๐งต /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:15:24 UTC No. 16552111
Starship V2 maiden flight - edition
previous >>16550696
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:16:25 UTC No. 16552122
>We improved Starship!
>results almost as bad as IFT-2
it's so joever
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:16:34 UTC No. 16552125
well fugg :DDD
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:16:40 UTC No. 16552127
F ;_;
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:16:42 UTC No. 16552128
thunderf00t never misses
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:16:58 UTC No. 16552131
bros I'm going into depression
it's all so tiresome
(we) won't get to mars, will we?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:17:41 UTC No. 16552139
>>16552129
>fire in space
Oh shit, it was both propellant AND oxidizer leaking
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:17:49 UTC No. 16552140
>>16552131
we're gonna go through a little dark age
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:18:01 UTC No. 16552142
>>16552111
Fucking whales doing all these multi-pulls
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:18:04 UTC No. 16552143
>>16552132
This one is my favorite so far, extremely kino
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:18:14 UTC No. 16552145
https://x.com/adavenport354/status/
https://x.com/deankolson87/status/1
https://x.com/realcamtem/status/188
three clips, are there more?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:18:28 UTC No. 16552150
Shades of what happened to Ship 25 on IFT-2. Wouldn't be surprised if it was some dumb little thing they overlooked that caused Ship 33 to go boom on this flight.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:18:44 UTC No. 16552154
HOLY FUCK it just exploded out of nowhere
someone post the video
>>16552145
there's the one where it's filmed exploding
clear showed it just now
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:19:22 UTC No. 16552158
>>16552151
holy shit kino
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:19:43 UTC No. 16552161
>>16552151
WOW, but with >>16552139 it isn't all that surprising
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:20:08 UTC No. 16552164
>>16552151
isn't that just stage separation?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:20:28 UTC No. 16552168
>>16552151
Is it just me or does that look a little brighter than it should?
Is it on fire?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:20:34 UTC No. 16552169
>>16552132
>>16552151
Far out!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:20:58 UTC No. 16552173
>>16552111
you guys dont get it, he sacrificed the ship to fix his repudation that got damaged reccently
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:21:14 UTC No. 16552175
>>16552151
That video cuts off way too early
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:21:23 UTC No. 16552177
>>16552126
This is the coolest think Elon's ever done
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:21:32 UTC No. 16552179
https://x.com/Space_Time3/status/18
>Here's a thread with all the different videos coming in of Ship 33 break-up and re-entry:
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:22:19 UTC No. 16552182
>>16552151
Is this how FTS look like?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:22:55 UTC No. 16552187
Is there Starship breakup audio?
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:06 UTC No. 16552189
>>16552168
it's evening on earth, so sunlight is weaker, but since Starship is very high up, it's getting more sunlight, which makes it brighter
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:22 UTC No. 16552190
>>16552187
No. Telemetry just went dead mid flight
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:31 UTC No. 16552192
>>16552189
Makes sense
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:32 UTC No. 16552193
ULA sniper working in the upper atmosphere now?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:38 UTC No. 16552195
>>16552187
WOOSHSHSHSHSHS BOOOM kskaks
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:23:45 UTC No. 16552197
>>16552183
He's the new president now I guess
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:04 UTC No. 16552199
>>16552151
this is what space warfare will look like once we have spacecraft involved
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:10 UTC No. 16552200
Ships was leaking fuel, if not, how do you explain the fire in the flap ?
