintained. What Brilliant Pebbles prevents is either Russia or China getting too cocky and thinking they can catch America by surprise.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:03:37 UTC No. 16500834
>>16500825
as far as you and I know
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:05:20 UTC No. 16500835
>>16500738
>society with minimal environmental impact!
After the initial science outpost phase is over Martians will strive for maximal environmental impact.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:09:56 UTC No. 16500840
>>16500817
based (195467) 2002 GT114 poster
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:11:03 UTC No. 16500843
>>16500832
I already made that joke
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:15:10 UTC No. 16500845
>>16500830
>>16500828
No. Its not that rules dont apply to trump nor is musk giving himself contracts. The goal for Musk and Trump is to drain the swamp of contracts, beurocrats, grifts that costs US $40,000 for a single aircraft bolt, $80,000 for a toilet bowl, Cancel the $42 billion dollar rural isp fund that has connected 0 people.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:18:38 UTC No. 16500847
>>16500817
Makes no sense. SpaceX is a rocket company. It is worth no more than 2 billion like ULA
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:19:56 UTC No. 16500848
>>16500847
>>16500817
SpaceX is actually worth several thousand trillion dollars. It will take the market some time to realize this however.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:23:01 UTC No. 16500850
>>16500425
oi vey how many humiliation rituals can they take?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:51:23 UTC No. 16500866
>>16500407
elon "order of magnitude" musk does it again
captcha: OG420
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 03:58:58 UTC No. 16500870
>>16500850
>JOOOSSS!!!!
>>>/pol/
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:08:21 UTC No. 16500875
is stellaris good? i last played it in 2019 and im pretty sure they changed the base mechanics again like they do every update
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:12:21 UTC No. 16500876
Has anyone gotten spehs related captchas? I.E. SPACE, SPCEX, BLORG, etc.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:19:32 UTC No. 16500882
>>16500407
I hate this autistic turd and his gay ass haircut so much.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:19:46 UTC No. 16500883
>>16500629
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSV
Yep...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:22:25 UTC No. 16500884
>>16500407
I love this charming twink and his flowing locks so much.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:22:48 UTC No. 16500885
>>16500883
Is that a...... BLACK WOMAN???? SPACE FORCE HAS FALLEN
But really, the song isn't that bad. All the branches theme songs are pretty lame.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:24:09 UTC No. 16500887
>>16500885
I actually take that back, the air force's song is a banger.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:30:06 UTC No. 16500888
>>16500885
in space no one can hear you twerk
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:32:31 UTC No. 16500890
>>16500835
the is no environment, its been moved outside of the environment
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:33:07 UTC No. 16500891
>>16500887
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP3
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:33:31 UTC No. 16500892
>>16500883
Pretty sure that's just the Canadian National Anthem with a few extra trombones.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:34:37 UTC No. 16500893
>>16500889
wont his final moment be during blackout?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:34:47 UTC No. 16500894
>>16500892
makes sense, it was written by AI
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:42:04 UTC No. 16500901
>>16500899
>posts BFR
shut the fuck up
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:44:33 UTC No. 16500903
>>16500789
startup of a Mars civilization
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:45:09 UTC No. 16500905
>>16500901
Youre right I was lazy and chose the first file I saw, close enough anyways both are past Starship concepts that will never happen as originally presented.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:45:20 UTC No. 16500906
>>16500889
>Newfag learns about basic space history from an anime pfp on twitter
Anon you need to solve this equation or leave.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:45:34 UTC No. 16500907
>>16500790
already started, didn't you read The Martian?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:47:07 UTC No. 16500910
>>16500893
at that point they weren't aware how quickly things went from ok to very much not ok
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:47:46 UTC No. 16500911
>>16500906
Nta but truthful is a pest on my feed.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:49:45 UTC No. 16500914
>>16500906
nta but that's a pretty weak reason to pull out the newfag filter.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:50:19 UTC No. 16500915
>>16500911
thats not truthful tho
its the guy who made the shuttle/apollo iceberg videos
he became a lolicon recently
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:50:46 UTC No. 16500916
>>16500914
I thought STS-27 was common knowledge on /sfg/. Guess not anymore.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:51:28 UTC No. 16500917
>>16500915
Yes I know I have that fag blocked hes even worse but my point still stands of truthful being annoying
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:54:01 UTC No. 16500919
>>16500916
sure, but posting random nasa fuckups and saying you don't hate nasa enough is pretty milquetoast /sfg/ behavior
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:54:26 UTC No. 16500920
>>16500361
>around flight 10 you guys will all be yawning like dopamine deprived schoolkids
Flight 10 will be the first of the V2 (V3?) boosters.
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:54:44 UTC No. 16500921
>>16500915
>>16500917
I just checked his feed and immediatly find out hes a siscon. And he pays for a blue check.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 04:56:24 UTC No. 16500924
>>16500916
does /sfg/ know about the whistle prank on apollo 11?
https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/
its at 153:53:02
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:05:32 UTC No. 16500931
>>16500917
like there's varying levels of annoying, truthful is a canadian redditor but that dead kennedy faggot is a European and probably uses bsky for his personal account
he's absolutely in it as a business and it shows, completely soulless
also he used wojaks in his earlier works
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:30:16 UTC No. 16500950
>>16500883
>modern anthem
>sticking with old timey style music
Should've been a trap/phonk goofy ahh type beat.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:37:14 UTC No. 16500951
>>16500919
>p-p-posting random nasa f-f-FUH-fuckups!!!
Becase after that, the Shuttle SRBs never caused a problem again. NASA learned their lesson.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:43:00 UTC No. 16500953
>>16500948
they should have made a Delta 5 so they could call it deltaV
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:43:33 UTC No. 16500954
>>16500906
> Tries to pull "I've been on 4chans forever, that makes me a special boy!"
> Doesn't realize he's posting at someone actually cited in Jenkins' Shuttle book.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:46:01 UTC No. 16500955
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 05:57:03 UTC No. 16500961
>>16500954
The anime pfp? Or yourself?
Just to be clear, we don't like the shuttle in these parts.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:05:43 UTC No. 16500963
>>16500954
im in that book too wtf
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:09:41 UTC No. 16500966
Long March 3B launched with... something.
and China made another DOGE shitpost video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJH
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:13:37 UTC No. 16500968
>>16500954
>>16500963
a shuttle book just flew over my house!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:28:59 UTC No. 16500977
>>16500974
It's bedtime for Americans, the only relevant country in spaceflight. Speaking of which, I must go to sleep.
I hate Earthers, good night everyone.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:30:52 UTC No. 16500979
>>16500974
When Elon dies, it's so over
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 06:52:11 UTC No. 16500990
i hope blorigin does really well
it would be boring to only have 1 player in the 2030's
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:07:16 UTC No. 16500994
>>16500990
Fuck that Stoke better compete with SpaceX if anyone Blorigin is a fucking meme
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:19:22 UTC No. 16500997
>>16500994
>Blorigin is a fucking meme
how are they a meme and Stoke with a meme design is not a meme?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 07:38:54 UTC No. 16501009
>>16500990
it will be cursed by teething pains and launch like 3x a year till 2030
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:13:26 UTC No. 16501023
>>16501021
I think he looks like he would make a good prison bitch
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:30:13 UTC No. 16501032
>>16499891
Not surprising, but methalox seems poorly suited for such a use.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 08:44:55 UTC No. 16501041
>>16500902
gravity would just break the rocky/icy bodies apart and clump them into one big planet
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:03:11 UTC No. 16501048
>>16500902
Guarantee you theres some critical infrastructure there that can be targetted, and all it would take to destroy it is launching some asteroid to some percentage of c and its ogre for that entire ship. You may argue thats impractical but if we’re building planet sized ships, its not hard to imagine that simple solution.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:37:41 UTC No. 16501058
>>16500997
Stoke is more interesting as a company and Jeff sucks ass. This isn't a hard decision to make concerning who you'd rather see as a major player.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 09:41:39 UTC No. 16501061
>>16500659
fuck off cunts
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:19:11 UTC No. 16501080
>>16500564
>The US gaining the ability to be untouchable by nukes
KEK, they will just sneak them in along with the millions of illegals and thousands of tons of drugs and have one in a 55 gal drum in a loft in every major city in the US
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:26:14 UTC No. 16501082
>>16500804
>JOOOSSS!!!!
