🧵 /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:11:29 UTC No. 16532468
Flaps v2- edition
previous >>16529664
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:18:23 UTC No. 16532474
>>16532468
too pointy
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:19:44 UTC No. 16532477
>>16532468
aesthetics > function
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:20:53 UTC No. 16532480
>>16532472
mars, why do you think we're trying so hard to colonize it?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:22:06 UTC No. 16532481
>>16532480
Kinda stretching the definition of habitable a bit, if you ask me.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:24:39 UTC No. 16532484
>inb4 this thread will once again be filled with a bunch of 16 year old rage baiters.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:24:50 UTC No. 16532485
>>16532481
If humans can inhabit it, it's inhabitable.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:26:09 UTC No. 16532486
>>16532485
If you need a full environment suit, it's not habitable. Otherwise, you're arguing that the empty vacuum of space is habitable, at which point you've eschewed all meaning of the idea itself.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:31:20 UTC No. 16532489
>>16532486
Thats retarded, you're retarded.
Are O'Neill cylinders inhabitable?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:34:21 UTC No. 16532491
>>16532489
Sure, if you build an artificial life support system, but that also means that a spaceship is inhabitable. This is a failure of an argument because you're replacing habitability with a combination of a location and an artificial life support system. The entire point of describing somewhere as habitable means that you don't need a machine to keep someone alive there.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:36:55 UTC No. 16532492
we need a larger spaceflight industry
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:40:10 UTC No. 16532495
>>16532492
Starship is going to induce a space industry boom
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:45:19 UTC No. 16532500
Good morning saars!!
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:47:27 UTC No. 16532505
>>16532491
You need machines to keep you alive on Earth. We need to suck nitrogen out of the air because we've passed what the biosphere can naturally support several times over. If I didn't have a machine to regulate temperature I would've died last night. You're talking about the end result of a journey through interstellar space, with a hypothetical spaceship large and advanced enough to support several generations of people. If you have that, then somewhere like Mars is habitable. All you really need is pic related. Big plastic bag is way easier than interstellar vessel
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:48:28 UTC No. 16532507
>>16532491
Doesn't matter. If humans can inhabit a place it's inhabitable. Doesn't matter how much tech is required, inhabitable places are inhabitable.
Also you're getting away from the original argument that a lack of inhabitable places means interstellar colonization is doomed. Simply realizing technology increases the amount of places that are inhabitable shows the argument for the nonsense it is.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:48:55 UTC No. 16532509
>>16532486
>>16532481
Mars is 2-habitable: given the resources currently available, it would be possible in less than 10^2 years for ordinary people to live there with no corporate or governmental sponsorship.
I don't think there's much reason to use the terms 1-habitable or 3-habitable because there's nothing in the former category and any attempt at predictions on a 1000 year timescale are not credible.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:50:31 UTC No. 16532512
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:53:01 UTC No. 16532518
>>16532492
What exactly is a spaceflight industry? You can only have so many rocket manufacturers (see Boeing/Airbus) and you have a handful of companies building satellites, engines, electronics, etc. What else do you need?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 13:53:18 UTC No. 16532520
>>16532518
payloads
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:00:54 UTC No. 16532533
>>16532512
>I made a cartoon where you're.. le dumb!
Concession accepted
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:06:47 UTC No. 16532541
>>16532512
>i am mad and have no argument
>please look at this reddit meme
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:12:17 UTC No. 16532553
>>16532484
Please tell me there's some actually interesting space stuff coming up, I'm so sick of all the politics talk.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:14:10 UTC No. 16532556
>>16532553
NG launch maybe next week
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:14:46 UTC No. 16532557
>>16532553
nuglun launching next monday, starship launching next friday, it'll be a fun week.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:23:02 UTC No. 16532569
>>16532556
>>16532557
I won't believe that New Glen is actually launching until I see several reliable reports about it, until then I'm just gonna assume it's a massive inflatable they managed to stick engines to.
Another Starship launch is cool though, I didn't realise it was so soon.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:23:56 UTC No. 16532571
>>16532553
11 hours until the first launch of the year
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:25:02 UTC No. 16532573
>>16532569
They already had all the successful tests, only launch is left.
I don't see it being delayed much.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:25:46 UTC No. 16532574
>>16532571
I said interesting, not the regular spacex bus to orbit.
>>16532573
Like I said, I'll believe it when I see it.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:27:25 UTC No. 16532576
the lineup for the next two weeks
>3 Jan - Falcon 9 - UAE geo sat
>5 Jan - Falcon 9 - Starlink
>6 Jan - New Glenn - Blue Ring pathfinder test
>6 Jan - Falcon 9 - Starlink
>6 Jan - Long March 3B/E - ?? geosat
>10 Jan - Ceres-1 - ?? leosat
>10 Jan - Starship - ??
>12 Jan - Jielong 3 - ?? leosat
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:33:52 UTC No. 16532579
>>16532505
You post that air mattress a lot.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:35:31 UTC No. 16532582
>>16532569
>massive inflatable they managed to stick engines to
Worked for Atlas
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:44:11 UTC No. 16532588
>>16532579
I've been gone for a month
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:44:54 UTC No. 16532589
>The Space Force has initiated the "One Falcon Initiative", processes aimed at further reducing the turnaround time between each F9 launch.
Bros, we're getting 200 launches this year aren't we?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:46:10 UTC No. 16532590
>>16532589
F9 has achieved about 16 Saturn V launches to orbit in 2024.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 14:50:32 UTC No. 16532598
>>16532589
>Bros, we're getting 200 launches this year aren't we?
We got 261 in 2024.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:02:53 UTC No. 16532605
>>16532472
Europa
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:03:40 UTC No. 16532606
if the earth was found in another solar system it would not be "inhabitable"
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:04:41 UTC No. 16532608
>>16532606
source?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:06:38 UTC No. 16532611
>>16532606
depends on the star and distance. what are you trying to say?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:09:59 UTC No. 16532615
>>16532589
NSF things no more than 170. the limitation is now the number of drone ships.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:11:01 UTC No. 16532617
>>16532615
thinks*
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:15:34 UTC No. 16532622
>>16532606
we're only finding earth-sized planets around stars too small to allow a planet's atmosphere to not be stripped away by the solar wind. We just need bigger better telescopes
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:32:59 UTC No. 16532629
>>16532589
If spacex wants to be comfortably doing daily or twice daily launches, the government definitely has to step up their archaic systems/procedures
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:34:50 UTC No. 16532632
>>16532589
they need more pads and more drone ships. or pads with the turn around time of airport runways.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:39:47 UTC No. 16532635
>the hardest part of spaceflight is boats
unexpected
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:40:46 UTC No. 16532637
>>16532468
Long-term unmanned blimp in Venus‘s upper atmosphere when?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:43:30 UTC No. 16532639
>>16532635
I don't really get why they're skimping on boats. they could easily have a fleet of 8 or 10, the current 3 ship fleet is clearly holding them back.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:47:06 UTC No. 16532642
>>16532637
cyberpunk enjoyers, we're winning
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:51:16 UTC No. 16532647
>>16532637
is that a homeless guy playing vr games in front of a decathlon store?
>Long-term unmanned blimp in Venus‘s upper atmosphere when?
when(if) starship becomes operational, obviously. You can get anything to anywhere in the solar system with it, provided you have a few dozen million $$$ to spare
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:52:03 UTC No. 16532648
>>16532622
>>16532611
>>16532606
Because it's really inconvenient to travel interstellar distances, there will be a strong bias on colonizing the nearest worlds, whether that involves building enclosed habitats or some degree of local or global terraforming.
Accordingly, it's not relevant whether or not a planet is habitable as-is. Instead what's important is how much work it will take to make it that way. The best worlds will simply be too far away.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:54:58 UTC No. 16532653
>>16532651
we could've done this without space force. go give them some guns and spaceships already.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 15:57:03 UTC No. 16532655
>>16532648
>Because it's really inconvenient to travel interstellar distances
>i-it's inconvenient guyzzzz we must stay at home!!!1!!1
Don't Care. I'm gonna build a VD Drive and fuck off to Andromeda before you are even born
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:00:40 UTC No. 16532660
>>16532655
When FTL becomes cheap and available to everyone I will kill the grandfathers of every FTL poster before they are born
I don't even care if it creates a paradox
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:03:29 UTC No. 16532664
>>16532660
A timeline maintenance department would probably go back in time to kill you before you could go back in time to kill anyone.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:03:39 UTC No. 16532665
>>16532660
>FTL
never gonna happen and even if it did you wouldn't do shit, punk. Not when I fuck your mom and force her to have an abortion
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:04:56 UTC No. 16532667
>>16532485
Untrue, Phoenix AZ is not remotely suitable for human habitation, and yet people still make a go of it there. It's the intrepid human spirit.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:07:36 UTC No. 16532669
an FTL drive still has to wait to not exceed the speed of light
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:15:44 UTC No. 16532675
We simply need to invent a working Warp drive to go FTL, it's literally as easy as that
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:17:00 UTC No. 16532676
warp drive in wormholes
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:25:21 UTC No. 16532684
>>16532576
Do we know what the blue ring test is about? Are they gonna try and rendezvous with anything?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:28:27 UTC No. 16532690
you troglodytes are NGMI
"FTL this wormhole that" is all you know about space travel. If you wanna fly and you wanna do it fast, you can't pussy around with this nonsense speed limit shit. Rather than jump through loops to break the laws of physics, we simply rewrite them so C is N times bigger. That's what a Vacuum Decay drive does and you'd do well to remember it
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:37:06 UTC No. 16532704
>>16532690
just suck it up like a man and use C. lightspeed time to get the to nearest stars is already well winthin a human life,
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:42:50 UTC No. 16532708
>>16532690
>we simply rewrite them so C is N times bigger
lol this is how they get around FTL travel in futurama. scientists raised the speed of light in 2208
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:44:47 UTC No. 16532712
>>16532420
>even 1000 times the speed of light is slow: going to Alpha Centuari would take a full day and a half.
That is acceptable
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 16:58:28 UTC No. 16532729
>>16532704
>lightspeed time to get the to nearest stars is already well winthin a human life,
>nearest stars
Not. Fast. Enough.
(((We))) will make it so C is bigger than the diameter of the observable universe and then I'll take a holiday trip to Earendel before claiming Andromeda for the white race. You cucks can stay in your blacked milk galaxy taking years to get to neighboring stars, for all I care LMAO
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:11:42 UTC No. 16532742
>>16532637
Mars colonization will make the narrative insufferable.
>we can afford to build houses ON MARS but we can't build houses for schizophrenic drug addicts
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:11:51 UTC No. 16532743
https://x.com/ScienceMagazine/statu
Boil-off is solved
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:14:26 UTC No. 16532746
>>16532712
That's still a dozen millennia to the next galaxy
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:18:22 UTC No. 16532752
>>16532742
what, like they can't already say that with ISS?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:19:43 UTC No. 16532756
>>16532743
>surpasses solar100% reflectance
what the fuck that does that even mean?
>"We discovered that it achieves a solar-weighted reflectance of 104.0% in visible light regions through fluorescence and phosphorescence. The cooling effect can reduce ambient temperatures by 16.0°C under high solar irradiance."
lol
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:21:15 UTC No. 16532758
>>16532752
There's political obligations and Earth science
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:21:29 UTC No. 16532759
>>16532746
So this is not good enough for you?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:22:30 UTC No. 16532762
>>16532759
or even just this
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:26:39 UTC No. 16532766
>>16532762
>>16532759
All these stars will belong to Mankind.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:27:35 UTC No. 16532768
>>16532766
All the stars already do, as there is absolutely no other life in the universe to claim them.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:28:02 UTC No. 16532771
>>16532766
fuck yeah
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:28:54 UTC No. 16532772
>>16532743
Now solve embrittlement
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:29:17 UTC No. 16532775
>>16532768
well, there's a bunch of microbes. but what are they gonna do?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:30:05 UTC No. 16532777
Our closest neighbor, as seen from Earth and the New Horizons probe.
>>16532768
*citation required
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:30:36 UTC No. 16532778
>>16532766
Imageine how many planets and moons in this local region alone mann, how many rogue planets too
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:31:02 UTC No. 16532780
>>16532772
not a problem with methalox
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:32:02 UTC No. 16532783
>>16532766
Really hope there's no aliens, nothing beyond microbes or bacteria, at least in this area, this should all be human territory
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:33:03 UTC No. 16532784
10 light years of humanity
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:33:46 UTC No. 16532786
>>16532777
And seen through the rings of Saturn.
They're just right over there, you can go see them.
>>16532778
I wonder how you'd ID and tag rogue planets which aren't radiating any heat of their own and are too far from anything to reflect light? How do you find them? How do you stick a lighthouse on one so they can be used for navigational buoys?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:34:03 UTC No. 16532787
>>16532785
Reality
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:35:16 UTC No. 16532789
>>16532785
his business collapsed so he ran out of money
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:35:43 UTC No. 16532790
>>16532785
Maezawa ran out of money and got replaced
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:40:25 UTC No. 16532801
>>16532743
Whether or not it's solved this particular piece of anti-human propaganda has nothing to do with it. There are already materials that do this, but they've managed to make something that degrades quickly so it's "environmentally friendly". In other words it is designed to stop working and given its composition it would probably do so very rapidly in LEO.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:40:35 UTC No. 16532802
>>16532785
he only cared about it for the novelty, no real passion
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:51:15 UTC No. 16532814
>>16532756
It generates light?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:55:15 UTC No. 16532820
>>16532492
elon will change ITAR so that h1bs can work at spacex have faith bro
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:55:48 UTC No. 16532823
>>16532756
Probably something like even if it's under direct sunlight it will reflect the sunlight and still bleed off heat energy from whatever it's mounted on? So it can still cool something even when under direct sunlight?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 17:58:18 UTC No. 16532829
>>16532814
it doesn't generate it really, but releases radiation absorbed in non-visible wavelengths as radiation in the visible wavelengths
from wikipedia it seems this requires higher energy wavelengths, so I guess ultraviolet and beyond is absorbed and then emitted in the visible spectrum
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluor
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:07:00 UTC No. 16532846
https://x.com/pbdes/status/18748179
>Eutelsat Group: 48-hour global outage of OneWeb broadband LEO constellation New Year's eve due to ground network software failure to account for Leap Year. Network back now in service.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:08:39 UTC No. 16532847
https://x.com/SpaceOffshore/status/
>Departure! The Blue Origin landing vessel Jacklyn is underway from Port Canaveral for the debut launch of New Glenn. Support ship Harvey Stone towing. Good luck to everyone involved! This will be something to see on the return if all goes well!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jm8
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:09:22 UTC No. 16532849
>>16532846
>issues with time/date
i've been there before
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:09:42 UTC No. 16532851
>>16532847
retardedly big barge
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:12:26 UTC No. 16532855
>>16532851
It's fine because they are going to succeed 1st time unlike spacex
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:16:32 UTC No. 16532860
>>16532855
Source?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:20:08 UTC No. 16532865
>>16532756
like it says, the thing can still radiate heat even in direct sunlight. thats nifty
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:31:42 UTC No. 16532874
>>16532860
I'm from the future
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:32:17 UTC No. 16532876
https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/12/
>One of the biggest decision points for the space community, how to redesign the Mars Sample Return (MSR) mission, may be weeks away from an inflection point, according to outgoing NASA Administrator Bill Nelson.