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:12 UTC No. 16552201
>>16552184
SHOOT THE DRONES DOWN!!!!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:25 UTC No. 16552203
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:35 UTC No. 16552205
>>16552178
source
https://x.com/timmaayd/status/18800
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:37 UTC No. 16552206
>>16552126
>>16552132
>>16552151
>>16552178
wow, this made me realise how fucking terrifying MIRVs are
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:41 UTC No. 16552207
>>16552193
what do you think they flew up in BONG? that's why it had a twr of 1.00001
it was filled with snipers and ammo
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:42 UTC No. 16552208
>>16552151
It's kind of beautiful how it went.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:54 UTC No. 16552211
>>16552182
From that distance an FTS activation would look pretty much the same as any other onboard explosion, but the degree that the ship turned into confetti makes me think the flight computer decided to trigger the bomb
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:24:57 UTC No. 16552212
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:25:28 UTC No. 16552214
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:25:38 UTC No. 16552218
>>16552206
...This was what did that, and not the videos of Russia firing dummy MIRVs at random Ukranian cities out of spite?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:25:49 UTC No. 16552220
>>16552184
>wife in Turks and Caicos
this guy is getting cheated on
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:26:25 UTC No. 16552224
>>16552210
oh shit all the air traffic kek
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:26:35 UTC No. 16552226
>>16552206
Russia launched inert MIRVs at Ukraine a while back
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEz
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49H
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:26:43 UTC No. 16552229
>>16552210
>>16552221
2nd flight wasn't this bad, right
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:27:05 UTC No. 16552232
>>16552223
There's no way to sugarcoat this...
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:27:23 UTC No. 16552235
>>16552221
>be commercial airliner
>literally anything happens
>I'M GONNA, IM GUNNA, IM GONNA HOOOLLLLDDD
>enters a racetrack pattern
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:27:53 UTC No. 16552237
>>16552209
WHAT ??? HOW
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:27:58 UTC No. 16552239
>>16552210
IMAGINE all the CINEKINO videos we'll get once they land and passengers upload them to the internet
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:27:59 UTC No. 16552240
>>16552231
>COCKBURN TOWN
>cock rocket burns up
damn
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:01 UTC No. 16552242
>>16552210
Holy shit.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:13 UTC No. 16552243
>>16552210
>>16552224
>>16552229
NOTAM, motherfuckers, did you read it?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:13 UTC No. 16552244
>>16552227
damn starship is pretty good at making exoatmospheric explosions
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:14 UTC No. 16552245
>>16552218
>>16552226
These ones put it way more in perspective, and are in way better quality, honestly the russian ones looked like normal strikes to me (not saying that they weren't ICBMs just saying that if wasn't impressive looking)
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:18 UTC No. 16552246
they should just reuse this booster to cope with the financial damage of losing the ship
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:39 UTC No. 16552247
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:28:54 UTC No. 16552248
>>16552232
please someone post the meme with elon saying this , i need t laugh
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:02 UTC No. 16552249
>>16552239
a lot of those planes are cargo
fedex, prime air and frontier
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:03 UTC No. 16552251
>>16552221
>>16552210
>This the captain. We are turning around to avoid reentering space debris
Pretty futuristic.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:06 UTC No. 16552252
>>16552243
Who reads that shit?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:09 UTC No. 16552253
>>16552232
t-the data
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:16 UTC No. 16552254
>>16552207
>there are now multiple trained professional assassins in LEO
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:17 UTC No. 16552255
>>16552221
>>16552210
imagine being a pilot and seeing this shit falling from space
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:19 UTC No. 16552256
>>16552245
>not saying that they weren't ICBMs
akshully the Russian strikes were MIRVed IRBMs, basically the first two stages of a three stage ICBM
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:27 UTC No. 16552257
>>16552145
https://x.com/FlyerXT/status/188002
https://x.com/nickpags45/status/188
https://x.com/xrae/status/188002629
>>16552205
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:37 UTC No. 16552260
>>16552246
The ship was gonna be lost either way, there was no financial damage unless they get fined, and even then, they have enough money to write blank cheques for anything.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:42 UTC No. 16552261
>>16552248
I'm crying, anon
I'm fucking cryig here and you want a laugh?!?!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:29:48 UTC No. 16552262
>>16552246
the ship would be lost either way, the problem lies with not completing the test and now having the FAA on their neck
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:12 UTC No. 16552265
>>16552200
Probably leaking with the actively cooled test tiles
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:18 UTC No. 16552266
Thunderf00t livestreamed all the successes of starship, and now, the one time it failed, he wasn't streaming.