>>>/pol/
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:51:10 UTC No. 16501089
>>16501082
Hook nose detected. That anon didn't mention the jews by name and yet you projected your grubby little hands onto his post, thinking he was talking about you and your kind.
Lmao
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:53:59 UTC No. 16501090
>>16501089
Hell, that Anon didn't even make a subtle allusion to Jews: he only referenced "vultures." Hardly a concept one would normally associate with Jews to the exclusion of others.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 10:56:42 UTC No. 16501091
>>16501090
Never the less, shame on me for responding to the shitty bait.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 11:08:37 UTC No. 16501094
You don't hate journalists enough
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 11:11:16 UTC No. 16501095
>>16500974
did I hear rocket girls?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 11:35:45 UTC No. 16501102
>>16500609
It's the perspective of fuax scientists where the only valid achievement is doing something first or even merely just studying something. In this case this perspective is being used to basically say SpaceX achieved nothing and is just rehashed NASA tech.
They have zero respect for the engineering and management required to get something like F9 at such a high cadence. They also have zero respect for Starship because it's LEO optimized, nevermind the material science around Raptor.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 11:36:27 UTC No. 16501103
>>16501101
sex
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 12:44:42 UTC No. 16501130
>>16500966
Launch at 0556 UTC of Communication Technology Experimental Satellite 13 (Tongxin Jishu Shiyan 13), one of a series of Military GSO sat that are usually for Early warning or SIGINT.
It was the 100th launch of a CZ-3B since the first one in 1996 (96 succesful)
Picture Spacelens
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:33:23 UTC No. 16501145
>>16501094
I think I do
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:34:04 UTC No. 16501148
>>16501130
It was announced that CZ-3B is expected to still fly at current launch rate for 3 to 5 years
TJS-13 is likely an early warning satellite. Patch attached.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:34:30 UTC No. 16501149
>>16501148
that's a sick patch
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:49:17 UTC No. 16501158
>>16501119
this is how space SHOULD be done. these are the adults with the experience, not the wreckless banana to indian ocean ShitX
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 13:56:22 UTC No. 16501162
>>16501159
what does bong stand for?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:00:39 UTC No. 16501166
>>16500994
>>16501058
Stoke just stole the reusable upper stage design for project jarvis and are trying to speedrun it into a barely useful microsat launcher. Stoke is much further from a working vehicle than it may seem, but they are good at putting out barely working tech demos like SpaceX which makes it seem like they are decades ahead.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:12:59 UTC No. 16501172
>>16500617
In an alternate timeline Elon was forced to capture Moby Dick and torture the animal to death to prove to the US Environmental Protection Agency that rockets don't hurt whales.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:15:03 UTC No. 16501173
>>16500659
Sydney surviving an asteroid strike is not something to joke about
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:16:52 UTC No. 16501174
>>16500675
>man on the moon
>expansion
He's a gay retard and so are you. Boots have already touched the moon.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:18:37 UTC No. 16501176
>>16501162
Take a guess
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:20:13 UTC No. 16501177
>>16501159
nobody calls her that
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:20:35 UTC No. 16501178
>>16501162
BLUE ORIGIN NEW GLENN, you better get used to hearing it
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:46:31 UTC No. 16501189
>>16501162
as it turns out NG is already an acronym for another aerospace company...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:49:34 UTC No. 16501192
>>16501166
It's important to understand the stoke business model. Their money doesn't come from launches, it comes from investors not wanting to miss out on the next SpaceX. They can speedrun all the way to a real launch company on vc alone
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:50:59 UTC No. 16501194
>>16501174
That's the point you fucking retard, what are you confused about? NASA got the moon, so they have the frontier. When SpaceX gets Mars, they'll have the frontier. He says this in the video
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:57:23 UTC No. 16501197
>>16500314
>muh big government is the problem
>points to R&D for a large scale public works project by CASIC in China
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 14:59:51 UTC No. 16501198
https://x.com/esa/status/1863877748
>A small asteroid has just been spotted on a collision course with Earth. At around ~70 cm in diameter, the impact will be harmless, likely producing a nice fireball in the sky over northern Siberia around [two] hours from now at ~16:15 +/- 05 min UTC (17:15 +/-5 min CET).
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:04:06 UTC No. 16501201
>>16501198
Yuzhmash’s newest weapon
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:04:27 UTC No. 16501202
>>16501198
>70cm
cute little bugger
can't wait for asteroid fishing to become a real industry
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:06:00 UTC No. 16501203
>>16501198
How in the name of fuck do you detect a cold rock against the black backdrop of space when it’s less than 1 meter wide
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:06:37 UTC No. 16501204
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:08:20 UTC No. 16501205
>>16501194
Nasa didn't get the moon anymore than the norwegians "got" the south pole. You "get" a place when you have buildings and people living there. As of yet no ones got anything above outside earth.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:13:53 UTC No. 16501208
>>16501194
>He says this in the video
Only one of us wasted time listening to a nigger talk
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:21:13 UTC No. 16501210
>>16501203
https://x.com/AsteroidWatch/status/
>At 11:14am EST, a very small (<1m) asteroid will impact Earth's atmosphere and create a harmless fireball over eastern Russia's Olyokminsky District. The asteroid was first observed with the University of Arizona's Bok telescope by the NASA funded Catalina Sky Survey and Spacewatch. The impact prediction was made by the Scout system at JPL's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies (CNEOS).
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:41:45 UTC No. 16501220
>>16501189
Now Northrup Grumman needs to come out with a vehicle that has BO as its initials.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:52:25 UTC No. 16501225
>>16500974
how about some images to make you hate Russians
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:56:39 UTC No. 16501227
>>16501225
hey… sorry… my eyesights going bad. could you do me a favor and circle the spaceflight in that image?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 15:58:15 UTC No. 16501229
>>16501227
those are the grid fins from the N1
here's a shed made out of the aeroframe of the N1
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:04:32 UTC No. 16501230
>>16501225
>>16501229
rocket gore
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:07:19 UTC No. 16501232
>>16501229
grim
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:10:03 UTC No. 16501233
>>16501203
you can just do things
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:30:20 UTC No. 16501239
fuck you
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:34:58 UTC No. 16501241
>>16501239
one day anon, one day...
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:35:30 UTC No. 16501242
>>16501194
SpaceX won't 'get' to mars in the same way the shackleton expedition didn't 'get' to Antarctica. Both will be or were funded by the government therefore it was the government are the ones at the frontier never a private company
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:43:53 UTC No. 16501246
>>16501242
Um, aschually elon is going to fund the whole thing with starlink profits!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:51:42 UTC No. 16501249
>>16501242
It's going to funded by the soon to be trillionaire and starlink profits lmfao
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 16:59:38 UTC No. 16501252
>>16501242
Did you know that Elon Musk makes a lot of money from starlink? As a result government funding will not factor into the mars missions he runs.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:10:43 UTC No. 16501262
Starlink would cost another 50 euro a month to sign up in my urban area. It's so popular they have to try and stop people signing up.
Elon is funding the Mars mission with his pocket money. Not nasa, they'll trail in their wake by sending the first sheboon to Mars.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:12:26 UTC No. 16501263
>>16501242
wrong
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:13:41 UTC No. 16501264
>>16501205
>semantics
Kill yourself
>>16501242
This is where I think Neil's prediction is probably dubious. He parallels the history of Earth exploration, but basically all of that took place before the rise of modern capital. SpaceX has the capital and will have the tech to begin colonizing Mars, and they're still private so can do things without putting shareholders first. SpaceX can do it on their own, and the Artemis accords accidentally made it legal. NASA has basically no bargaining power anymore. It isn't clear that they're pivoting to Mars either, so it isn't clear what they can even offer.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:15:10 UTC No. 16501266
>>16501264
I accept your concession.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:18:16 UTC No. 16501269
>>16501242
correct
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:18:41 UTC No. 16501270
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa
>The European Space Agency has published an updated call for a study to explore the development of a reusable super heavy-lift rocket capable of delivering 60 tonnes to low Earth orbit. However, later that same day, the agency removed the listing from its online tendering platform without explanation. In response to questioning from European Spaceflight, the agency explained that the call had been published prematurely before it had been approved by the overseeing programme board.