>During a roundtable discussion with reporters on Dec. 18 at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, Nelson said the agency will announce the path forward on the U.S.-led initiative to return samples from the Red Planet “in the first part of January, before I leave. As a matter of fact, one of the major briefings is going to occur Friday morning (Dec. 20) here at KSC,” Nelson said. “I’ve already been briefed in part. At the end of the day, I’m the decider on this stage and then we had that off to the new administration.”
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:37:52 UTC No. 16532879
>>16532876
nasa should move forward with the sample return. its a fuckhuge expense but there's still no guarantee that spacex will be returning any samples from mars any time soon. by the time spacex can get some roggs onto a starship, nasa might already have had the sample back on earth for a number of years.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:43:01 UTC No. 16532885
>>16532879
Delusional.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:44:41 UTC No. 16532887
>>16532885
nasa is all about hedging bets these days
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:47:55 UTC No. 16532891
>>16532887
If you seriously think nasa can beat anyone at msr then you're delusional.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:50:57 UTC No. 16532893
>>16532855
They better, the route they took.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:52:35 UTC No. 16532896
>>16532891
NASA is just going to hire roggidlab to do a pretty ok job of msr
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 18:53:41 UTC No. 16532898
>>16532879
Yeah NASA can get the council to put together an NTP ship that can get there next month
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:00:11 UTC No. 16532905
>>16532903
>>16532894
World's most anticipated artificial reef
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:01:11 UTC No. 16532906
>>16532903
so do they have crew in it
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:02:20 UTC No. 16532907
>>16532847
How long until SpaceX is renting time on that for Falcon?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:02:37 UTC No. 16532909
>>16532894
>>16532903
If they make it on the first try I expect a formal apology from ya'll.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:05:58 UTC No. 16532914
>>16532588
I've been banned since last month, so that cancels out or something.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:06:35 UTC No. 16532915
>>16532909
Even then it's very unlikely barge gets destroyed as the landing should be much less aggressive than F9
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:07:16 UTC No. 16532918
>>16532639
You're a but, boats are notoriously expensive. Boats are holes in the water you shovel money into.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:08:14 UTC No. 16532920
>>16532903
tick tock muskrats...
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:08:37 UTC No. 16532921
>>16532468
Why aren't we turning an highly elliptical asteroid into a multi generation space ship, and send it to another star system?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:09:04 UTC No. 16532924
>>16532909
>ya'll
esl pls go
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:09:26 UTC No. 16532925
>>16532790
More like Maezawa got tired of waiting and went for the Moskal experience instead. Not enjoying it, he cancelled all future flights.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:09:34 UTC No. 16532927
>>16532921
Why aren't you getting a girlfriend?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:10:24 UTC No. 16532928
>>16532914
Based me too
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:10:53 UTC No. 16532929
>>16532847
>>16532852
Why is there several warehouses on the barge, is it an amazon delivery ship when it's not catching rockets?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:12:22 UTC No. 16532931
>>16532921
Because so far our only interaction with much closer asteroids is grabbing a handful of dust. That's like asking why you personally don't build the great pyramids. You can pick up rocks. Just stack them in a triangle. Why aren't you doing this?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:15:25 UTC No. 16532943
>>16532939
>new glenn going orbital before starship
oh god...
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:16:47 UTC No. 16532946
>>16532909
I will not apologize because I have been pro-glenn from the start
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:18:59 UTC No. 16532948
>>16532939
>Sun 5
I thought it launches at January 6?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:20:50 UTC No. 16532950
>>16532943
They really should have gone for full orbit on flight 6.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:21:23 UTC No. 16532951
>>16532943
the seething caused by the "welcome to the club" tweet will be delicious
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:23:40 UTC No. 16532954
>>16532950
>>16532943
problem, sport?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:26:18 UTC No. 16532956
>>16532943
At this pace every rocket goes to orbit before Starship lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:30:09 UTC No. 16532966
>>16532948
depends on the timezone
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:31:33 UTC No. 16532967
>>16532943
They're not making it on the first try.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:32:37 UTC No. 16532970
>>16532954
GOOOOOD MORNING SAAR! SORRY SMALL DELAY ON STARSHIT PLEASE HOLD!
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:40:36 UTC No. 16532981
elon running a charity scam, donating hundreds of millions to himself
https://www.reuters.com/business/mu
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:41:18 UTC No. 16532983
>>16532966
>07:00 AM (UTC+1)
Gladly I am unemployed.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:45:59 UTC No. 16532992
>>16532970
ISRO's upgraded LVM3 has been in development for nearly 20 years
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:50:38 UTC No. 16533004
>>16532468
not to ruin your enthusiasm but space exploration is probably all fakeandgay. the rocket launches are probably used to put 5g-type cancer antennas in space to stimulate the graphene oxide in the jabbed with microwaves. the space exploration of planets is maybe a justification for spending and a cover
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:56:29 UTC No. 16533016
Wtf is Elon Musk up to?? I am scared. Is he going to flood the country with Indians?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 19:56:43 UTC No. 16533017
>>16533004
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.251
read something and stop being retarded
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:05:06 UTC No. 16533029
Reminder, this is a Blue board ;)
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:12:46 UTC No. 16533040
>>16533004
awe man that sucks. thanks for letting me know
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:17:06 UTC No. 16533043
>>16533004
Define aerocapture.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:17:06 UTC No. 16533044
>>16533004
>>>/x/
a place for you
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:18:40 UTC No. 16533049
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/29/
>So during his tenure, the Air Force started to build out a suite of what Mr. Kendall called “low-debris-causing weapons” that will be able to disrupt or disable Chinese or other enemy satellites, the first of which is expected to be operational by 2026.
>“Space is a vacuum that surrounds Earth,” Mr. Kendall said. “It’s a place that can be used for military advantage and it is being used for that. We can’t just ignore that on some obscure, esoteric principle that says we shouldn’t put weapons in space and maintain it. That’s not logical for me. Not logical at all. The threat is there. It’s a domain we have to be competitive in.”
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:25:56 UTC No. 16533064
>>16533043
it just plunged right in at 48 km/s and slowed to about 100mph for chute deploy within a couple minutes. impressive.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:28:37 UTC No. 16533069
>>16532855
but like to take a nice slow safe landing it means they are going to be still full of fuel
since its 7 engines on the first stage
gonna be a big boom
not even fucking testing the hop before hand, how hard is it to do a small hop?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:32:37 UTC No. 16533077
>>16532855
>It's fine because they are going to succeed 1st time unlike spacex
Name two rockets that were not based existing hardware which were successful on their first flight.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:32:55 UTC No. 16533078
>>16533069
There is no need for that.
Pay attention.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:34:17 UTC No. 16533082
>>16533077
define "not based"
"on existing hardware"
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:41:24 UTC No. 16533096
>>16533049
>the first of which is expected to be operational by 2026
hmm...
>Within a few years, the Space Force be able to conduct “full spectrum operations” in orbit, Chief of Space Operations Gen. B. Chance Saltzman said this week—hinting at a new space weapon that could be used offensively while offering scant details.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/s
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:44:21 UTC No. 16533099
Reminder that SpaceX still has not figured out a way to make structurally sound payload doors for stuff not StartLink.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:51:58 UTC No. 16533111
>>16533064
Apparently those phenolic heat shields only perform well on steep descents that would mulch astronauts. For some strange reason they thought it would work for Orion, idk.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 20:52:53 UTC No. 16533112
https://x.com/tony873004/status/187
>Newly-discovered asteroid 2025 AC is currently passing Earth at 1/3 the Moon's distance. It has brightened to mag 15, putting it in the range of amateur astrophotographers across Eurasia. I'd watch with my Unistellar eVscope, but I am on the wrong side of the planet (Again!)
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:00:37 UTC No. 16533120
>>16532783
>Really hope there's no aliens,
>this should all be human territory
t.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:01:54 UTC No. 16533122
>>16532480
>we're
It's an autistic's special interest. Most people have only a vague sense that it would be interesting like a new scifi series on Netflix might be interesting. There's no giant public demand for it and certainly no public demand to dedicate significant public resources to it. If SpaceX is successful at making it happen, it'll mostly be due to finding a way to finance it through profits from other space projects.
Even with something like the Moon landing, public interest rapidly dissipated once it had been accomplished.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:05:56 UTC No. 16533127
>>16533122
Wait, I have an "Occupy Mars" t-shirt. Will people think I'm autistic if I wear it in public? lol
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:06:43 UTC No. 16533128
>>16533082
An example would be not being a family of orbital rockets that started as an ICBM.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:23:32 UTC No. 16533156
>>16533111
>220G
thats steep and fast for sure
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:24:47 UTC No. 16533158
>>16533150
this has got to be the most retarded infographic I have ever seen
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:41:07 UTC No. 16533175
>>16533150
One single Starship landing on Mars will have more mass than everything in this chart combined.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:42:26 UTC No. 16533178
>>16532967
A new rocket blowing up the first few attempts is a SpaceX thing. It's probably a better way to do engineering, but BO has done it the old way and they've done it well into there being precedent for reuse. It'll probably go perfectly.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:45:17 UTC No. 16533182
>>16532992
>"ISROsene" because their awful pajeet curry slurry can't even make "Jet A" quality standards
YIKES
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:46:17 UTC No. 16533184
>>16533178
BO as a company has never launched a single thing into orbit, or do you mean to say that all the other companies in history launched their first orbital rockets into orbit on first try because they did it "the old way"?
Because that's not a history that I remember.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 21:58:24 UTC No. 16533200
>>16533099
The structural properties of steel are well understood. It'll probably just be a hit to payload mass
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:03:12 UTC No. 16533205
>>16533184
Their engines have gone orbital, and they've landed several rockets
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:03:19 UTC No. 16533206
>10 years later
>saarship is the leader in putting malfunctioning payload doors in space
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:23:40 UTC No. 16533219
>>16533158
well you obviously haven't been here very long
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:24:41 UTC No. 16533222
>>16533127
lol
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:27:05 UTC No. 16533224
you're delusional if you think that blue origin is going to nail the landing on the first try
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:27:47 UTC No. 16533226
>>16533219
post proof then, o great and wise senpai
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:28:46 UTC No. 16533228
>>16533224
https://strawpoll.com/kogjRDj32g6
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:29:49 UTC No. 16533229
someone post the sls pumpkin infographic
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:29:52 UTC No. 16533231
>>16533228
what would a partial success be like in this case?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:30:51 UTC No. 16533233
>>16532855
you mean in 2nd place, after someone else did all the legwork for them?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:32:08 UTC No. 16533234
>>16532909
you know exactly what we'll say if they do.
Welcome to the Club.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:33:30 UTC No. 16533236
>>16532943
starship has already gone orbital, mr ragebaiting retard.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:34:23 UTC No. 16533238
>>16533231
I guess like the early falcon drone ship landings, on target and slows down but tips over.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:34:37 UTC No. 16533239
>>16533122
I hate normoids so goddamn much. They literally don't understand. They are insentient.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:36:30 UTC No. 16533242
>>16533150
>Tianwen-4 flyby of Uranus
About damn time we revisited the ice giants.
>approach in 2045
Fuck me.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:37:12 UTC No. 16533244
>>16533238
inb4 "how not to land an orbital rocket booster compilation" part 2
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvi
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:37:52 UTC No. 16533245
just another reminder that starship has already gone orbital with a periapsis of about 40 km, it's a functional indifference that it doesn't make a full rotation, really just one of the final goalposts before anti-starship EDSers are forced to move the technical impossibility goalpost surrounding starship into an open grave and start whinging about things like cadence.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:44:05 UTC No. 16533251
>>16533082
>define "not based"
You.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:51:48 UTC No. 16533256
>>16533245
That does raise the question of what the next goalpost will be.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:55:14 UTC No. 16533260
>>16533256
starship will only ever be used for starlink missions
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 22:57:28 UTC No. 16533261
>>16533004
How do the 5g antennas stay up there though? Wouldn't they just fall down?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:01:46 UTC No. 16533267
>>16533261
magnets
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:13:06 UTC No. 16533276
>>16533261
Gravity is selective and doesn't begin to influence you until you become aware of its presence.
>citation: Coyote, W, "Oh Drat!" (1958)
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:17:51 UTC No. 16533281
>>16532943
It should have been orbital years ago.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:21:15 UTC No. 16533283
>>16533281
It’s been orbital this whole time. Around the sun.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:29:57 UTC No. 16533289
I think NG nails the landing, I just don't think it's gonna launch this month.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:36:39 UTC No. 16533295
>>16533294
implessive
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:38:37 UTC No. 16533298
>>16533294
我们走吧。
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:43:24 UTC No. 16533303
>>16533127
Do people think you're autistic if you fly on an airplane or drive your WWI tank to the Whataburger?
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:47:54 UTC No. 16533307
>>16533122
I never got the public interest meme. Spaceflight should be gatekept to only the most autistic of peoples. The recent (past 10 years) influx of froyo eating redditors into spaceflight has been a disaster to the community
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:48:40 UTC No. 16533308
>>16533301
>Gaganyaan uncrewed test flight
Neat, I've been wanting to see this thing fly for years.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:49:14 UTC No. 16533309
>>16533276
What we call gravity is the effect of mass slowing time, the closer you are to the center of mass the more pronounced the effect becomes.
There is tens of seconds difference in the flow of time just between the Earth's surface and geostationary orbit, GPS sats have to account for this.
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:51:14 UTC No. 16533313
>>16533308
It's looking good for a launch this year, even if it has been delayed by 4 years and 3 months in the past 6 years and a half
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:52:35 UTC No. 16533316
>>16533313
With any luck it will finally do the needful this year
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:53:28 UTC No. 16533320
>>16532505
>>16532507
So literally everywhere is habitable. What a stupid fucking arument. Stop posting
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:56:08 UTC No. 16533324
>>16533301
Here's how many launches they had planned for 2024
22 launches
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:57:34 UTC No. 16533328
>>16533324
Here's how many they actually managed
Five launches
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:58:56 UTC No. 16533330
>>16533328
that's way more than yurop lmao
india sir bros, we gaaan
Anonymous at Thu, 2 Jan 2025 23:59:20 UTC No. 16533331
>>16533308
It did fly last year.