Coincidence? I think not.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:24 UTC No. 16552267
>>16552132
>god gives David Lynch his final sendoff
K
I
N
O
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:32 UTC No. 16552268
>>16552259
>gotta argue with ecelebs on twitter
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:34 UTC No. 16552270
>>16552166
Case closed. Bezos airbus fitted with lasers to shoot down starship.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:35 UTC No. 16552271
>>16552243
Not an autopilot button - not my problem.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:42 UTC No. 16552274
>>16552259
>we're gonna get so much free advertisement... gotta plug Starlink in there somehow...
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:46 UTC No. 16552275
>>16552263
So it is just Elon he hates, did Musk fuck his mom or something?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:30:58 UTC No. 16552276
>thunderfag is the lucky charm for spacex
what a twist!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:00 UTC No. 16552277
>>16552259
>how can there be fires in space if there are no forests in space?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:04 UTC No. 16552278
>>16552266
he didn't stream flight 6 either
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:07 UTC No. 16552279
>>16552243
There isn't a wide no fly corridor going around the earth. That would be silly.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:14 UTC No. 16552280
>>16552263
blue origin didn't catch their launcher
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:16 UTC No. 16552281
>>16552210
Wew, FAA will keep them grounded until next year for this
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:21 UTC No. 16552282
>>16552223
>not even IFT
What the fuck are we even doing here?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:34 UTC No. 16552283
>>16552263
>reusable rockets >:(
>reusable amazon rockets :o
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:31:37 UTC No. 16552284
>>16552259
>Grrrr I can't believe these filthy gamer peasants realized I'm a fake gamer
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:12 UTC No. 16552285
>>16552259
>his long time rival bezos finally made it to orbit with a real competitor of a rocket
>bent the knee to the rat king asmongold
>lost his prized spaceship
>FAA investigation pending
he's fumbling for his drugs right now while screaming in an incoherent rage
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:23 UTC No. 16552286
>>16552284
skill issue
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:33 UTC No. 16552287
I'm starting to realise this was never possible. How the fuck are you ever going to land a giant ass metal tin with up to 50 people inside on a barren, toxic wasteland millions of kilometres away all controlled by a computer. Mars is never happening. I said it. It's never happening. I'm crying right now.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:34 UTC No. 16552289
>>16552223
>RUD
>Not FTS activation
>>16552210
>dozens of planes in the immediate area
Man this is really bad
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:34 UTC No. 16552290
>>16552257
haven't seen that nickpags one
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:32:48 UTC No. 16552293
>>16552197
We rocketocracy now
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:01 UTC No. 16552296
There are some retards on Bluesky saying Elon came on to interrupt the stream to talk about crypto. They clicked on one of the impersonation channels, kek
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:20 UTC No. 16552299
>>16552259
>fucking asmongold
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:27 UTC No. 16552301
What do you think will happen in Flight 8, anon?
> Repeat of Flight 7, trying to make Spaceship not blow up
or
> Straight to the original plan, trying to catch Starship with the chop sticks
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:28 UTC No. 16552302
>>16552287
>How the fuck are you ever going to land a giant ass metal tin with up to 50 people inside on a barren, toxic wasteland millions of kilometres away all controlled by a computer
very carefully :^)
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:33 UTC No. 16552303
>ship lost
>lost comms
>all telemetry lost
>nobody has any ideas what went wrong
>"eeerrr FAA yeah we understand the issue ... ehhhh uhhhh it here uhhh "
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:50 UTC No. 16552305
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:52 UTC No. 16552306
>>16552263
https://x.com/thunderf00t/status/18
Bezos-bros, thunderf00t is one of us now!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:53 UTC No. 16552307
>>16552296
lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:54 UTC No. 16552308
will elon stop posting on x and fighting asmongold and go nuclear on spacex now?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:55 UTC No. 16552309
>>16552166
Bout 20 planes redirected, goin back, or in holding pattern kek. https://www.flightradar24.com/TSC49
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:57 UTC No. 16552310
>>16552287
Yes. We will all die on this comfortable blue rock. Mankind gave it a half-assed shot and is gonna collapse and degrade into irrelevancy.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:33:58 UTC No. 16552311
Good thing Musk bought the FAA & won't have to worry about this shit.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:09 UTC No. 16552312
>>16552287
Gonna go play some No Man's Sky tonight to drown my tears