>Approval for the study to proceed appears to have now been granted, and the updated call was published under the same name on 3 December. It was, however, then once again removed from the agency’s online tendering platform.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:23:51 UTC No. 16501274
>>16501058
Yeah I like Stoke. I don't really give a shit about personalities behind space companies. New Glenn will be good competition for spacex so I want them to succeed
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:26:48 UTC No. 16501276
>>16501269
Starlink is 1/3rd of the way done and already generating ~$6bil in revenue. Even if Starship never gets below the F9 internal price of ~$15mil SpaceX can do it themselves. NASA hasn't done any of the work required for Mars and SpaceX isn't likely to be interested in the constraints of their requirements that come with a contract.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:41:36 UTC No. 16501285
>>16501270
>super heavy-lift rocket
>60 tonnes
Sorry sweetie, but it needs to be at least 100 tonnes to LEO (50mT metric is a meme). Only Starship, Saturn V and Energia are actual SHLV
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:43:14 UTC No. 16501288
>>16501276
Imagine how much more Starlink will sell after they start launching Starlink 2 with Starship. Going to reach insane speeds and latancy.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:48:36 UTC No. 16501290
>>16501285
And STS (wet mass of the orbiter plus the cargo capacity of its payload bay is its true capacity, and that comes out to ~105 tons)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:49:36 UTC No. 16501291
>>16501285
SHLV are 50+ tons
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:51:35 UTC No. 16501292
>>16501290
Not 100mT of useful payload, sorry sweetie. Otherwise we would have to start adding the mass off upper stages.
>>16501291
50mT metric is a meme
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:52:39 UTC No. 16501293
>>16501158
Why? The "adults" seem like they're having trouble getting anything done
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:55:06 UTC No. 16501295
>>16501158
ok tory, go back to replying to years-old tweets
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:56:21 UTC No. 16501296
>>16501290
The Shuttle Orbiter was the core stage of the rocket, not the payload.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:57:07 UTC No. 16501298
>>16501292
The only parts of the orbiter that weren’t useful payload were the RS-25s and the hardware for hooking it up to the external tank.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:57:10 UTC No. 16501299
>>16501285
60T will be medium lift in 20 years
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:58:17 UTC No. 16501300
>>16501292
>50mT metric is a meme
Yet there are no currently operational rockets that can do it (Starship being developmental atm).
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:58:42 UTC No. 16501301
>>16501229
Perfectly encapsulates the soviet union
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 17:59:52 UTC No. 16501304
>>16501298
Let's go with that logic even if retarded, the three RS-25 engines alone weigh almost 10mT together, which would make the useful payload be under 100mT regardless.
>>16501300
Yep, Yep. Starship is finally returning the capability.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:01:03 UTC No. 16501306
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:05:18 UTC No. 16501310
the shuttle is gay and should be demoted out of spite
>>16501291
the soviets were right about one thing, and it is that 50 tons isn't shit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:23:16 UTC No. 16501318
>>16501298
is this some kind of nasa cope? You lost
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:27:53 UTC No. 16501324
>>16501242
Elon is amassing resources solely to bootstrap a Mars colony, so your post is shit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:29:23 UTC No. 16501326
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:32:45 UTC No. 16501329
>>16501326
kek, saved
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:43:35 UTC No. 16501331
>>16501296
The shuttle represented a different paradigm of rocket building that makes viewing it solely for its payload bay a strange, almost intentionally malicious decision.
Some STS missions never even deployed stuff. Could you imagine launching something on falcon and never separating it from the second stage? Doesn’t make sense. But on shuttle it does because the orbiter itself is a valuable payload to have in leo.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:47:46 UTC No. 16501332
>>16501331
Exactly, it's like a little space station. You can look at an ant farm or fingerpaint with your piss, for only a couple billion! (and seven astronauts)
🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:47:57 UTC No. 16501333
>syria, south korea, georgia are collapsing
we were so thrilled that we were getting the cold war back because it meant investments into space, that we forgot how turbulent it actually is for the world. hope that moon landing is worth it.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:49:20 UTC No. 16501334
>>16501331
People dunk on the shuttle because it weighs 10x more than Dragon 2 and hauled about the same amount of people. It was a dumb vehicle. It just looked cool
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:50:17 UTC No. 16501335
>>16501333
>Syria
lol another russian failure
>South Korea
Nothing burger
>Georgia
Lol another russian failure
Seems fine to me. also go back >>>/pol/
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:50:20 UTC No. 16501336
>>16501331
All you are doing is pointing out how the Shuttle was an inefficient design due to lacking a second stage.
It's ironic in a way because the Shuttle-C was a better vehicle and could have carried capsules like Orion beyond the LEO that Shuttle was limited to.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:51:01 UTC No. 16501337
>>16501332
it's shit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 18:51:11 UTC No. 16501338
>>16501333
cold war 2 is with China
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:04:49 UTC No. 16501343
>>16501334
Dragon carries 4 people never built or flown configurations claim to be able to carry 7. Shuttle carried up to 8. You need to launch 2 dragons and 2 additional falcons to have the crew and cargo capacity of 1 shuttle launch.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:06:44 UTC No. 16501347
>>16501343
>two dragons + two falcons
Oh no, launching all that might take like, 3 whole days!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:06:52 UTC No. 16501348
>>16501333
>shitholes getting fucked
>none are the US
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:13:39 UTC No. 16501355
>>16501351
It's amazing
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:16:11 UTC No. 16501357
>>16501351
Looks even more like a cock. Also the second stage looks cool ngl.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:19:33 UTC No. 16501359
>>16501351
>3,000 kg to LEO (100% reusable)
>7,000 kg to LEO (max payload)
>2,500 kg to GTO
>1,250 kg to TLI
>800 kg to C3 = 0
It does moon missions kinda crazy. 3 tons to LEO isnt bad for a tiny rocket and especially if its fully reusable. Have high hopes for them, this just raised them even more.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:21:13 UTC No. 16501362
>>16501359
It's quite a big rocket, basically Antares size, also GTO/TLI/Escape payload is definitely expendable.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:23:30 UTC No. 16501364
>>16501351
>FFSC engines
>new innovative second stage
>fully resuable
>actually decent payload specifications
Stoke Space are turbo based. Imagine how fucking cheap this rocket will be to launch. The operational costs must be peanuts and so would the fuel costs be.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:25:56 UTC No. 16501367
>>16501351
finally, some innovation for small launchers
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:30:07 UTC No. 16501371
>>16501351
Is that booster stainless steel? God damn we've entered a new era
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:31:48 UTC No. 16501375
>>16501371
Yes, S2 is too , although likely covered in some insulation/coating
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:33:26 UTC No. 16501378
>>16500122
you were right. Soyuz Kosmos was delayed until tomorrow, so seven launches within 24 hours!
>>16500469
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:36:06 UTC No. 16501381
>>16501351
When is it scheduled to start flying?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:36:12 UTC No. 16501382
>>16501343
It was originally designed for 7 people. Idk they never used it as an option
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:42:29 UTC No. 16501389
>>16501382
bc nasa said no
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:42:58 UTC No. 16501391
>>16501343
You can launch 100 Falcons for the price of one Shuttle.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:44:46 UTC No. 16501392
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:47:28 UTC No. 16501393
>>16501300
falcon heavy can do it actually (incoming seethe)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:47:59 UTC No. 16501395
>>16501389
It would have been nice to have that capability in case you need to rescue astronauts without sacrificing the usual schedule.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:48:56 UTC No. 16501396
>>16501198
>>16501392
why isnt space force more involved in monitoring for asteroids?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:49:03 UTC No. 16501397
>>16501393
He's talking about 100mT
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:49:29 UTC No. 16501398
>>16501351
STOP EXPANDING THE DIAMETER AT THE TOP PART OF THE ROCKET IT *ALWAYS* MAKES IT LOOK LIKE A COCK
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:49:32 UTC No. 16501399
Stoke shills are gay
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:50:10 UTC No. 16501400
>>16501391
Imagine the jank moon or Mars mission you could have using only falcon 9s assembling the lander and hab in leo
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:52:05 UTC No. 16501401
>>16501399
based, this is sfg - spacex fan general
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:52:40 UTC No. 16501403
>>16501397
then he should format his post better desu
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:53:17 UTC No. 16501404
People forget it's literally illegal under international treaty colonize or exploit antarctica, which is why it's just rapist scientists and astroonomers down there. it was illegal for space too until artemis accords nullified the commie parts of the OST to ""reinterpret"" it and allow private exploitation of the solar system
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:53:40 UTC No. 16501405
>>16501400
yes but doing it would mindbreak oldspace niggers so we should.
we need them to understand that spacex doesn't actually need starship to buckbreak SLS's premise for artemis, this is merely a sidequest for them.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:54:41 UTC No. 16501406
>>16501400
>ship made from modules
>several modules are just tanks
>1 dragon lander for descent
>1 dragon lander full of fuel
>1 dragon lander for ascent
You could do some crazy shit with a hundred falcon flights. We could rebuild the ISS in what, two months now?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:54:48 UTC No. 16501407
>>16501400
any nasa 2005 plan would work amazingly now. it would be so easy to assemble a 2 launch moon mission on a heavy lift rocket, or maybe 5 launches of a medium lift.