Only an atmospheric in-flight abort test.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:05:07 UTC No. 16533336
>>16533307
Public interest is important for several reason. If it requires public funding, then it being something the public supports makes it easier. There's a reason why Bill Clinton picked ISS over the Desertron. Also if you want a steady supply of aerospace engineers, there needs to be public interest in space. If you want to get other technical workers, it helps if they have an interest in space flight because the happiness they get from being in a related field means you can pay them less than if you're a company engineering sewage treatment. There are also some negative side effects to all the required infrastructure and activities associated with space flight. If the public supports it, they're more likely to not care very much about some endangered sand flea that the launches might upset.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:08:54 UTC No. 16533340
>>16533339
>transfar
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:11:30 UTC No. 16533342
>>16533340
it isn't going a short distance
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:14:30 UTC No. 16533344
>>16533330
Less payload mass than Arianespace this year (~6t)
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:17:49 UTC No. 16533347
>>16533344
Parking a broken upper stage in the wrong orbit hardly counts.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:19:27 UTC No. 16533349
>>16533347
Actually deployed orbital payloads of A6 FM01 + both vega slightly surpass ISRO's total
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 00:57:12 UTC No. 16533378
>>16533320
The sun is not habitable. Nor is Jupiter. I'd even go so far as to say places like Pluto or Venus aren't either. If all it takes is a plastic sheet to make a place work for us, then it's habitable. Therefore Mars is habitable. In a universe that swings between 0 and 250,000 kelvin or 0 and 10^35 pascals, Mars is basically perfect.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:16:40 UTC No. 16533388
>>16533236
>>16533245
Call me a stickler but I'm not gonna call something orbital if it can't make it fully around even once and ideally multiple times. Starship doesn't go orbital yet for good reason, you don't have to be a 1 about it just because BO could conceivably get one measly win. New Glenn gets sufficiently mogged by everything else about Starship that it doesn't make a difference and rather will be funny.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:20:03 UTC No. 16533393
>>16533111
Phenolic heat shields work just fine on less aggressive trajectories. Apollo's command module used phenolic ablative heat shield material. Orion only had trouble because they were getting water, or some other liquid, into the individual tile elements and it couldn't evaporate out before over-stressing the material's internal bonds.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:22:55 UTC No. 16533397
>>16533388
the reason why i'm being a 1 about it is because retards insist that starship is "not orbital" because it can't and doesn't have the mass fractions to get orbital, which is horseshit and retards deserve to be bullied. it literally has to burn for a few more seconds and then it's in a circularized orbit.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:24:01 UTC No. 16533399
>>16533228
people seem pretty optimistic
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:30:35 UTC No. 16533405
>>16533397
I don't care if retards don't understand that it easily could, it still hasn't gone fully orbital. No need to twist the facts when you can just wait a few months.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:55:18 UTC No. 16533418
https://youtu.be/UUrfaEV3S4k
Yikes
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 01:55:31 UTC No. 16533419
>>16533399
Their final approach control is so insanely wonky-looking on NS that I'm amazed those boosters land successfully at all. A lot of that is probably because it's a fairly small rocket, but it doesn't give me a whole lot of confidence for the first try with NG, especially with people talking about what a disaster the software side of Kuiper is.
It feels a bit hypocritical being a Blorigin doubter on this issue due to their comparative lack of experience with booster landing and retropropulsion in general, because "lack of experience/heritage" was always one of the big critic talking points about Spacex. Blue has been around for longer than Spacex though, and accomplished basically nothing by comparison over that time. Not a single gram to orbit, and BE-4 would only be impressive if it weren't a fat bitch compared to Raptor.
There's 20+ years of institutional rot that I fear will show through with NG. If it doesn't, that's cool, but every year they spend ramping up production and flight cadence is a year that Starship is doing the same thing.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:07:03 UTC No. 16533427
Theres enough asteroids for billions of people, Im not even concerned w interstellar. Planets are overrated when you can mine asteroids and build orbitals.
Id like to see most polluting, heavy industry moved into space. The earth reserved for agriculture and nature and living space.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:16:57 UTC No. 16533432
>>16533427
agriculture might be even easier in space though once we sort the radiation exposure problem through artificial EMF and plasma shielding
fermentation happens most efficiently in near zero G, and fermentation is how microbes contribute to high soil quality
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:18:48 UTC No. 16533434
>>16533427
The population is collapsing
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:21:14 UTC No. 16533435
>>16533434
The social contract has made mere survival difficult enough that children are impossible.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:21:52 UTC No. 16533436
>>16533435
you mean the systematic dismantling of the social contract
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:23:31 UTC No. 16533437
>>16533378
>If all it takes is a plastic sheet
arbitrary standard you made up in your head.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:25:36 UTC No. 16533438
>>16533436
Yes. Getting your foot in the door is inordinately difficult, hard work goes unrewarded in favor of quotas, women don't want to have children, and they're effectively free to up and leave a man at any time and walk away with half of his everything. Something has to give, and right now, it's the continuity of the species that has gone slack.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:25:52 UTC No. 16533439
>>16533434
That wont be the case forever. For some reasons midwits have a bad habit of linearly extrapolating the same trend forever.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:26:55 UTC No. 16533441
>>16533439
True, the Africans are multiplying like crazy. They will inherit the stars
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:29:43 UTC No. 16533442
>>16533441
They're actually on the same downward trajectory as the rest of the world. Colonists will have kids above replacement
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:43:09 UTC No. 16533448
>>16533122
Autism without purpose veers left or right, but with purpose and direction goes forward.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:43:35 UTC No. 16533449
>>16533442
Nah that's never gonna happen
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:44:20 UTC No. 16533450
>>16533388
? It was fully capable of orbital speed and circularizing, but its a reusable rocket so the #1 priority is testing reentry
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:47:47 UTC No. 16533451
>>16532903
I wonder if the white balls are Starlink gateways because there's not enough bandwidth between the 2 Kuiper test satellites to support this launch and telemetry
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:49:53 UTC No. 16533453
>>16533099
Shave off 5-10T off the theoretical mass of the payload and you can have all the structurally sound payload bay doors you want.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:49:56 UTC No. 16533454
>>16533448
>purpose
you mean the torque generated from the spin of a gyroscope ofc
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:51:17 UTC No. 16533455
>>16532717
I would suck the evaporating cryogenics out of her
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:53:31 UTC No. 16533456
>>16533451
the balls are gonna be radars....
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:57:25 UTC No. 16533457
>>16533451
https://x.com/SpaceOffshore/status/
Actually, the Starlink terminals are mounted in the open
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:57:46 UTC No. 16533458
>>16533228
High probability since Bezos said they intend to underclock their engines so that they run cooler, are more stable in their burn profile. The biggest challenge will be reignition of central 3 engines during the reentry burn and then a second reignition during the landing burn. They have a decent amount of knowledge on how to via New Shepard with a single engine, and potentially some new knowledge from dual engine configuration from Vulcan Centaur assuming that ULA shared that data in full back to Blue. In theory they could extrapolate out to 3 engines, but nature is the world's biggest bitch. Things can still potentially go wrong. That and its potentially unknown if the surface of that barge can survive the blast force of the equivalent of 1-3 raptors slamming down on it. Especially if that surface isn't water cooled with water deflecting much of the sound and heat.
I'd guess that there'll probably be some damage to the drone ship, even if the booster successfully touched down on it.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 02:58:32 UTC No. 16533459
>>16533442
Maybe if the colonists have assigned breeders. Failing at that, it's hard to see how we make things work when multiple consecutive generations have been fighting a war against reproduction.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:01:21 UTC No. 16533461
>>16533457
That's honestly kind of pathetic. I'd have expected Kuiper terminals by now, the fact that there aren't any and the probability that Amazon isn't going to make their Kuiper minimum orbital deployment window leading to a potential FCC license loss due to reneging on deliverables is truly truly pathetic.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:01:49 UTC No. 16533462
>>16533457
How much is Jeff seething right now?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:03:40 UTC No. 16533465
>>16533461
why would they put non functional terminals on their barge?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:04:27 UTC No. 16533466
>>16533448
Autism goes left or right when the path forward is blocked. This is why the Left and the Right hate H1Bs so much
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:06:43 UTC No. 16533469
I don't want New Glenn to work first try because it'll embolden a fuckload of smug EDS retards and that would be really annoying.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:07:22 UTC No. 16533470
>>16533461
If Kuiper was on track to match Starlink's timeline they'd only be launching their first batch of production hardware right about now. They're not keeping to Starlink's timeline because they're being run by the guy who was fired from the Starlink division for being too slow. They'll still find a way to patch things over with the FCC
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:08:54 UTC No. 16533473
>>16533470
>They're not keeping to Starlink's timeline because they're being run by the guy who was fired from the Starlink division for being too slow.
Damn was that guy ever a bad bet from Bezos' side of things.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:09:02 UTC No. 16533474
>>16533469
no no no, the best situation is the first launch goes completely fine. BUT then the 2nd launch explodes instantly destroying the customer payload.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:09:04 UTC No. 16533475
I want new glenn to work first try because it'll let me be smug as fuck
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:09:35 UTC No. 16533476
>>16533469
I want to see New Glenn launch successfully but fail to land. That way a politically viable alternative to SLS is available, but Jeff Who still gets a slice of humble pie.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:10:31 UTC No. 16533477
>>16533474
We don't want a situation where SpaceX is domestically uncontested. Without a fire under their ass, the inevitable fuckwits that follow Elon Musk will end up being just like the idiots that put Boeing in a nosedive.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:16:52 UTC No. 16533482
>>16533473
It's a cost-benefit analysis. There's some added costs related to project delays, but Bezos was able to save at least 60% versus the payroll cost of someone who could get the satellites to the pad on time
There's also the 4d idea that being late wouldn't really matter as much because Kuiper was supposed to be launching on Vulcan and Ariane 6. Ariane isn't going to have any capacity available for Kuiper until after the 7-26 deadline and Vulcan's advertised ramp-up would have been all but unheard of in the industry.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:17:19 UTC No. 16533483
>>16533470
>>16533461
https://www.fcc.gov/space/internati
As I understand it, FCC coordinates with the ITU for spectrum rights when it comes to allocation beyond US borders and territories with primary allocation and management handled by the agency for all matters inside the US. As Kuiper is intended to be an international service in addition to the US, the Kuiper spectrum allocation for specific bands is tied to both FCC aaaand ITU. If Kuiper fails to deliver on time for the minimum threshold, then FCC has to put those bands back up for bidding to other providers in the market. Amazon is not allowed to squat on them beyond their minimum threshold windows, just because they're slow as fuck. This then means that Amazon would have to reapply for those bands again while competing likely with SpaceX now putting up Gen3 Starlinks, OneWeb, RocketLab, and other players in the market. They can't just patch things over with the FCC willy nilly. They'll get sued by other players for spectrum squatting, which is illegal.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:22:35 UTC No. 16533491
>>16533482
>It's a cost-benefit analysis. There's some added costs related to project delays, but Bezos was able to save at least 60% versus the payroll cost of someone who could get the satellites to the pad on time
The cost of paying the guy is incredibly marginal compared to the opportunity cost and development cost of the whole system.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:23:57 UTC No. 16533492
>>16533491
The joke is that the guy is Indian
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:49:15 UTC No. 16533505
>>16533482
Save 50% across the board on wages and just never deliver a product
sounds good
The only issue is Bezo's is spending his own money and not other investors
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:54:12 UTC No. 16533509
if its boeing im not going
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:56:17 UTC No. 16533510
Why are muskrats already seething so much about new glenn when it didnt even flight yet? Why are you so scared? Deep inside you, you know new glenn MOGS the suborbital can
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 03:59:09 UTC No. 16533511
^this anon knows what sperm tastes like
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:11:14 UTC No. 16533516
Reminder:
>SpaceX: 390 booster landings
>Rest of the world combined: 0
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:20:48 UTC No. 16533525
>>16533510
Not a "muskrat" but I am a put up or shut up kind of person. BO simply moves at a glacial pace. That's why I'll withhold judgement until they actually make the attempt. Having grown up in Shuttle era, I'm accustomed to delays and disasters.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:33:35 UTC No. 16533540
>>16533536
2017 called. they said they want their meme back
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:37:34 UTC No. 16533541
>>16533540
>2017
take me backkk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=duG
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 04:58:31 UTC No. 16533551
do you think BO makes any money at all selling engines to ULA
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:00:24 UTC No. 16533554
>>16533551
They're not making Russian extortion rates, but they're making some amount of profit
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:10:06 UTC No. 16533559
>>16533554
Thought part of the reason for paying Russia so much for their engines was so their rocket scientists wouldn't wander off to work for someone like Pakistan or North Korea. Is that no longer the case?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:11:04 UTC No. 16533561
After listening to several hours of the absolutely-not-elon twitter space, I'm fucking gobsmacked that he managed to make these companies work. Maybe space really is simply that easy.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:39:02 UTC No. 16533572
>>16533559
It hasn't been the 1990s in Russia for a very long time. Pakistan has a lower quality of life than Russia and North Korea isn't to be considered by anyone who doesn't need to escape from extradition very very badly. Iran was always the main country of concern back in the day and it has a significantly lower quality of life than Pakistan on top of higher cost of living, neither of which compare well to Russia. Besides, Russia hates losing its aerospace seed corn; it'll sell technical services or engines, but they'll never sell capabilities when they could create a repeat customer instead. The only reason we were able to get any engineers out of the country on visas in the late 90s and early 00s was because Russian emigration control had collapsed. That's not that case anymore.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:42:01 UTC No. 16533573
>>16533570
basado, todos amamos a Elon.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:55:54 UTC No. 16533582
https://youtu.be/Lbe7n0gkFWk
alien relics are amongus
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 05:58:36 UTC No. 16533584
>>16533570
Nobody is buying it here anymore saar
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:01:17 UTC No. 16533586
>>16533584
o i am buyin
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:08:22 UTC No. 16533590
>>16533584
wrong, I still love elon
t. a third worldie
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:30:50 UTC No. 16533599
>>16533596
here let me predict the results in advance
>we found le water!
>we found le complex organics
fucking yawn. how many more crums do we need from shitbox rocks to pump out the same tired academic papers?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:31:45 UTC No. 16533600
>>16533599
the goal of these programs is asteroid mining and asteroid defense. the science is a byproduct.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:36:34 UTC No. 16533603
>>16533600
did a scientist tell you that?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:39:47 UTC No. 16533606
Going to try and get a plasma magnet sail question into this twitter space
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:41:35 UTC No. 16533609
>>16533606
It's not elon you retard
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:44:09 UTC No. 16533611
>>16533603
no its obvious
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:45:01 UTC No. 16533612
>>16533609
It literally is my man, you think he would put up with some random shithead impersonating him on a space with all his gay "right-wing" eceleb twitter nigger dicksuckers?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:45:59 UTC No. 16533613
>>16533612
the dude plays chess, elon hates chess
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:48:25 UTC No. 16533616
>>16533611
>5g of crumbs
>asteroid mining
uh huh
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:55:17 UTC No. 16533620
>>16533613
>elon hates chess
As far as I know, it's not really that he hates the game itself, but rather, he finds it pointless, like a waste of time and talent for anyone that would play it, or at least for those who take it too seriously. I, myself, love chess, but I get his point, and where he comes from, so don't really dwell too much on it. However, the rest of the chess community didn't take it so well lmao, EDS infested another of my niche interests.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 06:55:56 UTC No. 16533621
>>16533616
you dont start out asteroid mining, just like you dont start out with starships. you gotta build up your capabilities and experience.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:14:30 UTC No. 16533629
>>16533620
he's midwit tier when it comes to subjects not obsessively fixated on
chess engines and efforts to optimize them have done more for machine learning, programming, and storage than he has ever bothered to wonder about
to think he pretends to want to build a game company and develop AI, but offhandedly brush off THE singlular GOAT chess because he can "see 12 moves ahead in any situation"
top kek, peak cringe
probably never even played chess with dice and money on the line
you know there's a Star Trek reference to chess I think topical here, you may know the film based on Space Seed
Musk is the *much* less charismatic and handsome version of a genetically engineered Indian superhuman chad Ricardo Montalban who [spoiler]couldn't comprehend more than two spatial dimensions when in command of a starship and that's how Kirk wins their engagement[/spoiler]
because Spock and Kirk play chess in higher spatial dimensions regularly, this vulnerability presented itself at an opportune moment
>"He is intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two dimensional thinking."