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:18 UTC No. 16552313
>>16552304
lucky engine
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:27 UTC No. 16552314
>>16552301
I think they'll double down
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:29 UTC No. 16552315
>>16552296
>use fake retard twitter
>click fake retard streams
checks out
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:31 UTC No. 16552316
>>16552311
Yeah right
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:33 UTC No. 16552317
>>16552294
Thank you very much
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:37 UTC No. 16552318
>>16552259
>I'm a REAL gamer
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:34:53 UTC No. 16552320
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:14 UTC No. 16552322
>>16552301
depends on if they lock down what went wrong and fix it 100% for next flight
they could go straight for catch if they do that I think. The "stresspoint" testing is just an excuse to do another flight to test for problems
Yes I am coping
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:16 UTC No. 16552323
>>16552301
>Flight 8
Anon, I don't know how to tell you this... Starship is done
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:23 UTC No. 16552324
>>16552304
super based
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:24 UTC No. 16552325
>>16552306
Nooglin's payload doesn't count when it doesn't detach from the stage.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:49 UTC No. 16552327
>>16552308
>Elon already on the edge over PoE account boosting suspicions
>Starship blows up
I wouldn't want to work in SpaceX management right now, kek.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:54 UTC No. 16552328
>fights rat king
>loses
>the Lord smites your rocket
Time to put down the ketamine elon
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:35:55 UTC No. 16552329
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:36:01 UTC No. 16552330
>>16552289
FTS is not scheduled it's RUD. That's why it's a pretty shit term.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:36:13 UTC No. 16552331
>>16552259
>Another fucking Diluc pull
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:36:49 UTC No. 16552333
>>16552325
disagree, integrated payloads are based and atlas pilled
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:36:58 UTC No. 16552334
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:37:16 UTC No. 16552338
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:37:27 UTC No. 16552339
>>16552316
Why wouldn't he make it easier for himself?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:37:47 UTC No. 16552341
time to invest in $ROPE
see you guys
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:38:10 UTC No. 16552342
>>16552338
kek
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:38:13 UTC No. 16552343
>debree hits Venezuela
yup, it's kino time
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:38:53 UTC No. 16552348
>>16552318
fake news fake vaccines fake gamers
I hate the 2020s
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:38:58 UTC No. 16552349
>clear stream ended
alright time to kill myself
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:00 UTC No. 16552350
>>16552346
faggot
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:08 UTC No. 16552351
>>16552346
what a disgusting, fat pig
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:10 UTC No. 16552352
>>16552132
>>16552203
>2045
>loss of the USSF Washington during an engagement with Chinese forces in LEO
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:10 UTC No. 16552353
Elon is so paranoid at this point that he'll probably suspect sabotage.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:18 UTC No. 16552354
>>16552301
they aren't going to try to catch it before they have a one or two successful precise water landings with a specific configuration
this flight showed why, making big changes could have big consequences
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:19 UTC No. 16552355
When they finally try to catch Starship, will it go into an orbit around earth to return to the tower? Or will just to up, have the regular stage separation and go straight down?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:20 UTC No. 16552356
>>16552346
nigger
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:23 UTC No. 16552358
>>16552346
PressureFedSigma won
Kyplanet won
Eager lost
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:24 UTC No. 16552359
>>16552111
At least the booster looks fine, do you think they will attempt a static fire with the booster?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:25 UTC No. 16552360
>>16552287
dog we started out throwing rocks at deer and wearing leaves, one prototype rocket failure is way too early to call it never
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:27 UTC No. 16552361
>>16552322
They could determine the failure point on CRS-7 because of the travel time of the initial shock to different sensors. There have so much instrumentation they should have no trouble eventually figuring out the root cause.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:33 UTC No. 16552362
Yeah , i got it , its bad , its really bad. But look at the bright side, they discovered a critical failure point
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:42 UTC No. 16552363
my grandmother's reaction to the tower catch was "well yeah isn't that what rockets are supposed to do"
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:43 UTC No. 16552364
>>16552259
I used to rule the world.