Too bad all those plans fell through because it was illegal to carry useful payloads on shuttle
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:54:53 UTC No. 16501408
>>16501404
yep, it's one of those arguments where, if you hear it brought up, you can automatically assume you're talking to a midwit.
if it was legal, every country on the planet would be looking for oil and mineral deposits down there as well as building military bases.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:54:55 UTC No. 16501409
>>16501397
100mT is only equal to about 224 pounds
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:57:21 UTC No. 16501411
>>16501407
hell, it's practically illegal to do multi launch falcon 9 missions because the mere mention sends senators into a frenzy. they can hallucinate all their pork money dissolving.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:57:47 UTC No. 16501412
>>16501351
what the fuck
it just keeps getting longer
is pencildick the actual optimal form factor after all? lmao
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 19:59:50 UTC No. 16501414
>>16501404
I'll be very interested to see the Artemis accords actually tested when SpaceX plans their private Mars mission. Though maybe after Musk's recent political moves those concerns are completely moot
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:00:07 UTC No. 16501415
>>16501398
>>16501412
Every rocket is phallic. Some are only slightly more so.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:00:24 UTC No. 16501416
100 Mg (megagrams)
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:01:29 UTC No. 16501417
F9
>pencil
Nova
>pencil
Starship Block 3
>pencil
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:02:03 UTC No. 16501418
>>16501393
As it is now Falcon Heavy cannot lift more than Falcon 9 which is why I didn't include it as a currently operational rocket.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:02:21 UTC No. 16501420
>>16501381
End of 2025 for expendable, with recovery of both stage planned a year later
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:03:11 UTC No. 16501422
>>16501417
We're so close to the era of chode rockets
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:03:52 UTC No. 16501423
>>16501422
ITS was too good for this world
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:04:39 UTC No. 16501424
mars colonization is going to be a boon for STEMfags. there's going to be so many research, construction, IT, etc. jobs.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:05:07 UTC No. 16501425
>>16501417
Neutron
>chode
Vulcan Centaur
>chode
New Glenn Block 2
>chode
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:05:54 UTC No. 16501426
>>16501422
Fatty cope. Chode rockets will always be worse than thin rockets
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:06:06 UTC No. 16501427
>>16501425
chodes = cringe
pencils = based
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:07:29 UTC No. 16501428
>>16501418
it can in fact do that, with literally only the small technicality that the payload adapter would need to be slightly beefed up, they state in their very own payload manual that they will do this custom depending on the load you want to send that is above their standard adapter's weight threshold.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:10:03 UTC No. 16501431
chodes may look less weird but cannot reach far enough to fulfill their intended purpose
pencils get up in there and make sure the payload is deposited where it should be, giving it a headstart over the chode's payload.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:12:16 UTC No. 16501435
>>16501431
Nice try, vulcan may be short and fat but it is high energy. Starship for all its length cant penetrate deeper than leo.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:13:09 UTC No. 16501438
>>16501422
>550 tons to LEO in expendable mode
now imagine what a 18-meter version could do
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:13:35 UTC No. 16501439
>>16501438
destroy launchpad
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:17:18 UTC No. 16501443
>>16501438
Fuck it, let's go even further beyond: 27-meter wide Starship.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:18:19 UTC No. 16501444
>>16501426
>always
Scale matters.
>>16501424
Maybe. Viewed another way there's a possibility that there isn't nearly as much as people think. Aside from air (one machine) and pressurized volume (one or two techniques), you're basically just replicating globalism. Industrialization, self sufficiency, the path from dirt to semiconductors; we've been doing it already for several decades. The hard part really is just getting there.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:19:56 UTC No. 16501445
>>16501443
>300 raptors
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:20:16 UTC No. 16501446
>>16501351
I have a feeling they're gonna stretch the first stage even more
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:23:57 UTC No. 16501448
>>16501351
Welcome back Atlas D
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:51:06 UTC No. 16501463
>>16501347
they can do it in a few hours actually, they have two pads for human spaceflight now
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:52:06 UTC No. 16501464
>>16501351
they need to swap to propalox
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:52:14 UTC No. 16501465
>>16501080
Reading comprehension, please.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:53:53 UTC No. 16501466
>>16501229
>>those are the grid fins from the N1
>>16501225
I don't believe you
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:56:04 UTC No. 16501469
>>16501397
nobody cares about a milliton, super heavy means 100 tons
you can cope and seethe about which ton it's referring to (there are like five) but it doesn't really matter because everything is clearly in one camp or the other
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:57:52 UTC No. 16501471
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 20:59:15 UTC No. 16501473
>>16501270
So RFA can't even submit a proposal for the study?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:00:19 UTC No. 16501474
>>16501473
Kek Euros are their own worst enemy, truly
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:01:36 UTC No. 16501475
>>16501411
F9 is big enough to launch a reusable laser thermal space tug in one go, if the laser array is on the ground. This design estimates 3000s Isp for LH2, so call it 2250s for LCH4, which means if you make that switch and scale it up to work with Starship for launch and depot you can do crazy things with it
https://www.centauri-dreams.org/202
>>16501351
>upper stage
>hydrologgs expander cycle
>25,000+ lbf thrust
So it's a single aerospiked RL10 using the heatshield for regen cooling? That first stage is going to need to do a LOT of work, which will make reentry spicier.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:03:09 UTC No. 16501478
>>16501475
Regen cooling? I thought it just used the spike structure as a simple TPS
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:07:37 UTC No. 16501485
>>16501478
Nope, it's actively cooled.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:12:36 UTC No. 16501490
>>16501351
Why does the aerospike stick out over the top of the first stage? Is this being designed to have launch abort functionality? Are they trying fast-track a manned version of this?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:16:26 UTC No. 16501492
>>16501475
>non chemical propulsion
Oldspace mass autism. Just launch ten falcon 9s carrying tanks of hypergolic propellent and hook them up to an engine or two
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:17:52 UTC No. 16501493
>>16501490
Good catch. There's certainly room for competition there.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:20:50 UTC No. 16501495
Whos gonna be here for NYE?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:21:27 UTC No. 16501496
>>16501412
the issue is that there's an optimal height for any particular rocket engine chamber pressure and footprint, and until you're up to like 18m diameter you're going to be limited by fineness ratio and not height
so yes, pencil dick is optimal until you've made a really fat fucking chungus rocket or your engines blow ass
see also: Neutron, New Glenn
also see how few engines Vulcan has
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:23:02 UTC No. 16501497
>>16501495
Probably, don't know what else I'd be doing
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:24:51 UTC No. 16501500
>>16501497
Id most likely still be with family but still will check in here. Might go to a quiet beach nearby or something though
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:26:03 UTC No. 16501502
>>16501492
ah yes, the yeettrain, a 4ASS classic
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:31:38 UTC No. 16501506
Will brandy be allowed on Mars in the first decade?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:42:24 UTC No. 16501513
>>16501506
ethanol is a useful industrial solvent, cleaning product, and chemical feedstock so I assume that it will exist
just water it down a little bit and you've got moonshine
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:58:08 UTC No. 16501525
>>16501506
people will make prison wine by fermenting the colony cafeteria slop with their own taint yeast if they have to, so you might as well allow them to have decent booze instead.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 21:59:02 UTC No. 16501527
>>16501351
>>16501359
These figures makes no sense whatsoever. How the fuck are you going to do first stage reuse if you second stage is that small? It would have to come in at a far higher velocity than Falcon 9's booster much further downrange for it to even work.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:18:42 UTC No. 16501540
>>16501527
NBD if it’s made of steel
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:21:51 UTC No. 16501543
>>16501496
>also see how few engines Vulcan has
8
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:26:48 UTC No. 16501546
>>16501543
liquid engines
also SRBs aren't "engines" they're "motors" or something idk, something about "engine" requiring a turbopump of some sort
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:51:49 UTC No. 16501558
>>16501546
does that make my dick an engine when im jelquing?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 22:59:38 UTC No. 16501563
>>16501560
that launch tower looks hideous, holy shit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:05:42 UTC No. 16501567
>>16501558
I know about half of those words
>>16501563
it looks Indian
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:08:19 UTC No. 16501572
>>16501567
No shit.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:08:28 UTC No. 16501573
>>16501422
This isn't really necessary. If you can haul that much mass to leo for cheap then there's nothing stopping you from assembling 2000T ships that will go back and forth between earth and mars. Then starship should only be used to land and get to orbit
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:11:48 UTC No. 16501577
>>16501573
hmmmmmm
Aldrin cyclers might be nice actually
I used to think they were stupid but they start to make some sense when you've got a few hundred people going to Mars every synod
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:25:56 UTC No. 16501585
>>16501572
the Shiva tower catch mechanism is looking good!