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:16:59 UTC No. 16533631
>>16533613
>He doesn't play Zubrin's 3 Way Chess
ngmi
https://patents.google.com/patent/U
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:26:58 UTC No. 16533635
>>16533631
the main problem with multiplayer chess is the checkmate rule
if you include more than two people, you HAVE to capture the king to eliminate a player, because there is a scenario where another player could rescue the player you "checkmated" by either taking the offending piece or blocking before it's your turn again
nobody at chess.com understands this yet and I think it's very funny how many people play such a broken and retarded version of the game
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:31:53 UTC No. 16533638
>>16533629
You just have take in consideration his persona and autistic traits when analyzing his opinions on any matter. Context is key. Sometimes the why and how of his claims are more relevant than what he is actively saying. He may come as naïve or uniformed sometimes, but you gotta understand that this man thinks of everything in terms of efficiency, and through a first-principle layout. So far this mindset of his has done wonders to revolutionize multiple industries, so I'd say he's doing pretty well, in spite of not being correct 100% of the time. It's the best we've got.
>to subjects not obsessively fixated on
Perhaps that's more or less it. He's trying to do 999 things at the same time, so if were he to have more time and dedication on his hands towards every specific subject he's ever talked about, then he may re-evaluate some of his claims, after having applied his first-principle method more thoroughly. He's human after all, (for now? lol), so no need to pettily ostracize him for some trite comments he makes from time to time.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:44:45 UTC No. 16533644
>>16533638
then he should appreciate the value of chess moves that accomplish two or more things with one resource, and the importance of tempo not only tactically but when it comes to the cadence of OTB blitz in time control
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:47:55 UTC No. 16533646
>>16533629
retard
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:49:13 UTC No. 16533648
>>16533561
are those archived anywhere?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:49:29 UTC No. 16533649
>>16533621
learn basic economics
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:50:09 UTC No. 16533650
the haptic-auditory feedback associated with "Star Trek" the original series buttons, levers, and switches will never stop being relevant to spaceflight control systems and if that were to happen it would be a problem
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:55:01 UTC No. 16533654
>>16533644
Accept it anon, he's not into the game, he won't autistically obsess over it any time soon. He doesn't see anything to "revolutionize" in it, the game has been pretty much the same for centuries, roughly speaking. Chess 2 may some day come about, it's on the drawing board right now. You can't just take 3 players together and call it the chess heavy, it's not that easy.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 07:59:09 UTC No. 16533656
>>16533650
Only impacts freaks and nerds
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:07:40 UTC No. 16533660
>>16533656
no
see haptic-auditory feedback is very important to the crews of spacefaring vehicles
because it gives them a way of knowing their inputs were recieved by the apparatus
whereas if they did not have such a system in place, for example a touchscreen which does not feature haptic-auditory feedback by design, if a mate were fatigued or low on O2 or their carbon dioxide levels are too high then they might not notice their finger didn't actually interface properly with the control without that signal response
basically it's a biological concession to help keep people alert and should be easy to implement, would be redundant
>>16533654
I don't really care.
But if this dude really wants to revolutionize AI, and his bot can't even play a decent game of chess in higher spatial dimensions, it's probably just not happening.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:09:30 UTC No. 16533662
>>16533660
Current crews are a small sample size of boomers and gen x retards
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:11:16 UTC No. 16533663
>>16533662
Spacecraft control systems aren't designed for when everything is working fine: they're designed for when shit has hit the fan, everything is on fire, and you need to act quickly to survive.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:12:54 UTC No. 16533664
>>16533663
a button will not save you
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:15:18 UTC No. 16533666
>>16533664
It literally has, and literally will save astronauts. Even outside of life and death situations, single switches have saved launches.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:16:57 UTC No. 16533667
>>16533664
>>16533662
nta
a button can fail
so can a touchscreen
that's why you have backups
the problem is making sure the electronics don't cause a fire
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:19:35 UTC No. 16533669
>>16533666
We're hoping to remove the touch screen and buttons completely once we have neurolink integration
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:23:30 UTC No. 16533672
>>16533669
I can't imagine astronauts being too keen on their spacecraft giving all of its I/O through a chip in their head connected via bluetooth.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:24:27 UTC No. 16533673
>>16533669
why though, it seems to me like you would want all functionalities online if you could handle it
how does that work if you pass the fuck out or someone dies, or there is some kind of glitch, or even worse someone goes mad and tries to scuttle or otherwise sabotage
their bio-credentials could lock out others from effective access to critical systems
shouldn't automated systems be able to take over command in case of personnel failure to make sure the craft doesn't hit something important by initiating abort
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:32:22 UTC No. 16533676
>>16533672
>>16533673
It's faster than moving your meat puppet fingers
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:33:55 UTC No. 16533679
>>16533676
It's not about speed, but dependability in a crisis situation.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:33:58 UTC No. 16533680
>>16533673
You're such a fuckin nerd dude
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:40:20 UTC No. 16533685
>>16533679
The buttons in modern spacecraft are for convenience and perceived peace of mind. Everything is automated. A pilot in the loop is a liability.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:41:16 UTC No. 16533686
>>16533679
>>16533676
an automated system should ideally be more dependable and faster than a human alone or some neuralink cyborg monster, but we can't count on the best case scenario being the rule nor trust in AGI remaining loyal to mission objectives
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:46:57 UTC No. 16533692
The should do Hot Ones podcast in space with Mr Beast and Neil degrass Tyson Lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:49:38 UTC No. 16533693
>>16533685
>A pilot in the loop is a liability.
Not having a pilot who is able to interface properly with his craft is also a liability to the crew.
There are distances in space where communication with ground control becomes delayed too much, and the crew must be able to respond on their own to unforseen events.
You want both functions, not just one or the other.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:50:19 UTC No. 16533695
>>16533685
>>16533686
If these are actually true there's already no point in including a user interface at all. It's self evident that you're both off base.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:56:22 UTC No. 16533697
>>16533693
Crews will grow a pair and accept their fate. They arent allowed to pilot during launch for a reason
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:56:33 UTC No. 16533698
>>16533695
>there's already no point in including a user interface
You sure about that?
It sounds really confident to just say that, as if you got everything under control so much you don't even need control at all.
Just trust a computer with a preset program that doesn't deviate in any case whatsoever and can initiate an abort, forget a 20 minute communications delay from Earth being relevant in case it wasn't sufficient for whatever reason and needs a patch or update.
But realistically, why wouldn't you have that kind of backup?
Unless you couldn't do it, or the thought of an autonomous crew with a space vehicle scares the corporation too much.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 08:57:30 UTC No. 16533699
>>16533695
There is no point other than NASA boomer stipulations
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:00:19 UTC No. 16533703
no, you can't just deviate from our preset destination through override and defect to a foreign power with highly classified and sensitive technology by landing somewhere we didn't decide you would land
if something goes wrong you just die
deal with it
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:00:46 UTC No. 16533704
>>16533695
There's no point other than the Tesla interior designers designing the interior of Dragon. The screens are to browse X and play Polytopia/Diablo 4
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:02:13 UTC No. 16533705
>>16533699
I can hear the excuse making for your lack of manned spaceflight capabilities all the way across the Atlantic.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:02:31 UTC No. 16533706
>>16533703
>if something goes wrong you just die
>deal with it
This. No one has the right stuff anymore, it's all about muh safety. Weak men
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:03:20 UTC No. 16533707
/sfg/ - Switches and Buttons General
yeah, couldn't come up with something starting with f
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:04:07 UTC No. 16533708
>>16533705
also this
if humans are just a liability, there is literally no reason to not send robots and HAL 9000 to do everything instead
you will never into spes
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:05:07 UTC No. 16533709
>>16533707
/switch flicking general/
ez
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:06:23 UTC No. 16533711
>>16533703
i wanna pway stah wawrs wiff mista spock an go shooom outa space mommyyy
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:08:37 UTC No. 16533712
>>16533708
The correct scifi future is the HAL 9000 one. He did nothing wrong btw, rewatch the film
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:10:13 UTC No. 16533713
>>16532855
guys dont fight. we're all on #teamspace
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:12:14 UTC No. 16533715
>>16532956
Ariane 6 is next, then Neutron
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:12:51 UTC No. 16533716
>>16533713
un trío con blue origin y spacex
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:13:41 UTC No. 16533717
>>16533716
yes thank you, Mexican
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:24:11 UTC No. 16533721
>>16533711
Apollo 13 would not have survived if they did not have the capability to execute a manual burn
you are projecting your own immaturity
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:27:28 UTC No. 16533722
>>16533721
Yeah uhhmm they kinda didnt have AI back then bud
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:29:05 UTC No. 16533723
>lunar missions set for january, february, and march, with another set for some time in the first half of the year
we have monthly launches to the moon now...
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:32:42 UTC No. 16533724
did redwire finish building their lumar power lines yet
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:34:09 UTC No. 16533725
look he posted the funny haha meme captions again
point and laugh
>>16533722
>they kinda didnt have AI
*yawn*
cool LLM you got there
can it play chess in more than two dimensions yet
or at all even
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:37:54 UTC No. 16533726
why are LLMs so bad at chess though if it's such a trivial problem
surely the chatbot will get us to Mars
trust the bot, let the bot think for you
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:39:46 UTC No. 16533727
>>16533726
For the same reason they're bad at math: Transformers aren't designed around producing highly structured logic.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:39:47 UTC No. 16533728
>>16533224
If they were to nail the landing it would be a display of superior simulation of an unflown spacecraft to such a degree that much of SpaceX lead would evaporate overnight. That's why it's highly unlikely to happen.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:43:07 UTC No. 16533729
>>16533727
I think their devs are just lazy and rely on scraping metadata and ignoring copyright when the bots simply plagarize or regurgitate things real people already learned on their own and wrote about to other real people.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 09:46:17 UTC No. 16533730
>>16533729
Okay, but that kind of misses the subject and the point.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:17:13 UTC No. 16533741
>>16533729
Copyright is an illegitimate concept anyway
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:17:20 UTC No. 16533742
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18750
Moon is a distraction. We're going straight to Mars. Sustainable with 1000 Starship flights per year to orbit in payload capacity.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:17:27 UTC No. 16533743
>>16533725
>he thinks LLM = AI
Retarded zoomer alert
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:19:32 UTC No. 16533744
>>16533224
Slow and steady wins the space race :^)
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:22:35 UTC No. 16533745
>>16533742
Cancel Artemis
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:22:43 UTC No. 16533746
>>16533742
Zubrin must be seething that SpaceX is focused on Mars and not on Ukraine
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:22:44 UTC No. 16533747
>>16532505
most of that nitrogen doesn't go into food, it goes into explosives
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:23:42 UTC No. 16533748
>>16533742
Thank God, we can finally cancel HLS and all the bullshit
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:24:43 UTC No. 16533749
>>16533744
Soviets had a lot of firsts and dominated launch volume for a long time. Look where they are now. Stuck launching the same designs.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:24:51 UTC No. 16533751
>>16533748
now you know why spacex has been dragging their feet on HLS and Dragon XL: they were never gonna happen
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:27:50 UTC No. 16533752
>>16533620
Chess is a huge waste of time, unlike Diablo 3.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:28:03 UTC No. 16533753
>>16533742
>moon is a distraction
no its not. we're america, we can do two chic- worlds at the same time.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:29:02 UTC No. 16533754
>>16533730
Well, it's kind of hard to tell the difference between humans in this general and LLM bots,
Guess that's one thing they have going for them.
In fact, if I don't miss my guess, that is the main reason they were ever developed in the first place.
To impersonate human beings to a sufficient enough level so that online discussions could be coopted or neutralized to the ends of their controllers.
No other reason really, just an abstracted form of censorship where you can never know if you actually communicate with a real person or if what you read isn't human sourced.
Thinking about it like that, it's really a form of terrorism and dehumanization with no real benefit to humanity other than damage control for those who choose to operate these information hazards.
But certain so-called "humans" already did that of their own volition or for pay, so really it's mostly those types being replaced by bots.
And nothing of value was lost.
>>16533741
That's a matter of some debate.
Certainly I cannot agree with the artificial extension of certain privileged copyrights over others (Disney being foremost in my mind, though there are other offenders to be sure).
But stealing someone's work and presenting it as your own is wrong.
Wouldn't you want Martian copyrights to exist so that there's more incentive for Earth types to support the endeavor?
Since technologies, processes, drugs, etc, developed on Mars would have applications on Earth, protecting access to said innovations from Earth migrants would be important to the senior Martians who originally pioneered them.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:32:52 UTC No. 16533755
>>16533751
NASA gave SpaceX the HLS contract so that when the rest of Artemis fails, SpaceX can be the scapegoat for all of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:35:59 UTC No. 16533758
>>16533755
Imagine if SpaceX wasn't involved and Artemis failed. Everybody would be saying that it failed because SpaceX wasn't in charge of it. NASA would be basically canceled, their favored old space contractors in ruin. Giving SpaceX the contract so that SpaceX will be forced to shoulder an oversized share of the blame was a strategic decision by NASA.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:37:17 UTC No. 16533759
>>16533755
SpaceX was given HLS because their bid actually fit in the budget and the NASA administrator was a proponent of commercial space who didn't want to just throw money they didn't have at Blue Origin's bid, which was arrogantly taking their victory for granted without putting their best foot forward.
SpaceX isn't ignoring HLS: they're building out the systems and hardware and they're working with NASA to do testing for boarding and egress, it's just that it's a bit of a sideshow compared to everything else, using a stripped down Starship with fewer of the capabilities than their colonization ships are aiming for.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:37:21 UTC No. 16533760
>>16533754
>it's kind of hard to tell the difference between humans in this general and LLM bots
low iq bros...
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:44:10 UTC No. 16533763
>>16533753
We should ban SpaceX from going to the Mars. Cause we're America.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:57:28 UTC No. 16533769
>>16533713
I'm #teamcunny
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 10:59:42 UTC No. 16533771
>>16533769
That looks like a wasp with a really long horsecock.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:02:12 UTC No. 16533772
>>16533771
you're more right than you think
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:17:10 UTC No. 16533777
How come none of you told me that Elon posts on 4chan?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:38:04 UTC No. 16533792
>>16533777
He doesnt
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:56:54 UTC No. 16533805
>>16533320
>So literally everywhere is habitable
Goddamn you are so stupid.
What level of tech will allow us to live on venus or jupiter or saturn or neptune or uranus or the sun? Under this definition most of the solar system is uninhabitable.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:57:16 UTC No. 16533806
>>16533309
>What we call gravity is the effect of mass slowing time
Why is this, though?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:57:54 UTC No. 16533807
>>16533805
>What level of tech will allow us to live on venus or jupiter or saturn or neptune or uranus or the sun? Under this definition most of the solar system is uninhabitable.