Rockets would rise when I gave the word
Now in the mornin', I sleep alone
Sweep the launch pads I used to own
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:54 UTC No. 16552366
>>16552343
So, how many fake debris stories and suing SpaceX shit will we get in the coming few days
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:58 UTC No. 16552367
>>16552333
it was an empty fucking satellite launcher ring, with zero satellites on it, it goes back down with the second stage
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:58 UTC No. 16552368
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:39:59 UTC No. 16552369
>>16552346
who is this man?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:40:33 UTC No. 16552371
>>16552338
KEK OH LORD A SPOKESMAN SAID THIS IS THE ONE THING WE DID NOT WANT TO HAPPEN
https://youtu.be/SRRw1ERj2Gc
https://youtu.be/SRRw1ERj2Gc
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:40:55 UTC No. 16552372
>>16552355
Ask again in couple years
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:05 UTC No. 16552374
Scott Manley :
Given that this is disrupting aircraft downrange, I would be wanting an investigation before I let starship fly again.
I'd want to know what kind of debris risk we're dealing with, starship is big and designed to handle reentry.
Is the explosion the result of a tank failure or the FTS? We might reasonably ask whether trying to destroy such a large object is the best option in an emergency or whether it's safer to let it come down in as few pieces as possible
>its over
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:09 UTC No. 16552375
>>16552363
Based obaba-san
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:13 UTC No. 16552377
>>16552367
You forgot about the digital postcards :^)
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:16 UTC No. 16552378
>>16552355
it will have to do a number of orbits
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:26 UTC No. 16552379
so was this the full stack equivalent of sn 11 ?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:29 UTC No. 16552380
>>16552366
All of it
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:41:41 UTC No. 16552381
>>16552362
Failure point that didn't exist in previous ship, they should be upgrading and not downgrading
Apologize at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:42:14 UTC No. 16552382
>>16552363
boomers should just die, mainstream media successfully brainwashed all of them
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:42:26 UTC No. 16552384
>>16552290
>>16552145
some of these might be new too, not sure, didn't really check if duplicates
https://x.com/brakeyourcycle/status
https://x.com/Fernando91RO/status/1
https://x.com/ActualSpaceX/status/1
https://x.com/JsLampe/status/188003
https://x.com/Fernando_AF14/status/
just searched spacex and starship hashtags until I got throttled
also saw these going around
https://x.com/Sitting_Analyst/statu
https://x.com/jp_ouellette/status/1
https://x.com/johnsferra_/status/18
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-S8
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:42:42 UTC No. 16552385
>>16552362
good thing SpaceX has basically unlimited money now with Starlink (and investor interest) and a friendly government stepping in in less than a week
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:42:52 UTC No. 16552386
>>16552183
at least BONG can get to orbit
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:43:26 UTC No. 16552388
It always amazes me how quickly people can turn on someone
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:43:39 UTC No. 16552389
>>16552299
Roach king samaโฆ I- I- I kneel!