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:32:27 UTC No. 16501591
>>16501577
That's too slow I say hotrod it and go 3x faster than a standard honman transfer
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:34:20 UTC No. 16501593
>>16501591
with an aldrin cycler you can fly ~500 people on a single starship + refuel to Mars
saves on expended Starships
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:37:22 UTC No. 16501599
>>16501225
>>16501229
This is like something from 40k
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:38:23 UTC No. 16501601
>>16501593
Aldrin cycler also means you can pack passengers like sardines into a Starship, far denser than they could travel all the way to Mars. Since the Starship is only for takeoff and landing. That way you can spread costs and make it cheaper for everyone.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:38:37 UTC No. 16501602
>>16501599
yes, Russia embodies the decadent centrally-planned kleptocratic rot of the worst aspects of the Imperium of Man, congratulations
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:39:39 UTC No. 16501603
>>16501601
sardines is closer to 1200 passangers, 500 is more like first class
refueling and then meeting up with an aldrin cycler isn't easy, I expect it to take at least twenty hours
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:41:31 UTC No. 16501605
>>16501159
Good name, I'll use it.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:41:58 UTC No. 16501606
Post rocketgirls instantly, sbarky
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:43:00 UTC No. 16501607
>>16501601
ah I see you're in the Chinese space program
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:46:39 UTC No. 16501612
>>16501607
>>16501603
Anyone who has a problem with the density will be earmarked for servitorization using neural stapling upon arrival on Mars.
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:48:43 UTC No. 16501615
>>16501611
let me guess? he's licking wheel_stop's axe wound again
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:52:53 UTC No. 16501619
>>16501612
500 should be easy with airline style seating for surface to LEO runs
it's too dense for the week long trip to the moon, in my opinion, but depending on how tightly you can orchestrate the docking with an Aldrin cycler it should be fine to do Earth -> LEO -> refuel -> interplanetary burn to cycler -> dock to cycler, offload passengers if you can pull off each step within a few hours
>>16501615
if only we could all be so lucky
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:58:40 UTC No. 16501622
any sfgiggers from jamaica?
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:59:19 UTC No. 16501624
shut the fuck up
Anonymous at Tue, 3 Dec 2024 23:59:48 UTC No. 16501626
>midwits think there will ever be enough passengers for anyone to bother creating a special transport for them
you'll be getting 12 people on/off mars every two years for the next century in the most optimistic scenario. Probably somewhere in the 2050s at the very earliest. Can't believe this is shocking to some of you retards. Fucking plebbit tier delusions.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:02:20 UTC No. 16501629
shut the fuck up.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:02:32 UTC No. 16501630
https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1864
>Latest Archimedes hotfire pictures have dropped
>We’ve doubled our engine test cadence these past months, rapidly implementing tweaks to Archimedes on the test stand at the Stennis Space Center in Mississippi.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:04:12 UTC No. 16501631
i dont care.
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:06:08 UTC No. 16501633
Fuck You.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:10:24 UTC No. 16501635
>>16501603
It would take 36 starship launches to put 1/10 of the mass of the titanic into orbit. The titanic had 3300 passenger capacity so this would translate to 330 people. You're also going to need additional fuel and thrusters to get the cycler going so I'll round up to 45 launches to get all your shit into orbit. At $200/kg that comes out to about $10.6M. Price of a small cruise ship is around a billion dollars and that's probably a fair price considering this spacecraft is much smaller but requires more R&D and is harder to build. Honestly I was trying to use my tard math to find the concept infeasible but it's looking fairly realistic. There is going to need to be a demand for mars travel first. Meaning that there is going to have to be something established there already before you build a cycler
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:11:25 UTC No. 16501637
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:17:54 UTC No. 16501638
fuck me
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:22:41 UTC No. 16501639
ew
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:26:41 UTC No. 16501642
>>16501249
>>16501252
>>16501276
>>16501288
Are theses guys trolling or muskrats are really this stupid?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:35:22 UTC No. 16501644
pedophile idiot.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:38:14 UTC No. 16501645
>>16501642
Little bit of Column A, little bit of Column B
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:42:29 UTC No. 16501647
>>16501642
care to elaborate why these anons are wrong?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:42:45 UTC No. 16501648
>23 months until spacex launches starships to mars
we're this close
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 00:46:46 UTC No. 16501654
>>16501630
Nice thanks for posting anon
These small sat launchers need to start consolidating
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:10:05 UTC No. 16501677
attention gamers! there is an EDS redditor in this thread: >>16501642
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:26:07 UTC No. 16501683
>>16501474
Pretty much. This is the main reason why an unified EU/europe is a joke, it doesn't even really make sense to talk about the continent as a single entity.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:26:12 UTC No. 16501684
bot detected
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:27:53 UTC No. 16501687
>>16501635
Remember you need two cyclers to make it worthwhile.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:28:38 UTC No. 16501688
>>16501687
wrong
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:30:12 UTC No. 16501689
>>16501684
cope
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:30:12 UTC No. 16501690
>>16501688
explain
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:34:12 UTC No. 16501691
>>16501270
When they say reusable they are talking about partial reusability right? so this will be a new glenn clone and not a mini starship. I also wonder if 60 tonnes is for its reusable configuration or for expendable.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:35:50 UTC No. 16501692
>>16501691
don't bother, it's not gonna happen
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:52:08 UTC No. 16501698
>>16501506
Mass autism is over dude. An average bottle of brandy is 0.0018% of a Starship payload
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:54:27 UTC No. 16501701
>>16501626
>newfag doesn't understand starship
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:54:49 UTC No. 16501702
>>16501691
they want to reuse the upper stage, which is the more difficult stage
so presumably they're going for mini Starship
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:55:39 UTC No. 16501704
>>16501626
>>16501642
Try making an argument faggot
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:56:31 UTC No. 16501706
>probably wont have more than a thousand or two people on mars by 2050 if we're lucky
we were born too early
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 01:59:57 UTC No. 16501711
>>16501706
>not wanting to be the first 1000
Your spirit is weak
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:07:39 UTC No. 16501719
>>16501706
Living to see this would be enough for me
>>16501711
I'm not going to pretend I'm qualified
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:11:07 UTC No. 16501724
>>16501687
what do you mean by 2 cylinders?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:13:43 UTC No. 16501729
>>16501711
that sounds hellish
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:15:56 UTC No. 16501730
>>16501729
you dont want to be surrounded by 999 other sweaty nerds in tight confines in a toxic desert with no escape?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 02:18:12 UTC No. 16501732
>>16501729
Pathetic, just go hunt some deer outside.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:09:48 UTC No. 16501765
>>16501688
>>16501724
One going out, and one coming back.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:13:08 UTC No. 16501768
>>16501765
cyclers are retarded
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:13:32 UTC No. 16501769
>>16501724
If you only have one, you can either wave and do a flyby, or you have to stay for a whole synod until it comes back around again.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:25:22 UTC No. 16501770
>>16501765
fewer people need to come back, they can be serviced by the one Starship that came along with the cycler
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:26:23 UTC No. 16501771
>>16501769
nobody will ever leave Mars in the same synod that they came in
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:29:41 UTC No. 16501773
>>16501730
imagine the circle jerks
gooning at interplanetary levels
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:36:10 UTC No. 16501776
>>16501730
>>16501773
>Krystal porn projected on to Phobos and Deimos so you can fap just by looking outside
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:37:52 UTC No. 16501777
>>16501773
imagine a starship full of 100 sexy nude futas just comming everywhere in zero-g ahaha
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:46:04 UTC No. 16501783
>>16501782
impact
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:46:19 UTC No. 16501784
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:50:50 UTC No. 16501788
>>16501784
Musk on SNL was super cringe and I can't believe he did it
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:53:43 UTC No. 16501790
>>16501788
he does whatever the fuck he wants
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 03:57:50 UTC No. 16501797
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:01:35 UTC No. 16501801
>>16501790
looks like he mews too
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:12:20 UTC No. 16501807
>>16501351
WHAT DID THEY MEAN BY THIS????