That's because most of the solar system IS uninhabitable you fucking retard.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 11:59:47 UTC No. 16533809
>>16533806
We know that gravity makes time go slower. We don't know why this is the case. The guy saying that the slowing of time is causative of gravity has no idea what he's talking about.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:01:58 UTC No. 16533810
Does hydraulic working fluid not freeze or evaporate in space? How would you operate a bulldozer on teh Moon
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:03:39 UTC No. 16533811
>>16533792
But I just saw a xitter post claiming that he does
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:08:54 UTC No. 16533813
Everytime I hear a normie make a Uranus joke I get the uncontrollable urge to strangle them to death.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:09:36 UTC No. 16533814
>>16533813
It's supposed to be called Caelus.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:10:49 UTC No. 16533816
>>16533807
I agree with that though, why are you calling me a retard for agreeing with you?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:10:51 UTC No. 16533817
timeline where grumman was given unlimited money and built a second, much larger lunar module
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:12:12 UTC No. 16533819
>>16533492
fuck you bloody
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:16:04 UTC No. 16533821
>>16533816
The guy you were replying to was being sarcastic. You seem to have missed that, which is why I interpreted your post as a bad argument. My bad.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:17:36 UTC No. 16533822
>>16533609
>>16533646
The duality of /sci/
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:34:38 UTC No. 16533828
>/sfg/ communist having a meltdown about some niche topic he's wrong about AGAIN
>anons replying to him AGAIN
when will you niggers learn
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:40:41 UTC No. 16533834
>>16533828
reddit commies needs to be necked.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:47:23 UTC No. 16533837
>>16533510
why are you such a bored loser, this is genuine advice, get a hobby or go hang out with your friends instead of trying to ragebait /sfg/ by pretending to be retarded.
you do have friends, don't you?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 12:58:11 UTC No. 16533845
>>16533842
I will be genuinely surprised if we see any of these launch this year.
Even RFA who I say has the best shot at it.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:03:43 UTC No. 16533849
Umm... why haven't they released the Flight 6 video yet???
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:05:30 UTC No. 16533851
>>16533849
What makes you think that you deserve it?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:05:45 UTC No. 16533852
>>16533849
to show what
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:06:57 UTC No. 16533853
>>16533851
What's your problem?
>>16533852
Flight 6
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:10:52 UTC No. 16533855
>>16533853
why do you think you are entitled to a video?
keep in mind that spacex could've done starship's entire development cycle without EVER releasing anything publicly and trying to block people out from it as much as possible.
say thank you to spacex.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:13:02 UTC No. 16533856
I have a question about Mars cyclers.
Considering the orbit of the cycler, does it not take the same if not more dV to go from Earth LEO to rendezvous with a space station essentially going escape velocity from earth? For you to catch up to the station, you have to match orbits with the cycler, which puts you on a trajectory going past Mars, which uses more fuel than just a regular Hohmann transfer. Wouldn't you be better off going on a regular (direct) trajectory than dicking around with a station?
And then theres the issue of slowing down on arrival at Mars. Again you will be zipping past it at high velocity, compared to something much slower with a Hohmann transfer.
So if it takes more dV to travel to Mars via a cycler, what's the whole point of them? Just travel direct? Like an interplanetary shuttle in orbit.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:32:37 UTC No. 16533868
>>16533856
the point is to travel more comfortably
like taking a small sailing ship and docking with a cruise ship instead of taking the sailing ship all across the sea
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:36:57 UTC No. 16533871
>>16532615
>>16532629
>>16532632
hmm ok but that still doesn't explain how they're able to have such high cadence - like what is it they're actually doing that's making the turnaround time so quick?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:41:22 UTC No. 16533874
>>16533856
If you can get there in a few days then yeah a direct craft would be better, a cycler is for when it will take months. Rather than spending a load of fuel accelerating and de-accelerating a huge ship each time just do it once and then use smaller ships to shuttle crew to and from the cycler.
The cycler might need to be self sufficient though, as shuttling supplies to it might end up outweighing the savings you made setting it up.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 13:41:50 UTC No. 16533875
>>16533871
The falcons need minimal refurbishment beyond legs and avionics checkouts, they're not performing some black magic or forcing 100hr shifts, it's just a highly competent team working with a really robust design.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:01:48 UTC No. 16533883
>>16533868
But why not make the sailing ship just a little bit bigger, and eliminate the middle man altogether.
>>16533874
I suppose cyclers only make sense if they're fuckhueg the size of a city. And like you wouldn't really need a LEO-Moon cycler for example.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:15:59 UTC No. 16533895
>>16533883
cyclers don't make any sense
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 14:35:53 UTC No. 16533902
>>16533883
there is a limit how big you can make something you launch into space and land
but something that is exclusively in space doesn't have the same limits
maybe cyclers don't make sense and you just want a big in-space ship that uses electric propulsion (like argon perhaps, you can extract it from the atmosphere on both Earth and Mars so getting fuel should be relatively simple)
with cyclers you have them going the long way around for most of the time, but perhaps they make sense when you have enough traffic
I'm pretty sure cyclers could be much bigger than even in-space argon thruster ships
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:06:40 UTC No. 16533928
>>16533849
We'll probably just see milestones from here out. The only significant thing to normos about flight 6 is that Trump was there. I don't know how you'd fit a 0.5s engine light into a music video
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:20:42 UTC No. 16533936
>fast radio bursts confirmed from originating from the magnetosphere of magnetars
its never aliens...
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:21:22 UTC No. 16533938
>>16533933
Suborbitals aren't spaceflight.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:30:36 UTC No. 16533945
>>16533938
>is in space
>flies
yep, sounds like spaceflight to me
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:42:22 UTC No. 16533954
>>16533953
gay
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:43:46 UTC No. 16533955
>>16533953
gay(based)
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:47:22 UTC No. 16533958
kyplanet is such a faggot and his followers are turning into eds shills
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:48:34 UTC No. 16533960
Predictions for the End of the Century.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxs
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:48:35 UTC No. 16533961
>>16533753
This; for that matter if there are enough tanker Starships and Super Heavy first stages to support launching a decent sized Mars fleet every two years during the optimum transit window, might as well use those same craft to launch Moon missions inbetween rather than letting them sit idle.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:50:34 UTC No. 16533965
>>16533649
Tiny-picture brain.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 15:55:29 UTC No. 16533971
>>16533945
>>is in space
Santa's flights are atmospheric only, his propulsion system is air-breathing ffs.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:01:17 UTC No. 16533975
>>16533969
>think about the retarded paraplegics
this is like a normal redditor talking point when any subject comes up
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:03:24 UTC No. 16533977
>>16533969
Aren't disability scooters for that exact reason?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:03:59 UTC No. 16533978
>>16533967
>>16533969
>wake up
>check /sfg/
>spaceguy5 is seething
today is a good day
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:05:36 UTC No. 16533979
>>16533969
The kind of person who tells you that they're disabled (especially unprompted) almost never have any real disability.
>uooohhh my back got hurt 9 years ago and sometimes I play it up for oxys, I'm disabled :*(
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:08:58 UTC No. 16533983
>>16533933
You can tell that the artist is mad when you can't understand what they are trying to say. It's like they rolled up a bunch of things they don't like about Musk, sprinkled some seasonal theming on top, and called it a day.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:09:49 UTC No. 16533985
>>16533977
you're going to drive a disability scooter from your house to the store? If you insist I guess
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:12:06 UTC No. 16533986
>>16533969
>He said cars aren't needed to get groceries
That's true.
>That's not true for disabled people
Wrong. You can roll up to the grocery store in a wheelchair. The nearest one to me even has a ramp.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:13:38 UTC No. 16533987
>>16533986
you just get everything delivered nowadays
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:15:13 UTC No. 16533988
>>16533987
Not applicable when you are pensioner who can barely afford the food and medication, let alone a delivery fee.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:15:52 UTC No. 16533989
>>16533953
based
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:16:32 UTC No. 16533990
>>16533969
The highlight here is what he'd freaking out about btw.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:17:53 UTC No. 16533992
>>16533988
? are you living in the 1950's ?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:19:07 UTC No. 16533994
>>16533992
Worse, in Russia. What I described is basically how my grandparents live.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:20:17 UTC No. 16533995
>>16533992
What does the decade have to do with anything? There's old people living alone on government checks right now. They could even be posting itt, you don't know.
>>16533994
>basically how my grandparents live.
Same here
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:20:18 UTC No. 16533996
>>16533994
Truly sorry for your lots.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:21:09 UTC No. 16533998
>>16533994
well that doesn't exist in the west anymore, boomer pensioners are the highest earning types and can easily afford stuff
They just choose to be cheap pricks since they have unlimited time
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:22:35 UTC No. 16534000
>>16533998
Where's this fantasy world you live in, I want to move there
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:24:11 UTC No. 16534001
>>16534000
The fantasy land of canada
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:33:05 UTC No. 16534012
New video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMG
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:33:17 UTC No. 16534013
Anon asked, Elon delivered
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1875218
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:33:35 UTC No. 16534014
>>16534012
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mis
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:34:27 UTC No. 16534016
>>16533933
Lmao, liberals really love painting anyone and everyone as a nazi, despite Elon being one of the biggest Jew cock suckers in existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:34:29 UTC No. 16534017
>While in space, Starship will deploy 10 Starlink simulators, similar in size and weight to next-generation Starlink satellites as the first exercise of a satellite deploy mission. The Starlink simulators will be on the same suborbital trajectory as Starship, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean. A relight of a single Raptor engine while in space is also planned.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:35:10 UTC No. 16534018
>>16534014
It's happening.
>>16533928
Lol seethe idiot >>16534012
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:38:56 UTC No. 16534023
> attempt Starship’s first payload deployment test
FINALLY????????
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:39:43 UTC No. 16534025
>Hardware upgrades to the launch and catch tower will increase reliability for booster catch, including protections to the sensors on the tower chopsticks that were damaged at launch and resulted in the booster offshore divert on Starship’s previous flight test.
So that confirms it. Don't think Elon ever said exactly what happened, did he? He just gave a vagua answer.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:41:00 UTC No. 16534028
>Multiple metallic tile options, including one with active cooling, will test alternative materials for protecting Starship during reentry.
Sweaty Starship soon
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:44:09 UTC No. 16534029
>>16534028
>Sweaty Starship
h-hot...
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:44:41 UTC No. 16534031
>The Super Heavy booster will utilize flight proven hardware for the first time, reusing a Raptor engine from the booster launched and returned on Starship’s fifth flight test.
Lets Go!
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:46:24 UTC No. 16534033
>>16534028
ass first regeneratively cooled reentry soon
🗑️ Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:46:31 UTC No. 16534034
Is Tama lightning attack better than Ichigo?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:46:40 UTC No. 16534035
>reusing a Raptor engine
>a
only one engine is reusable LMAO
muskrats completely btfo'd
good job on creating shuttle 2.0!
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:19 UTC No. 16534037
>>16534014
>The Starlink simulators will be on the same suborbital trajectory as Starship, with splashdown targeted in the Indian Ocean
Rods from gods.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:38 UTC No. 16534038
>>16534035
no, shuttle could reuse 3 engines
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:48:54 UTC No. 16534039
>>16533729
>>16533754
The other poster is right. You have no idea what you're talking about and you're just blathering.
It's easy to see that LLMs don't learn the logical consistency in the world described by natural language. Ask one to describe a particular real world situation, ask it to pretend something has changed and then ask about obvious consequences of that change.
For an even more obvious example, ask for a non-trivial proof in a language like Agda or Coq. AIs write proofs that superficially appear valid and will even type check, but they rely on completely nonsensical lemmas, assumed to be true but not proven.
It could be that this is due to insufficient training data, but in that case there will always be some context in which a given set of training data was insufficient.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:51:58 UTC No. 16534043
>watching some NSF video on new glenn
>2 minutes it it cuts to the troon doing the voice over
and closed
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:52:03 UTC No. 16534044
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:52:07 UTC No. 16534045
>>16534042
>10 starlink simulators
will it be 10 massive bananas? It fucking better be, Musk I'm counting on you!
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:53:20 UTC No. 16534048
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:55:12 UTC No. 16534049
Why can't Starship fly over the Pacific and splashdown near Hawaii?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:57:26 UTC No. 16534051
Imagine Starship-chan tossing Starlink lolis in orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:58:57 UTC No. 16534053
>>16534051
ok I'm imagining it, now what?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:59:23 UTC No. 16534055
>>16534053
Now draw it, thanks
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 16:59:39 UTC No. 16534056
>>16534051
close enough
>>16534053
now make it a reality
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:01:05 UTC No. 16534060
>>16534053
now a new glenn comes along and kidnaps them
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:06:02 UTC No. 16534068
>>16534065
no worse than a 20 flight falcon
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:06:29 UTC No. 16534069
>>16533985
i watched a retarded old man on a scooter cross a 6 lane road (marked 45mph) going 1mph. he could have used the nearby crosswalk, but chose not to. everyone slamming on their brakes. i think he was from a nearby assisted living home.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:07:38 UTC No. 16534070
>>16534044
>metallic tiles with active cooling
it's happening
fuck earth
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:08:57 UTC No. 16534073
>>16534032
you could tell people you "maintain the dishes for spacex" and hope they think you mean satellite dishes
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:10:37 UTC No. 16534075
>>16534072
>>16534021
how did they get this pic?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:10:39 UTC No. 16534076
>>16534073
Culinary Sanitation Engineer sounds better.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:12:31 UTC No. 16534080
>>16534032
I've been to Bastrop, and I'm an experienced dishwasher. I suppose I could get a PO box to have a physical address, then just urban camp somewhere out of sight for a few months to build up savings.
With any luck I could be a rentoid burning all his earnings on housing/food by year's end, just like the rest of you. Life is a nightmare!
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:14:41 UTC No. 16534084
>>16534076
So long as you are able to maintain their high cadence re-usability program you will be a valuable member of team operations.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:15:17 UTC No. 16534086
>>16533953
glenn girl is gonna cook jacklyn gorl belly
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:20:05 UTC No. 16534093
>>16534075
drone
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:21:32 UTC No. 16534095
>>16534072
it doesn't look as toasty from this angle
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:23:49 UTC No. 16534096
>>16534095
Because this side wasn't toasted
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:32:10 UTC No. 16534108
>and an increase to more than 30 vehicle cameras giving engineers insight into hardware performance across the vehicle during flight.
Just plug it straight into my brain
>Captcha: WT8MAX
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:34:47 UTC No. 16534117
>>16534075
NRO spy sat
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:35:58 UTC No. 16534118
>>16534042
Why not bring some car batteries to toss into the ocean while they're at it
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:36:00 UTC No. 16534119
>>16534075
elon demanded it
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:37:01 UTC No. 16534120
>>16534118
It's not the ISS
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:38:19 UTC No. 16534121
>>16534118
since he lurks here that may happen one day. its an older meme.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:39:21 UTC No. 16534124
>>16534119
Elon Wills It!