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:13:47 UTC No. 16501808
>>16501777
cringe chaser
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:16:21 UTC No. 16501809
>>16501808
futas aren't real
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:17:43 UTC No. 16501811
>>16501809
don't give elon any ideas
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:20:27 UTC No. 16501815
>>16501811
That's the second part of the Master Plan.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/15760
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:22:14 UTC No. 16501816
>>16501396
not their job, also waste of money. the big ones are being monitored/tracked and discovered already by CNEOS, under JPL.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:24:04 UTC No. 16501817
>>16501765
You don't need one going back right away. I mean you don't even really need one you could just do turbo honman
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:27:19 UTC No. 16501819
>>16501807
Starship has evolved into shuttle 2.0
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:31:28 UTC No. 16501823
>>16501808
What do futas have to do with Sierra Space?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:33:35 UTC No. 16501825
>>16501823
... and the windows?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 04:38:14 UTC No. 16501828
>>16501819
Elon is considering perspiration cooling again, I was sure the tiles were shit from the start. They stated mass savings as the main reason for going with tiles, now the heat shield is a bloated mess and it has to go.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:08:32 UTC No. 16501836
Stoke heat shield is different from starship though because they are using hydrogen, which is pretty much the best possible thing for this task, much better in terms of weight/cooling capacity than Methane. I bet SpaceX looked it but concluded they would have to bring too much extra methane to make it work. Given that they basically added an entire extra heatshield behind the main one, along with the dubious reliability and way, way higher maintennance, the mass numbers are probably looking like a marginal difference now and actively cooled is objetively superior for reusability. With liquid cooling, the heatshield touches the pad ice cold and ready to go again straight away. Even if you have some kind of external cooling mechanism for the tile heat shield, it would still take several hours at least to bleed out all that heat absorbed without shattering the tiles. Do you need a turnaround faster than a few hours? Idk probably not but still.
Guarantee we see a no tile prototype at least once.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:27:13 UTC No. 16501857
>>16501828
>>16501836
Stoke is relying on film cooling while SpaceX has been considering changing from ceramic to metallic tiles.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:28:04 UTC No. 16501859
>>16501825
It's the cargo version
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 05:29:14 UTC No. 16501860
https://x.com/CNSpaceflight/status/
>Liftoff at 04:46UTC December 4th, an upgraded Kuaizhou-1A, LEO capacity jumped to 450kg from 300kg, launched HaiShao-1 SAR from Xichang
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 06:06:54 UTC No. 16501880
>>16500564
>. A submarine filled with nuclear armed cruise missiles able to erase US coastal cities would still be totally on the table and would provide ample deterrence against America
If you are going through the effort to build a megaconstellation made of missiles, you can certainly line the coasts with shitloads of ABM batteries and cover the coastlines.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 06:54:42 UTC No. 16501889
Thought of the day:
How to gain funding for mars that's not part of Herr Elons war chest.
>Cost for ticket to mars: Everything you own. All trusts etc too. You leave earth with just a few suitcases of sentimentals.
Your 100 people starship filled with people average wealth $10m nets you a billion dollars. Right there. It also means that you can get in broke ass niggas but who have the right constitutions and skills. Give them a sliding scale of benefits (shares in marscorp, land grants, mineral right, whatever) on the amount they gave up but have a base level of pretty generous benefits for the poors (soon to be rich af). I personally know at least two people who would do that in an instant who have those funds. Remember that a lot of millennial and zoomers are going to be cashed up soon, despite all the efforts to drain the boomers of their money through old age care, keeping them on hospital beds for years, inheritance tax, etc etc etc. There's still going to be a lot. I'd give up the life of a ten millionaire in an instant and I have a wide set of practical skills. I bet there's at least a few thousand out there.
That's a lot of cash money and it's all (more or less) liquid. Elon can't dump 30b tesla shares or whatever but 30b mfers liquidating their recently acquired houses, gold/silver/antiques, RVs, jet skis and so on can be done overnight. Even regular millionaires. Let's assume 1/100 people with a million dollars would do this and are capable. Is that a bit high? Maybe. Let's say 1/1000. 58000 people with a million dollars each. 58 billion dollars. That's a lot of money. Admittedly that's for moving 58,000 people, which is also a lot.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 06:58:38 UTC No. 16501891
>>16501889
the venn diagram cross section of people with a net wealth of >$10m, want to go to mars, and single with no attachment to heirs to whom they would otherwise be passing on those assets is vanishingly small
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 07:00:41 UTC No. 16501892
>>16501891
For that scale, maybe. But there's 58m regular joe millionaires on the planet. That's a very large pool.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 08:15:49 UTC No. 16501910
If you will allow me to schizo post some more. Can you get a starship launch down to 2m? Probably, once full reusability is achieved. Ultimately it's only consumption will be dirt cheap methalox. I think so.
Can you find a million skilled volunteers with 500k to their name? aka someone who owns a house? I guarantee you absolutely can. There's 500 billion dollars. Half a trillion. Let's say you split it half and half between launch and acquisition of the industrial stack.
250b/2m=125k starship launches (topkek)
125k/10 assuming 10 tanker refuels for each mars ship.
Twelve thousand, five hundred ships landed on Mars. I don't know what the eventual price of starship will be, I think 20m is probably maybe optimistic. That's 2.5t of starships. We run back into the expendability problem again because i'm damn sure the 1.4t per person is not going to cover the mass for thousands of starships to be fuelled and sent back.
1.25m tonnes of payload for a million people. Can 1.25 of machinery per person sustain civilisation? Dude that's a lot of shit. In fact my numbers are suspiciously close to Elons stated goal of a million tonnes.
Over thirty years, this is 11 starship launches a day. That's fuck all, they could do that out of boca alone if they could expand it. Eleven towers? Bro we already have two (almost). The question is how do you get around the expendable issue? Remember also that starships are just 9m wide fuckhuge steel tubes that are primed to be cut and buried for ready to go living space. 12,500 starships connected in tubes would be quite the living space. so the expended ships are essentially fronting a city too along with whatever else you can build over thirty years. A lucky find on a lava tube or big slot canyon could get you all the pressurised space you need for a million people to be big chilling.
You can't tell me there aren't a few fat geological spots, primed for covering the top with minimal effort, close to things you need, on a whole planet.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 08:58:04 UTC No. 16501918
>>16501910
>125k starship launches (topkek)
For perspective, there's only been a total of a little over 6,800 orbital launch attempts worldwide since 1957.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 09:51:33 UTC No. 16501932
>>16501918
At 7 launches a day it would take nearly 50 years.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 10:10:51 UTC No. 16501944
>>16501242
Shackleton was funded by private donations, mostly from industrialists, not the government.
https://shackleton.com/blogs/articl
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 10:11:39 UTC No. 16501945
Another Starlink launch
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 10:57:11 UTC No. 16501967
>>16501860
Here's stage comparison between KZ-1A and KZ-1B/KZ-1A-Pro/KZ-1A Enhanced
The kick stage is upside down above the payload, under the fairing
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:00:56 UTC No. 16501970
>>16501893
Yes, the rightmost pad on this picture.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:09:55 UTC No. 16501974
>>16501378
Sadly PSLV carrying Proba-3 was just delayed to the 5th at 10:42 UTC so we'll only have 6 launches in 24h.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:24:19 UTC No. 16501981
>>16501771
NASA has had boots-and-go-home mission plans in the past. But at least that was with a vehicle that could pause at Mars for a few days. Cyclers can't pause at all.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:28:55 UTC No. 16501983
>>16501970
So are they planning on building another LM10 pad next to it in the near future, or do they think they'll be able to launch two LM10s in quick succession from the same pad for the crewed lunar landing missions?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 11:34:33 UTC No. 16501984
>>16501967
I miss three stage rockets. Growing up and reading about rockets it was always seemed to be third stage rockets like the Saturn V, Soyuz, Ariane. Now you never see them anymore.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 12:14:58 UTC No. 16501998
>>16501983
This isn't certain, the lander+crasher stage complex is supposed to be able to loiter for months before a landing, so they may be able to do a lunar mission with a single pad.
But it wouldn't surprise me if they build a second launch pad, there's no hurry however, they can build a pad in <2 years, and they won't need to launch 2*CZ10 until after mid 2028 (current planned date for the Apollo 8-like single launch lunar orbit mission).
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:31:27 UTC No. 16502022
It's time for Musk to consider doing the ol' Venus manned flyby mission NASA almost did in the 70s with the Apollo architecture. Could be a great test of life support and communications systems (and great PR) before considering sending crews on the twice as long Earth to Mars route.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:36:03 UTC No. 16502026
>>16501635
>spacecraft are ocean liners
This is the dumbest, gayest argument you could have made
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:50:47 UTC No. 16502034
>>16502026
be pretty cool to have something akin to this in space making the rounds though
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:58:15 UTC No. 16502038
>>16502026
Cyclers aren't mostly engines, it might kind of work 1:1 like that
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 13:59:15 UTC No. 16502039
>>16502022
Polaris 2nd mission
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:00:27 UTC No. 16502041
>>16501910
You fucked up the math because you only counted the Mars side ships as a flight instead of a ship to be constructed and basically expended
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:04:11 UTC No. 16502044
>>16501932
>>16501918
No one is aiming for seven launches per day. They need to be able to launch between 5,000 and 15,000 starship flights to fuel a Martian colony fleet. Assuming a minimum time between consecutive launches of 4 to 8 hours per launch mount you need between
5,000 * 4 / (90 * 24) = 9.259
and
15,000 * 8 / (90 * 24) = 55.556
launch mounts in continuous operation for 90 days every synod.
10 launch mounts each launching every 4 hours is 60 launches per day and 60 launch mounts each launching every 8 hours is 180 launches per day, or once every 8 minutes.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:07:59 UTC No. 16502048
/sfg/ - spectacular fantasies general
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:12:24 UTC No. 16502052
fuck you
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:14:40 UTC No. 16502053
>>16502051
jesus christ... I knew it was bad but not THIS bad...
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:14:54 UTC No. 16502055
>>16502052
good morning, anon
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:15:15 UTC No. 16502057
>>16502051
>Tesla not high-tech
Anything not muh software is just low technology I guess. Thiel was right about zeitgeist
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:16:49 UTC No. 16502059
>>16502051
economy is hard, pls understand
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:17:12 UTC No. 16502061
>>16502051
I wonder what chinas looks like? I would have to imagine it's at least better than europes.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:20:12 UTC No. 16502064
>>16502057
Tesla is "muh software", though, just not fully.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:21:18 UTC No. 16502066
>>16502051
Heres a closeup of the euro companies
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:22:43 UTC No. 16502067
>>16502051
now show the graph for all other continents, yank
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:30:27 UTC No. 16502071
>>16502051
I love America so much it’s unreal
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:34:40 UTC No. 16502074
>>16502064
Yes it's both, even more perplexing why it is marked other
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:37:05 UTC No. 16502078
>>16502066
But why limit it to new companies. Just to make EU look that much worse?
The market cap already takes into account whether the company is doing something of worth or not. An old company isn't traded higher just because it is old.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:38:50 UTC No. 16502080
>>16502079
>New Glenn static fire today
pls
there were like 10 false alarms for GS2 SF
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:38:53 UTC No. 16502081
>>16502079
I'll only be interested when they actually launch
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:43:04 UTC No. 16502083
>>16502051
Even if you wanted, it's borderline impossible in Europe to get rich, unless it's by stealing public money. I remember some Norwegian writing about it on twitter that his startup paid employees in ETH, but they were taxed to hell on unrealized gains and he was pretty much forced to move to the US.
There are probably lots of books about this topic (I haven't read any), but the common mindset in European politics is the belief in zero-sum game.
>We can't grow, and we won't even try, so we will just tax people more to support prolong the collapse of the current system. And of course everything is overregulated so don't even think about trying it yourself :)
I hate this place so much. Unless nothing changes, even South America or SEA are going to be better places to live.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:45:38 UTC No. 16502086
>>16502079
not so fast, baldy
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:46:47 UTC No. 16502088
>>16502086
Bergersama... not like this
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:49:23 UTC No. 16502091
>>16502080
yep, as expected
>>16502086
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:49:41 UTC No. 16502092
>>16502078
It's an indicator of dynamism and innovativeness, sure there are big european companies but they're all dinosaurs. The issue is that no new valuable european companies are being made.
Heres the blog the chart came from explaining why it's so important https://geekway.substack.com/p/a-vi
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:50:25 UTC No. 16502094
>>16502079
we are all just monkeys in this cosmic horror reality
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 14:56:02 UTC No. 16502097
when will BO attempt to make a fully reusable rocket?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:01:56 UTC No. 16502098
>>16502097
they're working on it with Clipper/Jarvis, bezos said they're not sure if it's more economical than mass producing S2 at their scale tho. So they're pursuing both.
Don't expect it until a few years from now desu. Tbh until they've gotten experience on NG S1 reuse and optimised it having a reusable S2 makes little sense.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:03:04 UTC No. 16502099
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:04:11 UTC No. 16502100
>>16502058
when?
I've been ignoring spaceflight stuff for a week now due to Poe2 hype
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:19:17 UTC No. 16502108
>>16501984
Why settle for 3 stages when you can get 4 with the likes of Vega C, PSLV, Minotaur IV, and Shavit 2
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:19:45 UTC No. 16502109
>>16502066
>4 Swedish companies
>2 irish companies
>2 Dutch companies
>2 Danish companies
>2 German companies
>1 Spanish companies
Grim, seens like Sweden are the only ones with even remotely any ability to create new companies. Not a single fucking French company either, what the fuck is going on in France?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:27:42 UTC No. 16502115
>>16502109
communism
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:31:11 UTC No. 16502118
>>16502109
>what the fuck is going on in France?
Pic related. France is probably the closest to a command economy in all of europe.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:31:20 UTC No. 16502119
>>16502109
>what the fuck is going on in France
You'd have had a few several years ago, like Ubisoft; SES too (luxembourg registered but largely french) before Starlink and GSO comsat downturn kek.
Otherwise lots are *just* older than 50 years old and created in the 50s or 60s.
Not much small scale entrepreneurship spirit, historical hard on for large state owned companie.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:34:46 UTC No. 16502123
>>16501944
Yeah, but the government gave him $10,000 so it's the government that should get all the credit.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:36:25 UTC No. 16502124
>>16502022
Sorry but SpaceX isn't allowed to do frontier work
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:40:05 UTC No. 16502126
>>16502052
Ban this faggot already
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:43:37 UTC No. 16502127
>>16502098
>Don't expect it until a few years from now desu.
Will they even be able to compete against Block 2? I can see small sat launchers having a market but for heavy lifters it makes no sense (outside of political reasons)
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:45:51 UTC No. 16502131
>>16502098
If they were smart, they would be iterating the fuck out of the BE-4, nonstop. Obviously they need a better powerhouse, FFSC, smaller, lighter, cheaper, more powerful, and able to be mass produced by the thousands. They also need to cheapen the rocket body, their process works but Jesus Christ, milling isogrids in aluminum and using finicky, expensive welding? What the fuck are you even thinking. They must expect 100+ flawless reflights to make all that shit worth it, good luck with that.
But sadly, even with all the billions backing it, they are simply not smart. They lack vision and expertise, and that is a death sentence in rocketry.
Its going to be rather depressing watching them waste money and get absolutely dominated by SpaceX and even Stoke. If only Jeff had a brain, but when you have that much money, you can jut coast. This is SLS repeating, part deux.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 15:56:42 UTC No. 16502139
>>16502131
>milling isogrids in aluminum and using finicky, expensive welding? What the fuck are you even thinking. They must expect 100+ flawless reflights to make all that shit worth it, good luck with that.
I really doubt the airframe of the booster is that large of a percentage cost of the whole product. All that milling probably pays for itself on flight 2.
Now granted it seems like they took the high quality route in every aspect of the design, but I still expect reuse to pay for itself in only a small handful of flights.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:01:39 UTC No. 16502144
>>16502126
>thinks its one person
kek
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:03:23 UTC No. 16502146
>>16502051
>tesla isn't high tech
lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:05:59 UTC No. 16502148
>>16502127
>Will they even be able to compete against Block 2?