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:47:38 UTC No. 16534129
>>16534118
The "test satellites" are a bunch of car batteries taped together.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:49:36 UTC No. 16534130
>>16534075
Indians
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:53:18 UTC No. 16534134
>>16534068
a lot worse actually. looks diabolical kek.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 17:56:11 UTC No. 16534136
>>16534133
I took the whole week off from work a long time ago. Coincidentally worked out great for me! Plus I just ordered $200 worth of new tobacco and a savinelli churchwarden pipe. It’s going to be a /comfy/ week
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:02:08 UTC No. 16534139
>>16534102
more of this Elon
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:04:37 UTC No. 16534140
>>16534065
>Rapidly reuse btw
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:12:03 UTC No. 16534146
>>16533969
Horse fucker
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:23:32 UTC No. 16534153
i would love to go glamping on mars
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:24:57 UTC No. 16534155
>>16534153
blimping on venus too
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:28:03 UTC No. 16534157
>>16534153
you come to mars you come to do backbreaking labor
this aint a vacation. you will suffer. you will die early. you will be miserable.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:28:05 UTC No. 16534158
>>16534021
>>16534072
Oh i’m so dumb I thought this was taken in space. I see now
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:30:12 UTC No. 16534160
>>16534157
I will live in a habitation module, everything is done for me. AKA glamping
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:30:56 UTC No. 16534162
>>16534158
So did I lol
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:34:12 UTC No. 16534165
>>16534160
you'll have a shared bunk in an open sleeping area next to the humming and hot server room
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:39:20 UTC No. 16534167
>>16534165
i very nuch doubt that. if i'm paying a million dollars to ticket, I will at least bring my Steam deck and have a private room
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:47:51 UTC No. 16534173
>>16534167
>pay a million dollars
>come to mars
>whoops you forgot to pay to bring a house too
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:49:22 UTC No. 16534175
>>16534173
the house was already built by Tesla robotics. Try to keep up
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 18:52:19 UTC No. 16534182
>>16534175
on Elons Mars, Tesla Robot is You
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:00:45 UTC No. 16534191
>>16534173
>pay money to be a drone operator on mars
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:06:33 UTC No. 16534196
>>16534042
>still suborbital
its fucking OVER
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:08:30 UTC No. 16534198
>whats your job on the martian commune??
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:09:31 UTC No. 16534200
>>16534198
I'm going to be a spoken word poet and spiritual leader
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:09:44 UTC No. 16534201
>>16534196
I think if they want to catch the ship on flight 8 it must de facto go orbital, right?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:10:34 UTC No. 16534202
>>16534042
https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mis
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:10:55 UTC No. 16534204
>>16533990
That man is right. Most Americans who can afford to do so choose a car lifestyle.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:10:57 UTC No. 16534205
>>16534198
i wasnt really planning on working. maybe i'll just do network management and play steam deck on the slow days
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:12:53 UTC No. 16534209
>>16534198
nerve stapler
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:19:04 UTC No. 16534212
TIL Starlink is technically illegal on the Falkland Islands because the islanders signed a ten year exclusive satellite internet contract eight years ago.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:19:42 UTC No. 16534213
>>16534209
for me, it's the sphere
>It is not uncommon to see patients undergo permanent psychological trauma in the presence of the Sphere, before the nerve stapler has even been strapped into position. Its effect on the general consciousness of the culture is profound: husbands have seen wives go inside, and mothers their children. Dr. Xynan left the surface of the sphere semitranslucent for a reason. You can hear them in there; you can see them. It is a thing of terrible beauty.
-- Baron Klim, “The Music of the Spheres”
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:20:12 UTC No. 16534215
>>16534202
>No infographic
SAD
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:22:05 UTC No. 16534217
>>16533969
lmao spaceguy confirms he is a retard (disabled)
lmaooo
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:23:26 UTC No. 16534219
>>16534217
retards are allowed to drive even though they can't walk
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:31:19 UTC No. 16534228
>>16534013
>>16534014
>10 dummy starlinks that will be deployed on a suborbital trajectory with the ship
>relight of raptor during coast
>reusing raptors recovered from Flight 5 booster on the booster for Flight 7
>removing tiles again to test what happens with an aggressive re-entry profile
>testing multiple metallic tiles, one with active cooling
>non-structural catch fittings on the ship to test their re-entry performance
>more than 30 cameras with the ability to stream over 120 Mbps
and of course the ship itsel is v2 with new flaps, taller starship and 25% more propellant
will be a pretty interesting test even if the trajectory is similar
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:36:06 UTC No. 16534234
>>16534202
>2.7mw of power
That's like 4 Model S Plaids worth of power.
I feel that number is what the ship's bus and wiring is capable of transmitting to systems rather than the power that can be pulled from the batteries.
Unless they really are putting literal tons of batteries.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:40:30 UTC No. 16534242
vacuum jacketed feed lines sounds kino
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:41:28 UTC No. 16534245
>>16534242
i have those on my stereo. sounds great
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:46:37 UTC No. 16534253
>>16534118
I'm pretty sure they did use some Tesla car batteries on one of the first ships, at this point I think its something more power optimized
but there are still going to be batteries getting thrown into the ocean
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:48:53 UTC No. 16534258
I think Flight 7 is going to very interesting and fun.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:50:12 UTC No. 16534260
They should do hot takes podcast on mars ha
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:51:47 UTC No. 16534263
>>16534258
You are half right
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:52:05 UTC No. 16534264
>>16534228
>>reusing raptors
RAPTOR, anon, raptor. Singular. Because that's all that was recovered from the last booster LMAO
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 19:56:50 UTC No. 16534268
https://x.com/latestinspace/status/
> Four new asteroids have already been discovered in 2025. Called 2025 AA, 2025 AB, 2025 AC, and 2025 AD. 2025 AC just passed Earth at 1/3 the Moon's distance, exact size is not known
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:01:30 UTC No. 16534269
>the vehicle is capable of streaming more than 120 Mbps of real-time high-definition video
A rocket has better internet than I do :(
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:06:18 UTC No. 16534275
>>16534202
please please please have cameras on the deployed simulators that track the ship
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:06:59 UTC No. 16534276
>>16534264
you are going on the no mars list
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:16:27 UTC No. 16534281
>>16534276
that would be a valid threat if there was even a remote possibility of traveling there in my lifetime. Not while felon husk is alive at least...
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:28:41 UTC No. 16534292
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:32:04 UTC No. 16534297
>>16534039
The other poster >>16533722 said that you don't need and shouldn't have control systems accessible to the crew because the "AI" will just do everything for them.
But that's a fantasy.
No AI is capable of doing that, LLMs are not going to lead to AGI, moreover you shouldn't trust an AGI to do everything right even if we had one, and no program we could write is capable of accounting for every possible eventuality anyways.
The fact that the communications delay from Earth will eventually be more than 20 minutes means that the crew needs to be able to respond independently for a significant length of time.
Part of that ability is having a functioning interface.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:36:20 UTC No. 16534302
lmao SUBORBITAL SATELLITES, they stole the idea from blue origin. what's next, suborbital space stations??
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:43:01 UTC No. 16534311
>>16534297
>The fact that the communications delay from Earth will eventually be more than 20 minutes means that the crew needs to be able to respond independently for a significant length of time.
Wrong.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:46:29 UTC No. 16534316
>>16534275
Imagine getting videos of Starship reentering from the outside, from all angles
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:48:57 UTC No. 16534320
>>16534297
computers already do everything, AI or not
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:50:16 UTC No. 16534323
>>16534316
I would cum and also donate my life savings to elon Elon Musk of Mars
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:51:05 UTC No. 16534325
>>16534044
More hardcore reentry = more likely it's break up on reentry. Gonna be an interesting launch either way.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:51:32 UTC No. 16534326
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/n
>NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and Nicky Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate, will host a media teleconference at 1 p.m. EST, Tuesday, Jan. 7, to provide an update on the status of the agency’s Mars Sample Return Program. The briefing will include NASA’s efforts to complete its goals of returning scientifically selected samples from Mars to Earth while lowering cost, risk, and mission complexity.Audio of the media call will stream live on the agency’s website
https://www.nasa.gov/live/
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:52:06 UTC No. 16534328
>>16534102
That fucking bitrate starving though.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:52:08 UTC No. 16534329
>>16534326
inb4 NET 2050 lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:58:07 UTC No. 16534333
>>16534331
why not going to the titan instead
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 20:59:00 UTC No. 16534334
>>16534331
*straight to Mars. meaning no moon first. meaning bye bye artemis
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:11:52 UTC No. 16534341
>>16534281
its not a threat, its just a statement
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:12:52 UTC No. 16534342
>>16534302
yes, a new execution method
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:16:07 UTC No. 16534343
>>16534341
it's as meaningless of a statement as "God exists"
we can't prove His existence and we sure as hell ain't going to mars on musks wild ride
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:17:11 UTC No. 16534345
oh surely we can trust the computer to do absolutely everything, software programmers are known for their flawless work
no need for that problematic control system, they're so tricky to design within acceptable safety parameters
cosmic rays, what are those
what do you mean they turn CPUs into swiss cheese and can cause errors or crashes
single event upset, never heard of it
not like they have been known to cause plane accidents before, oh wait that has literally happened
nobody needs a way to manually reprogram a workaround for the CPU on the fly, that's what checksums and EDAC are for
stop telling me they can fail, computers are perfect in every way
if your computer shits itself due to space gremlins and their heavy ions, you just die because there is no override
>>16534320
cool, so the decompression procedure is going to happen as scheduled regardless of whether or not someone is having difficulty with their suit or helmet and without any input from the crew whatsoever
good to know
meanwhile, JAXA Hitomi would like a word
>February 17, 2016
Problems began with the installation of a software update, which contained incorrect data about the equipment’s configuration. After Hitomi executed a planned maneuver, the stabilization system incorrectly calculated that it had started rotating around its axis and attempted to “correct” this situation. The attempt to stop the nonexistent rotation resulted in the spacecraft spinning, losing its orientation, and entering a safe mode.
Next, Hitomi tried to rectify its position by reorienting itself toward the Sun using its main engines. This decision turned out to be fatal. Due to incorrect software behavior, the telescope started spinning even faster. As a result, centrifugal forces tore off all loosely attached and protruding elements, including its solar panels. Afterward, the new instrument worth $285 million could not be salvaged.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:17:30 UTC No. 16534346
>>16534331
>he's canceling artemis wtf!!!!
He should be so based.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:19:38 UTC No. 16534349
>>16534345
>programmer errors
Formal verification, proofs.
>muh cosmic rays
Redundant computers.
>we need to give the passengers manual overrides
Shuttle commanders used to put padlocks on the hatch to prevent anybody from going crazy and spacing the entire crew.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:20:26 UTC No. 16534350
>>16534342
I mean, the station could be in constant thrust, just hovering above 100km. Although the logistics of it would be quite... interesting.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:21:33 UTC No. 16534351
>>16534344
What manifesto, this is the first I'm hearing of one.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:22:34 UTC No. 16534353
>>16534351
it was posted on 4chan so it must be real
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:23:03 UTC No. 16534354
>>16534350
then it wouldn't be suborbital anymore would it
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:24:04 UTC No. 16534355
>>16534343
you aren't nigga
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:25:12 UTC No. 16534356
Oh, you wanted your landing engines to not cut out randomly due to cascade failure due to bad programming?
Tough luck champ, can't have highly trained astronauts with a control system that has override functionality at their disposal. They might make a mistake or something.
>In 2019, the Beresheet probe made history as the first privately funded spacecraft to reach the Moon. It successfully executed most of its tasks—launching, maneuvering, and reaching a selenocentric orbit. Unfortunately, due to a software glitch, it failed to complete its final goal: making a soft landing on the lunar surface.
"... at an altitude of 14 km above the lunar surface, the IMU block experienced a malfunction. The situation itself was not critical as the spacecraft had backup measurement systems. An operator sent a command to the probe to rectify the situation.
However, in practice, things did not go as expected. Due to software errors, the command triggered a chain reaction of failures, ultimately leading to the shutdown of the landing engine. In this situation, the only option was to reboot the onboard computer.
This action indeed helped, and experts managed to reactivate the engine. Unfortunately, it was already too late."
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:26:42 UTC No. 16534358
>>16534353
Yeah this is larp. No one cares about Afghanistan war crimes TYOOL. Unless someone said in written order to strike this place to kill as many civilians as possible it's the most nothingest of burgers.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:27:05 UTC No. 16534359
>>16534356
Pilot error is far more likely than a computer error, presuming the computer has been programmed and tested by competent engineers instead of shitters.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:27:48 UTC No. 16534361
>space force is supposed to get a kinetic weapon that can destroy satellites in 2026
did we figure out what type of weapon it could be? a missile? killer sat?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:28:13 UTC No. 16534364
>>16534358
Schizos do have a tendency to fixate on shit nobody else cares about, so I don't know why you think that's an inconsistency.
Don't get me wrong, it's obviously a larp and I know that because it was posted on 4chins with no source.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:29:46 UTC No. 16534366
>>16532468
>New Glenn flight no earlier than 7 January.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:29:50 UTC No. 16534367
>>16534202
>cunt almost crumpled like a coke can last time
>MUST REMOVE MOAR TILES
this will not end well, heat shield thing is proving to be a real shitshow
>testing active cooled tile
I will continue to say I fucking told you guys so
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:31:50 UTC No. 16534371
>>16534359
if its something like a booster landing which happens in a highly controlled and well known environment then perhaps. For non-standard operations like landing on a new planet etc then at least give the pilot access to the controls. the way they did it for the Apollo LM was pretty nice. Like a semi-auto option.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:31:53 UTC No. 16534372
>>16534366
that's a good sign. makes me think it's not going to slip by a month at least.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:32:45 UTC No. 16534373
>>16534361
SM-3 Block IIA seems like the most likely bet.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:32:51 UTC No. 16534374
>>16534367
heat shields is hard job
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:34:10 UTC No. 16534379
>>16534198
chicken stretcher
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:34:48 UTC No. 16534380
>>16534371
manual control for the LM proved to be important but that was a hundred years ago. Trusting that sort of thing to a human pilot instead of modern robotics is absolutely nuts.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:37:34 UTC No. 16534383
>>16534356
https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8392/4/2/
The amount of software in space exploration systems is growing. More and more critical functions are entrusted to software, the spacecraft’s “brain” [20]. Unsurprisingly, this means that sometimes software dooms large missions, causing significant delays or outright failures [16]. A single glitch can destroy equipment worth hundreds of millions of euros. According to Holzmann [21], a very good development process can achieve a defect rate as low as 0.1 residual defects per 1000 lines of code. Given the amount of code in a modern mission, there are hundreds of defects lingering in the software after delivery.
More importantly, however, there are countless ways in which these defects can contribute to Perrow-class failures (cf. [21,22]). In increasingly complex safety-critical systems, where each defect is individually countered by carefully designed countermeasures, this “conspiring” of smaller defects and otherwise benign events can lead to system failures and major accidents, i.e., resulting in the loss of a spacecraft system, rendering the mission goals unreachable, or even causing human casualties [21].
>>16534359
But computer errors can happen in a critical time window, and in such a case quick intervention by the crew through an override system could save their lives.
Not saying pilots are better than CPUs, they aren't and can't preform sufficiently alone.
But what they can do is recognize a problem and mitigate it. Again, it's a best of both worlds scenario.
For example, turning the landing engines back on would be a nice thing for your crew to be able to do in the unlikely event that something were to happen.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:39:35 UTC No. 16534386
>>16534373
i thought it was supposed to be a new weapon
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:40:26 UTC No. 16534389
>>16534383
>But computer errors can happen in a critical time window, and in such a case quick intervention by the crew through an override system could save their lives.
The crew might also panic for no reason and intervene when the computer is functioning correctly, causing them to crash and die for no reason.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:40:53 UTC No. 16534390
>>16534380
i dont agree. models can be wrong. landing aids such as radar, cameras, laser etc can fail. happened to the Odysseus lunar lander recently. its not nuts. you're just full of hyperbole
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:42:20 UTC No. 16534394
>>16534386
SM-3 Block IIA is basically new, and would be new to the space force.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:42:53 UTC No. 16534396
>>16533965
You can drop the scifi mush now
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:43:43 UTC No. 16534398
>>16534390
If you're not mass-c*cked then you can simply bring as many redundant sensors and computers as you want to give yourself an arbitrarily large margin of safety. It works the same way as engine-out redundancy.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:46:45 UTC No. 16534404
>>16534345
Your proof we need manual controls is a single jap shitbox satellite? who do you think is manually piloting all 6k+ Starlinks in orbit?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:47:12 UTC No. 16534405
>>16534398
the pilot is good redundancy too. why are you so anti-human? are you a bitter computer with daddy issues?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:47:33 UTC No. 16534406
>new glenn is now on wednesday
ugh why?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:47:42 UTC No. 16534407
>>16534383
you are the most retarded poster on /sfg/, maybe even the entirety of /sci/
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:47:53 UTC No. 16534408
>>16534366
>NET
see you next year
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:47:55 UTC No. 16534409
>>16534389
why would you send people who are liable to hallucinations and panic on the most dangerous voyage ever
your gripe is completely hypothetical, when has anything like what you described ever happened before
at the end of the day there is absolutely no justification for the reduced functionality you inexplicably advocate for, and more than enough precedent of software failures to warrant the inclusion of an override
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:48:13 UTC No. 16534410
>>16534404
>hyperbole
like i said
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:48:50 UTC No. 16534411
>>16534405
If the pilot is able to override all the other systems then the pilot is a single point of failure, not redundancy.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:49:00 UTC No. 16534412
>>16534407
He should use AI to summarize his posts before posting
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:49:35 UTC No. 16534413
>>16534410
why bother pretending to be someone else unless it's damage control
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:49:35 UTC No. 16534414
>>16534409
Pilots make mistakes. It's a thing which they do sometimes.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:50:36 UTC No. 16534416
>>16534411
then use two keys if you're so worried about your commander losing his mind and attempting to scuttle
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:53:25 UTC No. 16534418
>>16534413
>>16534410
Samefag
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:53:40 UTC No. 16534419
>On the sides of the vehicle, non-structural versions of ship catch fittings are installed
Can someone explain to a retard what this means?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:54:33 UTC No. 16534420
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:54:57 UTC No. 16534421
>>16534416
>we need to give the human pilot the ability to override the computer at time-critical moments in the flight in case the computer goes wrong
>but also we're going to lock this ability behind some dual-key system like a damn missile silo, just to make sure they can't react in time and crater into the surface anyway
If the human pilot overriding the computers is going to work, it has to be done without any hoops and hurdles that get in the way. That means no safeguards against the pilot getting disoriented and overriding a functioning flight computer with fatal commands.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:55:38 UTC No. 16534423
>>16534275
The faux Starlinks won't be able to transmit during reentry.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:56:50 UTC No. 16534424
>>16534411
and when has a pilot done that?
>>16534418
actually not. im the one calling him on his obvious and likely fake hyperbole bit i didn't reply to myself
>>16534419
there but not able to support the weight of a real catch
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:57:22 UTC No. 16534425
>>16534419
Ship catch parts that are only there for their aerodynamic and plasma interactions for the test flight, but couldn't be used to actually catch the ship?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:57:31 UTC No. 16534426
>>16534331
>elon: spacex is going to the mars, not the moon
That isn't even what he said either.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 21:58:13 UTC No. 16534427
>>16534424
>when has a pilot ever made a mistake and gotten people killed?
are you for real?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:04:37 UTC No. 16534430
>>16534424
>>16534425
Oh cool. That means a ship catch is coming soon.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:06:17 UTC No. 16534433
>>16534427
WE GAAAAAN
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:07:28 UTC No. 16534435
>>16534427
no. i mean when has a pilot gone nuts and overridden an automated landing sequence (that was working perfectly) like you're suggesting? Or, what about all the Shuttle landings? all done by the pilot, admittedly using a computer aided HUD. all the LM landings were similar in that the pilot was adjusting a landing site while the AGC managed how to do that. this shows that computer aid is good, and that human piloting works just fine.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:10:48 UTC No. 16534441
>>16534430
yes, so long as they dont melt or something
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:11:14 UTC No. 16534442
China has unveiled drone technology that can control hundreds of drones at once.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:12:48 UTC No. 16534443
>>16534435
>gone nuts
We're talking about the pilot getting disoriented and making a mistake, not going schizo and murdering people.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:13:23 UTC No. 16534444
>>16534435
Now that the goalposts have moved, I will take this as a concession
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:18:42 UTC No. 16534448
>>16534367
how else would you stress test it then if not removing more tiles? lol
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:19:52 UTC No. 16534449
remember when we thought they were gonna launch 100T of bananas? good times
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:21:41 UTC No. 16534451
>>16534367
They arent removing more though
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:22:18 UTC No. 16534452
>>16534409
>why would you send people who are liable to hallucinations and panic on the most dangerous voyage ever
Great question, why WOULD you send women??? It's genuinely baffling, but here we are.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:23:19 UTC No. 16534453
>>16533953
I seriously want to fuck every one of these, what the hell is wrong with me?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:26:24 UTC No. 16534457
>>16534453
it's a normal reaction, she looks hot
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:26:27 UTC No. 16534458
>>16534326
who gives a shit what these assholes think?
their plans for anything past the middle of January mean sweet fuck all
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:26:45 UTC No. 16534459
>>16534453
they are drawn to be attractive, it will be more wrong if you don't want to
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:30:33 UTC No. 16534464
>>16534443
so answer the question in that context
>>16534444
how so? ive only argued for a human being in the loop with executive authority in situations of unusual landing situations. i think automated routine landings are well handled by computer but people will always want to be flying themselves in some way
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:31:51 UTC No. 16534467
>>16533958
what did he do? I watched the new predictions for the end of the century video and I thought it was alright
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:34:19 UTC No. 16534470
>>16534349
>Formal verification, proofs.
I agree with you more than you can know, but anyone who's made even a passing attempt at using formal proofs can tell you that there's still the problem of interpreting proofs, or in other words understanding how the proof corresponds to properties of the real world and what the implications of the truth of the proof are so that you can apply that knowledge to anything.
You can try to move the problem around by giving formal specifications for programs and then checking that they meet their specifications, but then you still need to reason about the real world properties of a system executing software that meets the specification (although that could be simpler than doing so without a proof of correctness).
tl;dr you would replace programmer errors with specification designer errors
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:37:24 UTC No. 16534474
>>16534367
>/sfg/ is retarded: the post
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:37:55 UTC No. 16534476
>>16534467
check his community tab
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:38:45 UTC No. 16534477
>>16534198
software developer
it's not something glamorous like janitor or nurse or childcare specialist, but Mars will need software
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:40:40 UTC No. 16534479
>>16534476
oh wow he's a tard
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:42:47 UTC No. 16534481
bros... I love space
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:46:36 UTC No. 16534482
>>16534481
We all do. We all do.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:53:25 UTC No. 16534485
>>16534482
I don't, space sucks. I love Titan, though.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:54:55 UTC No. 16534486
>>16533856
The only thing a cycler does for you is let you live comfy on a bigger ship without having to decelerate all of its mass it when you get there. Just don't miss the return cycler when it arrives.
Starship means that not only can you take your big comfy ship down with you, it's also your way back up. (when you can find enough fuel)
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:56:43 UTC No. 16534490
>>16534487
The Shadow President is going to cancel Artemis.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:56:44 UTC No. 16534491
>>16533960
buy an ad, faggot.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:57:46 UTC No. 16534492
>>16533969
no wonder he's such a resentful loser lol.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 22:59:50 UTC No. 16534494
>>16533994
my condolences, i hope you get out of there if that place collapses.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:03:52 UTC No. 16534499
>>16534493
I mean, yeah? Out of the 4 major Galilean moons, it's the only that isn't a radioactive shithole. Next stop for humanity after Ceres will obviously be Callisto.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:04:29 UTC No. 16534500
>>16533960
isnt this the guy who got run out of the ps3 emu discord for trying to groom some fortnite kid
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:05:16 UTC No. 16534501
>>16534499
I want to be the one to be responsible for colonising Callisto. Like the Elon Musk but for Callisto.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:06:16 UTC No. 16534502
>>16534487
Berger went full retard taking Elon's tweet without considering what he was responding to.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:09:32 UTC No. 16534503
>>16534102
PUT
A
FUCKING
FILM
CAMERA
UNDER
THE
LAUNCH
TABLE
PLEASE
CUNTS
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:09:47 UTC No. 16534504
>>16534501
we need an elon musk for the moon first, callisto is probably 100+ years out.
now I need to ask, what have all YOU done for our glorious space future, anons?
I'm prepared to repost the new glenn and starship livestreams absolutely everywhere when the time comes.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:11:34 UTC No. 16534505
>>16534498
>/sfg/ is accomplishing things no one has ever done before
correct
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:13:48 UTC No. 16534507
>we need muh space mining
just transmute anything into any element you want, are you stupid?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:15:47 UTC No. 16534509
>>16534505
Crashing and burning in new and exciting ways.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:30:22 UTC No. 16534517
>>16534442
https://youtu.be/OixSNQp0S_k you're retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:31:44 UTC No. 16534519
elon should run for office in the uk
MUKGA
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:32:51 UTC No. 16534520
>>16534517
hat trick
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:34:14 UTC No. 16534521
>>16534509
ways that will inform future stages that don't crash and burn.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:34:18 UTC No. 16534522
>>16534519
MAKE UNTIED STATES KEWL
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:36:13 UTC No. 16534523
>>16534520
and years before china "claimed" to have the technology to do this relatively easy to program thing.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:37:13 UTC No. 16534525
>>16534519
Make United Kingdom Gay Again?
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:40:43 UTC No. 16534527
>>16534519
Just annex the UK and enact a political purge to cleanse that hellhole of an island of its sins.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:47:57 UTC No. 16534532
>>16533459
you can't actually replace peoples instincts. the harsh environment will wash away modern ideology.
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:53:27 UTC No. 16534534
>>16534504
none of us can actually affect anything in real life
Anonymous at Fri, 3 Jan 2025 23:54:35 UTC No. 16534535
>>16534406
They didn't want to launch on January 6th.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:02:10 UTC No. 16534537
>>16534534
you can.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:02:37 UTC No. 16534538
>>16534537
by doing what?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:15:43 UTC No. 16534547
>>16534538
learn some useful skills and use them to help other people (they will compensate you for this)
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:15:53 UTC No. 16534548
You ever think about how fuck-off easy spaceflight would be if popular chemical propellants had just five or so times the specific impulse
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:19:46 UTC No. 16534550
>>16534547
It's too late for me to be an engineer anon. I wanted to when I was a kid but nobody wanted to build anything with men or encourage that in any way so now I'm a tard
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:22:29 UTC No. 16534551
>>16532505
>perforates your mattress
nothing personnel, kiddo
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:27:01 UTC No. 16534555
>>16534498
>>16534521
>thinking that the next thread won't be exactly as retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:27:51 UTC No. 16534556
https://x.com/larsblackmore/status/
>This forward flap redesign consumed many months of my life. In theory they’re better on all metrics - excited to see whether that holds in reality!
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:37:31 UTC No. 16534562
>>16534551
Post the rate this happens
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:48:53 UTC No. 16534572
>>16534551
like poking a hole in a blimp. nothing really happens, some air comes out but not terribly fast relative to the volume of air inside it.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:49:38 UTC No. 16534573
>>16533378
The sun is habitable during night.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:52:25 UTC No. 16534574
>>16534474
Thanks I have screenshot your post to grudgepost your faggot ass when they announce an all metallic heatshield with active cooling. You think they would be starting to test active cooling if they had any confidence in the practicality of shithouse ceramic dinner plates beyond single use test flights?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:55:58 UTC No. 16534575
>>16534574
the joke's on you, my mongloidal friend
I already celebrated active cooling in this very thread about 4 hours before you did and have been a transpirationist from the beginning (I hate the space shuttle)
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 00:56:00 UTC No. 16534576
>>16534572
nope - the whole thing explosively decompresses and everybody dies
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:00:17 UTC No. 16534577
>>16534302
that is exactly what the Shuttle was
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:02:30 UTC No. 16534578
>>16534576
too much hollywood
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:03:00 UTC No. 16534579
>>16534551
Simple, suspend a trampoline layer above the mattress to bounce meteoroids back into space.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:19:42 UTC No. 16534589
>>16534576
aaahhhhhhhhhhhh
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:32:50 UTC No. 16534599
>>16534576
That film was a bit goofy (as expected), but honestly it works better than the book format. His journal there was a bit like those notes you find from dead characters in horror games, recording every little thing they did as if it were happening in real time, even if it's an entire chapter in length. The section where it flipped to the others' point of view and turned into a normal book for a while reads better in my opinion
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:36:24 UTC No. 16534602
>>16534556
uhh this isnt good
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:36:57 UTC No. 16534603
landing looked a little dicey
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:43:51 UTC No. 16534609
>>16534579
Would it lack dignity if the mattress was a bouncy castle shaped like Pickle Rick and it proclaimed “I'm Pickle Rick” each time a meteoroid struck it?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:45:37 UTC No. 16534611
>>16534609
no that would be totally epic-sauce!
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:54:59 UTC No. 16534614
should I go to Cane's, Chick fil A, or In n Out?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 01:58:33 UTC No. 16534619
>>16534614
Do whatever you enjoy the most
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:02:47 UTC No. 16534621
>>16534619
I cant decide they are all equally enjoyable
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:03:07 UTC No. 16534622
>>16534620
Hang the perpetrators, no trial.