Theres always the very lucrative ABSX market
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:06:35 UTC No. 16502149
>>16502126
fuck you is not a meme is a meme
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:07:29 UTC No. 16502150
>>16502126
fuck you
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:07:45 UTC No. 16502151
>>16502098
>>16502131
They’re already NGMI because of the design choices they’ve already hard-locked into. They have Bezos’ (admittedly huge) reservoir of cash—but no part of New Glenn’s tankage or BE-4 has been designed to be cost effective aside from the fact that it can be refurbished and reused. But the raw input to actually make the hardware in the first place is gigantic. Whoever was in charge of New Glenn when it was still on the drafting table was an idiot who basically sabotaged the whole company, trying to be SpaceX but doing it like some sort of ULA boomer
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:11:40 UTC No. 16502157
>>16502153
>>16502154
that doesnt make any sense. he's better off doing what he's currently doing.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:12:56 UTC No. 16502159
>>16502154
>>16502153
no fuckin way ahaha AMAZING! WE ARE FUCKING GOING BOYS
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:14:10 UTC No. 16502161
>>16502157
which is??? Shift4 is not relevant to spaceflight and the company is on autopilot anyways
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:15:06 UTC No. 16502162
>>16502161
doing experimental spaceflights. i fully expected him to be preparing to become the first person to set foot on mars.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:15:32 UTC No. 16502163
>>16502153
Wait seriously? Like the jared issacman that did all the private dragon flights? That jared issacman? We're talking about the same person right?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:18:42 UTC No. 16502164
>>16502163
>>16502159
>>16502157
Would you be so kindly to give context for a mere foreigner layman?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:19:57 UTC No. 16502166
>>16502164
President Trump picked a jew as a NASA administrator. Better?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:20:27 UTC No. 16502167
>>16502153
Holy shit, I didn't even consider him in the running.
GREAT CHOICE!
SLS = cancelled lol
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:20:27 UTC No. 16502168
>>16502153
>>16502154
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHA NO FUCKING WAY
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:20:35 UTC No. 16502169
>>16502153
Is this fucking real??? HOLY SHIT ITS A NEW FUCKING ERA ITS REAAAALLL WE ARE FUCKING GOING I WOULD SCREAM IF I WASNT IN A LECTURE SO I WILL HERE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:20:36 UTC No. 16502170
>>16502164
Basically Trump picked Elon's pick.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:20:40 UTC No. 16502171
>>16502153
>>16502154
Private astronaut*
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:21:15 UTC No. 16502173
>>16502153
>>16502154
Bros, it's too much winning...
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:21:32 UTC No. 16502174
>>16502154
This was fucking unexpected but i loved it. Lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:21:56 UTC No. 16502175
>>16502166
Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down?
>>16502170
Oh that looks good then
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:22:07 UTC No. 16502177
Holy FUCKING based. Elon HAD to have had a hand in this pick theres no way he didnt. Isaacman passes this EASY in congress. Dems will seethe but who cares
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:25:29 UTC No. 16502178
>>16502153
>>16502154
This can't be real. These next 4 years will be utterly fucking fantastic lmfao. Will he still do his polaris missions though?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:30:09 UTC No. 16502181
>>16502178
probably not
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:30:23 UTC No. 16502183
>>16502178
That would be the coolest fucking thing ever if he still ran his missions while being NASA admin holy fuck.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:31:08 UTC No. 16502184
>>16502169
Was /sfg/ always like this?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:33:18 UTC No. 16502186
>>16502185
>>16502185
>>16502185
Staging early
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:34:41 UTC No. 16502187
>>16502186
die
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:39:43 UTC No. 16502192
>>16502162
training constantly for 5 years is not really useful. plenty of other candidates to be test pilots. As a massive Mars supporter and decent communicator +exec he's perfect
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:39:56 UTC No. 16502193
Was anyone expecting this?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:43:12 UTC No. 16502198
i just saw trump nominating isaacman and assumed it had to be a troll because we can't have nice things, but then it turns out... we can actually have nice things! WE GAAN!
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:45:47 UTC No. 16502200
>cucked himself out of astronaut missions for four years
I can't tell if he's retarded or just into self-sacrifice.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:47:08 UTC No. 16502201
>>16502153
>>16502154
I feel getting this job would mean he wouldn't be able to fly in the next Polaris mission, so I think he will pass it.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:47:16 UTC No. 16502202
>>16502200
his next flight was going to be a manned starship mission anyway, so it was never going to happen in the 2020s
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:47:17 UTC No. 16502203
>>16502184
No because nothing good ever happened
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:47:33 UTC No. 16502204
>>16502200
>>16502201
His Starship flight is years away anyway.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:48:50 UTC No. 16502206
manned starship is definitely happening within the next 3-4 years
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:48:57 UTC No. 16502207
>>16502204
Polaris mission 2 will be another Dragon flight
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:49:55 UTC No. 16502210
So Polaris program is over?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:50:08 UTC No. 16502211
>>16502202
lol?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:51:20 UTC No. 16502213
>>16502200
Is there some rule I'm not aware of?
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:51:55 UTC No. 16502214
>>16502213
an administrator job probably takes a big chunk of your time
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:52:50 UTC No. 16502216
>>16502177
Elon is directly picking the heads of FAA, EPA, NASA, FCC, SEC. Sweet revenge
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:53:01 UTC No. 16502217
>>16502213
Not aware of something, obviously.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:53:27 UTC No. 16502218
>>16502214
he could've zoom'd in to work from the ISS except elon's banning that, what a disaster
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:59:02 UTC No. 16502220
Page 10 was hit just go use that other bread its like 5 minutes apart
>t. Stage autist
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 16:59:54 UTC No. 16502221
>>16502216
>Blocks your nominees from getting approved
Nothing personal elon. It's just business as usual.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:02:03 UTC No. 16502224
>Berger knew
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:09:38 UTC No. 16502240
>>16502153
>>16502154
NO FUCKING WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYYYYYYY
MANNEN, WE GAAN
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:12:06 UTC No. 16502244
>>16502221
uh oh, federal vacancies reform act stinkyyyy
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:14:53 UTC No. 16502249
>>16502153
>>16502154
Jared, you know what you must do
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:19:58 UTC No. 16502260
>>16502153
>>16502154
Good news
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:22:24 UTC No. 16502262
>>16501974
also the CZ-6A launch delayed by a day
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:35:35 UTC No. 16502274
>>16501984
blame risk reduction. Each stage adds engines, plumbing, and a separation event. Solid rockets like >>16502108 can't avoid it because their ISP is so low.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:40:17 UTC No. 16502283
>>16502262
It still should fall *just* within 24h of the previous launch. So still 6 in 24h
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:55:00 UTC No. 16502316
>>16502154
>Truth Social
Trump is such a fucking grifter, how is this guy President
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 17:59:29 UTC No. 16502329
>>16502153
What the fuck holy fucking shit
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:07:07 UTC No. 16502344
STAGING
>>16502111
>>16502111
>>16502111
>>16502111
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:10:47 UTC No. 16502358
>>16502051
>"public from scratch"
theres the slight of hand that makes this chart so eye-catching. clickbait even.
most big EU companies were nationalised at some point, or had some sort of arms-length relation with the government. the US does have bigger companies but by cherry picking from EU only those that have never been (even partly) state owned it biases it further. again this is just a difference in economic policy, a country that has never nationalised its big companies, and countries that ever have, even if they privatised them again later.
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:19:59 UTC No. 16502383
>>16502153
what the absolute fuck
this is insane
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 18:58:39 UTC No. 16502460
>>16502316
Divine right
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:06:53 UTC No. 16502480
>>16501981
yeah, but boots-and-go-home missions are NOT the purpose of cyclers
a cycler is a hotel in space that you stay in for six months during your transit from Earth to Mars
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:12:53 UTC No. 16502491
>>16501981
getting to and from cyclers is a waste of isp
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:39:28 UTC No. 16502528
>>16502078
Wouldn't that also make America look even better as well? The graph is for companies less that 50 years old so I think this is a good indication of the modern world. It's an apples to apples comparison
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:46:09 UTC No. 16502540
>>16502126
don't mess with the fuck-you poster(s), he's pretty harmless, albeit a little autistic
Anonymous at Wed, 4 Dec 2024 19:50:22 UTC No. 16502543
>>16502153
>>16502154
>both anons posted it at the same time
hivemind
also, this is great and confusing. is an incumbent nasa admin even allowed to go to space?