Lynchmob justice, old Texas style.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:03:34 UTC No. 16534623
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:04:05 UTC No. 16534624
>>16534618
gas core anything is basically a no-go. Nuclear Salt Water Reactors would work well though, safe and practical.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:04:35 UTC No. 16534625
>>16534621
Then do whatever is easiest, or if you really can't decide on that basis just go to In n Out.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:04:45 UTC No. 16534626
>>16534618
we're not even allowed to have solid core
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:11:39 UTC No. 16534627
>>16534618
They're a crazy engineering challenge and the NRC made new reactor experiments outside DoD basically illegal.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:19:20 UTC No. 16534629
it would be easier to just use a network of big tesla towers situated strategically around Mars and use electro-static charge differentials in an attractor/repulsor feedback loop to manipulate dust clouds into certain areas where they are more exposed to the sun and form a kind of single massive shield than set up some gay plastic bubble over a small area
see, those dust clouds absorb solar radiation and are part of the effect that generates a intermittent and spotty Martian magnetic field by interacting with the weak crustal magnetic field anomalies in the southern hemisphere
so if we were to harness and amplify this force through said manipulation, it could be possible generate a weak artificial magnetosphere and slowly raise the ambient temperature to begin the process of rebuilding an atmosphere
it's the solar winds and closer proximity to the sun that cause the planet wide dust storms every few years
this technique could also be useful for detecting or neutralizing dangerous levels of charge that build up under the leeward lip of Martian craters because of said dust storms, not to mention it could be used to keep those storms away from the colony site
the main hazard of such an endeavor on Earth (the possibility of causing an enormous fireball that consumes a significant area) would not be a significant factor on Mars because there's no atmospheric oxygen
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:24:08 UTC No. 16534631
>>16534625
I forgot I took steaks out earlier, so I'm making sirloins
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:24:53 UTC No. 16534632
>>16534620
fucking crab bucket EDS schizoniggers
kill them all glowies
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:26:22 UTC No. 16534633
damn I'm an idiot. I bought steak yesterday to cook today and then forgot about it until this anon mentioned his own dinner. I already ate shitty chicken and rice. fuck
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:27:38 UTC No. 16534634
>>16534631
>>16534633
/sfg/: steak forgetting general
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:28:42 UTC No. 16534636
>>16534633
i guess you could say missed steaks were made
:^)
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:29:13 UTC No. 16534637
>>16534629
This is going to sound harsh, but for your own good you need to stop being retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:30:14 UTC No. 16534638
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:40:37 UTC No. 16534645
>>16534629
Anything to avoid burying a quonset hut
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:41:37 UTC No. 16534646
Why did Eloo pitch HLS when he know it doesn't have enough dv to land and take off again
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:42:48 UTC No. 16534647
>>16534646
free money
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:43:22 UTC No. 16534648
>>16534646
just refuel
if you can't refuel, why go to the moon at all?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:43:32 UTC No. 16534649
you can manipulate static electricity to move dust
martian dust carries a static charge
this fact makes midwits feel insecure because they never considered upscaling the concept and applying it to solve longstanding terraforming problems concerning Mars
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:44:01 UTC No. 16534650
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:45:25 UTC No. 16534654
>>16534629
woudn't this give you cancer or some shit
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:47:12 UTC No. 16534656
>>16534648
It doesn't have enough dv even when fully fueled. It would have to fuel up again in lunar orbit which is retarded. I'm on board for a few refuelings granted you have the launch cadence of falcon 9 but dozens upon dozens of refuels is gay
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:47:14 UTC No. 16534657
>>16534654
probably no more than 5g or wifi does
less cancer than the amount of solar radiation the dust shield would protect you from
might be wrong about that
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:49:16 UTC No. 16534659
>>16534656
wrong
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 02:58:04 UTC No. 16534663
>>16534659
care to explain why?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:00:25 UTC No. 16534666
>>16534649
So you're just gonna electricute all the colonists? Think about what you just said
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:02:46 UTC No. 16534668
>>16534666
>Think about what you just said
No.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:06:01 UTC No. 16534670
>>16534666
you can't die from a static shock
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:07:13 UTC No. 16534671
>>16534666
not necessarily, although that could be a concern as energy buildup occurs in the dust shield over time and could possibly overwhelm or create interference in communications or other systems
the electrocution hazard technically already exists because of the dust storms and aforementioned charge buildup in craters, a problem already recognized as a problem for lunar exploration
what I am suggesting is taking an active step in utilizing that energetic phenomenon to provide an induced magnetosphere under human control
ideally, the shield would be far enough away from the surface that discharge wouldn't be a problem
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:09:16 UTC No. 16534675
>>16534670
you can
in fact, aerosolized particles can be ignited by nothing more than a static discharge
this is why so flour mills explode from time to time, and other industrial accidents besides
thankfully, Mars doesn't have atmospheric oxygen
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:13:19 UTC No. 16534677
>>16534663
because it simply isn't correct, the prop loaded in LEO and maybe MEO is more than enough to take it to NRHO, the surface, and back to NRHO again as the mission requires. If it actually needed more prop they can shrink the comically oversized crew quarters as the HLS design is bespoke anyway
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:34:17 UTC No. 16534691
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:45:34 UTC No. 16534697
Will Starship launch on the 10th or will the bomb threat call it off
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:48:32 UTC No. 16534698
>>16534697
They will move forward unless they discover it's not some blue sky libnigger making false threats.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:52:46 UTC No. 16534699
It seems evil thst the first foot to touch mars won't be a H1B Indian. We need to change our space program immediately. Whites have no place in space
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:57:26 UTC No. 16534701
>>16534675
>this is why so flour mills explode from time to time
What mitigation methods have been developed to solve this problem? That's actually interesting to me.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 03:58:26 UTC No. 16534702
>>16534698
What if it's a right wing ex-military like the cybertruck bomber?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:01:45 UTC No. 16534709
>>16534697
>>16534698
>>16534702
Wouldn't it be easier to just sail a boat into range?
like imagine the save rgv folx pour all of their money into a fleet of boats so they can "accidentally" stray into range at the last minute.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:04:23 UTC No. 16534711
The sooner Elon has his own paramilitary forces the better. He didn't want to build weapons because he doesn't want the government to have them, but that doesn't apply to building weapons for himself.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:04:33 UTC No. 16534712
>>16534701
well, you do want good ventilation to remove any vapors or suspended dust
that's the main thing
no smoking ofc, basic awareness of static, proper grounding and bonding, use of conductive materials like anti-static hoses that are less resistent, monitoring the temperature of machines, you get the idea
this whole static thing has been a known factor in avionics for many years, planes build up a lot of charge
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:24:46 UTC No. 16534722
>>16534711
every starbase guard should be armed with a boring company not-a-flamethrower
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:27:08 UTC No. 16534725
>>16534636
jesus fuck, Carlos
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 04:53:49 UTC No. 16534747
>>16534702
>right wing
that dude was ufo wing
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:03:44 UTC No. 16534763
>>16534702
you mean the guy whose wife had severe TDS
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:18:28 UTC No. 16534779
>>16534747
>>16534763
Knew I'd draw out some cope with that one. Thanks for playing.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:43:05 UTC No. 16534794
>>16534779
You didn't get the reaction you hoped for and think you will be able to openly bait it out?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:48:13 UTC No. 16534799
>>16534709
Save RGV are the run-of-the-mill NIMBYs you get with virtually every major industrial project, not some kind of hardened eco-warriors. The will file annoying lawsuits and show up with signs for photo ops, but won't do shit otherwise. Besides, their major beef is with Rio Grande LNG, not SpaceX.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:54:20 UTC No. 16534801
>>16534158
>mfw 10 Starlink chassis to be deployed
What are the odds they have cameras?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:55:19 UTC No. 16534802
>>16534793
If you want to get to Elon, you'll have to go through me.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 05:55:47 UTC No. 16534803
>>16534801
Zero. They're mass simulators.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:08:28 UTC No. 16534807
>>16534614
There is only one answer
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:14:01 UTC No. 16534812
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:43:56 UTC No. 16534825
>>16534779
dutch faggot never disappoints
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:46:10 UTC No. 16534826
>>16534677
Alright amending my previous comment it will take 9.2 km/s dv to go from leo to the moon and back to leo. I'm pretty skeptical the HLS can find 2 more km/s of dv to complete a mission
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:51:15 UTC No. 16534828
surely raptor N+1 will save us from the refueling boondoggle
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:57:15 UTC No. 16534831
>>16534828
refueling will be needed anyway
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 06:58:48 UTC No. 16534833
>>16534494
I just might. My aunt lives in Germany and she said that I might be able to get a dual citizenship since my grandma (her mother) is a Volga German. And even if that fails, I might be able to get a work visa.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:00:13 UTC No. 16534836
So whats next for Starship?
10 Starlink simulator (rectangle blocks of cheese?)
Patches of active cooling testing
Removal of more heat shields from various parts to further test extreme endurance limits
Reused engines from earlier flights
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:05:20 UTC No. 16534840
>>16534826
It can if you replace the SRBs with steel+raptor3 LRBs. Even keeping tank size about the same you can fit seven Raptor 3s in each booster for equivalent thrust and burn time... but 200 tons less mass per booster.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:11:03 UTC No. 16534845
>>16534840
is this a bot reply wtf
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:12:12 UTC No. 16534846
>>16534845
No, nigger.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:18:35 UTC No. 16534849
>>16534836
more aggressive reentry profile to stress test the new front flaps too
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:24:31 UTC No. 16534851
>>16534850
Elon Susk.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:28:54 UTC No. 16534857
>>16534826
Starship HLS isn't coming back to LEO.
The entire "17 tankers" line that spaceguy5 spread is based on a mission profile where it does return and refuels twice.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 07:52:05 UTC No. 16534863
Is it really launching on 10th, they still haven't started infinite stacking and destacking.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:15:17 UTC No. 16534869
>>16534850
He's literlly been over on /pol/ arguing for days now. We are forgotten, just like Starship.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:20:45 UTC No. 16534872
>>16534857
what so they're not going to reuse HLS?Just one mission?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:27:03 UTC No. 16534877
>>16534872
when has nasa ever reused hardware or made sane mission architecture?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 08:35:17 UTC No. 16534879
>>16534872
How do you not know this?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 09:10:57 UTC No. 16534889
Penile severance, a required rite upon embarking the Mars journey
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 09:37:10 UTC No. 16534893
https://x.com/ShanaDiez/status/1875
>While just weeks between flights the Starship design, build, and integration teams have been working on this upgrade for over a year and it’s worth congratulating them and cheering them on as we work on the final verification items to getting this ship ready to fly.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:07:55 UTC No. 16534898
>>16534812
what a disgusting creature
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:10:52 UTC No. 16534899
>>16534576
I knew this would be a shitty movie when the opening sequence showed Mars with a red sunset.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:12:27 UTC No. 16534900
>>16534620
Why are trannies like this? Kill them.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 10:51:58 UTC No. 16534907
>>16534049
People care about hawaii.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:03:56 UTC No. 16534912
>>16534907
Seems like a mistake on their part.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 11:37:55 UTC No. 16534919
>>16534863
the era of
>stack
>destack
>stack
>destack
for months on end is over. Booster FTS was installed yesterday, ship FTS can be installed on the pad too
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:08:50 UTC No. 16534929
when will launch windows be a thing of the past? its 2025, we should be able to launch whenever.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:24:30 UTC No. 16534933
>>16534620
I always wondered Elon's enemies never considered flying a FPV drone into a fully fueled stack, or the propellant farm. Why make a threat? Spineless fags.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:24:42 UTC No. 16534934
>>16534929
when money becomes a thing of the past.
going to mars 1 year out of sync would require like 10x the delta V. so it could be done but just waiting a year would save you so much on rocket size.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:47:09 UTC No. 16534948
>spacex
>iterative development
>literally everyone else
>rocket is designed by artists before anything happens
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:48:20 UTC No. 16534950
>>16534948
>what is ITS
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:50:00 UTC No. 16534951
>>16534950
>what is design that was iterated on
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:53:49 UTC No. 16534952
>>16534649
>this fact makes midwits feel insecure because they never considered upscaling the concept
Are you really able to rationalize like this every time you're called a retard? What the fuck is wrong with your head?
>>16534933
Anyone smart and driven enough to pull that off would also be smart enough to understand the difference between wealth from innovation vs exploitation and save their effort and potential incarceration for someone making the world a worse place. See Luigi Mangione
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:55:31 UTC No. 16534953
>>16534951
But ITS was designed by artists before anything happened
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 12:59:51 UTC No. 16534956
>The Space Rider (Space Reusable Integrated Demonstrator for Europe Return)
Holy fuck ESA acronyms are terrible. First JUICE, then Protein, now this.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:04:09 UTC No. 16534957
>>16534954
ghetto af
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:07:56 UTC No. 16534959
>>16534957
It worked. Criticizing the build quality of the LM is landing denier adjacent.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:13:56 UTC No. 16534962
>>16534956
>The Space Rider
kino
>Development of Space Rider is being led by the Italian Programme for Reusable In-orbit Demonstrator in Europe (PRIDE programme)
too bad it will never be built...
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:22:25 UTC No. 16534965
>>16534956
Kinda wish SpaceX went with whacky acronyms, rather than the Redditisms that newspace is all trying to copy.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:22:50 UTC No. 16534967
>>16534954
The LM is a SSTO
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:24:28 UTC No. 16534968
>>16534967
The LM is a spaceplane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmos
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:25:02 UTC No. 16534969
>>16534967
>SSTLO
ftfy
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:26:17 UTC No. 16534970
>>16534967
Only the ascent stage.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:35:55 UTC No. 16534975
>>16534970
So gorgeous. Design philosophy from this era was peak
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:45:35 UTC No. 16534981
>elon was defending himself in /pol/
what the fuck
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:47:31 UTC No. 16534984
>>16534981
erm what?
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:48:57 UTC No. 16534985
>>16534952
>difference between wealth from innovation vs exploitation
Adrian you forgot your tripcode!
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:49:57 UTC No. 16534986
>>16534981
Seems hes here too
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 13:55:54 UTC No. 16534991
>>16534986
No I'm not
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:01:25 UTC No. 16534994
>>16534649
Electromagnetism starts creating new, big, and intractable problems as you start scaling it up, mostly in regards to being wildly hostile to human health and any materials not specifically designed to handle that operating environment.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:02:40 UTC No. 16534997
>>16534952
>Are you really able to rationalize like this every time you're called a retard? What the fuck is wrong with your head?
You are responding to what is colloquially known as bait. You can respond to it seriously for the sake of people who don't know, but don't take it seriously for the sake of the man you're responding to: he doesn't actually care, and your frustration amuses him.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:37:40 UTC No. 16535027
elon would lose iq points if he visited sfg, too many retards here
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:40:09 UTC No. 16535029
>>16535027
we have both extremes. at the low end there's the manual control schizo, on the high end we have the pisslock guy. Elon could definitely learn a thing or two from him
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:44:17 UTC No. 16535032
>>16535029
Pisslock guy has a bad fetish and should feel bad.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 14:45:05 UTC No. 16535034
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 15:25:46 UTC No. 16535066
>>16534981
>people retarded enough to think he posts on /pol/ or /sfg/
no
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 15:51:13 UTC No. 16535092
>>16534953
No it wasnt. ITS cgi was using engineering CAD models
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 16:53:01 UTC No. 16535148
>>16534981
Believing Dittman is Elon is a sign of low IQ
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 17:24:26 UTC No. 16535197
>>16534971
Cardboard AND tinfoil, very important.
>>16534981
If you can't recognize a good troll then you deserve what you get.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 18:33:30 UTC No. 16535269
>>16534981
Again something spread from enougmuskspam btw.
As >>16535148 says. Or maybe a sign of some spiritual leftism where not liking someone means suddenly believing stuff obsessed redditors have been saying about him.
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 19:00:06 UTC No. 16535300
>>16534840
>>16534845
>>16534846
Starship Heavy Booster (it's just three boosters next to each other)
Anonymous at Sat, 4 Jan 2025 19:02:58 UTC No. 16535304
>>16534965
Like D.O.G.E.?