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:44:11 UTC No. 16552390
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHy
I TOLD YOU GUYS IT WAS JUST LIKE TRANSFORMERS
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:44:11 UTC No. 16552391
>>16552374
To me it looks like it blew up once it hit the atmosphere, considering all the debris immediately started glowing. IFT didn't even work. They lost all contact and telemetry?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:44:24 UTC No. 16552392
>>16552383
you can see that was right when starship started failing, while our jaws were still on the floor from catching a fucking skyscraper on two steel knuckles
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:44:45 UTC No. 16552393
>>16552379
I guess
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:44:52 UTC No. 16552394
Starship only has to one way land a mars slave colony.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:45:05 UTC No. 16552395
>>16552374
FTS should obviously be used if Starship goes into an uncontrolled flight path, a partially melted ship crashing into an apartment block in some 3rd world country wouldn't be great for the program. Maybe if America becomes based enough to not care.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:45:06 UTC No. 16552397
>>16552306
This guy is such a fuckin caricature lol. What the fuck is his problem, he's so tilted and emotionally invested
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:45:18 UTC No. 16552398
Imagine you're on vacation, flying to your cool carribean island and then you have to fly to fucking Miami because some lazy pajeet didnt superglue the tile on a rocket
Butterfly effect
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:45:36 UTC No. 16552400
>>16552392
The camera cut to the starship a few seconds after another cut from that, and almost instantly lost signal, so ye
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:46:01 UTC No. 16552402
>>16552287
At least we solved the Fermi paradox and found the great filter.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:46:03 UTC No. 16552403
>>16552397
>blue check
he's doing it for the engagement, he's ironically making muskbucks off his gimmick posting
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:47:34 UTC No. 16552407
>>16552392
>>16552400
notice how one of the three center engines goes out at the end
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:47:47 UTC No. 16552408
>>16552387
what the fuck
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:47:48 UTC No. 16552409
>>16552363
shes right
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:48:02 UTC No. 16552411
Imagine the heat tiles bombarding earth
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:48:40 UTC No. 16552415
>>16552384
5 of them I haven't seen (Fernando91RO, JsLampe, Fernando_AF14, sitting_analyst and johnsferra)
and I guess the youtube vid too
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:48:59 UTC No. 16552416
>>16552403
>engagement
Turning himself into a lolcow for engagement? He actually used to be reasonable way back when I was young and skinny
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:49:04 UTC No. 16552418
>>16552267
okay that's kino
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:49:22 UTC No. 16552419
>>16552411
they probably float down rather lightly once at sea level tho
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:49:40 UTC No. 16552420
there are multiple flights over the Turks and Caicos Islands that are diverting back to north america
click on random airplanes in the area
https://www.flightradar24.com/N110Q
i dont think we yet understand how bad this is
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:49:49 UTC No. 16552421
>>16552399
Very nice
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:05 UTC No. 16552423
>>16552346
dickcheese
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:13 UTC No. 16552424
>>16552420
Elon is getting arrested
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:18 UTC No. 16552426
so what now? we go into a coma again? How likely is it that we get a new flight next month? please lie to me and say it will happen
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:21 UTC No. 16552427
>>16552420
SpaceX is getting sued for sure
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:25 UTC No. 16552428
Chris Hadfield
@Cmdr_Hadfield
Lots to learn for
@SpaceX
from these Starship disintegration videos, unfortunately. Hopefully no one hurt. Glad the first stage was successfully caught. Onwards to improvements for Flight 8.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:38 UTC No. 16552432
>>16552420
I think I do. It's actually over. Was fun while it lasted bros.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:53 UTC No. 16552433
>>16552426
Extremely unlikely
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:50:58 UTC No. 16552434
>>16552131
Even if we had a mars base right now you wouldn't be able to go in your lifetime
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:13 UTC No. 16552435
Now imagine if this shit had blown up over some major city, e.g. LA or NY... absolute kino
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:21 UTC No. 16552436
>no FTS but RUD
>massive debris field of the caribbean
>flights having to literally dodge the debris
Yeah, this unironically really fucking bad. We're not getting flight 8 until at least May.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:25 UTC No. 16552437
>>16552420
>>16552428
>>16552432
this may be the start of the end for m*sk and starsh*t
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:41 UTC No. 16552438
>>16552388
dont fuck with gamers
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:55 UTC No. 16552439
>>16552395
>partially melted starship demolishes one orphanage/children's hospital
vs
>debris rains down on the capital of Niggerland, thousands dead
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:51:57 UTC No. 16552440
>blue origin rocket blew up
>nobody cares
>spacex rocket blew up
>INVESTIGATE THEM NOW
i see right through yall
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:04 UTC No. 16552442
>>16552426
i mean, its serious shit, FAA will trigger an investiGAYshion that will take minimum 1 month + 1 month turnaround = 2 to 2,5 months from now
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:04 UTC No. 16552443
>>16552425
The HLS demo is going to be delayed and I fucking hate it
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:04 UTC No. 16552444
Okay, from the videos and people going on with their lives, the life looks chill on these Turks and Caicos islands. Redpill me on them. I need to look to some nice place to comfy retire in due time.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:17 UTC No. 16552445
>the moment FAA gets intimidated into giving spacex licenses left and right this happens
yeah, no. It's fucking over. no more launches until Q3
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:29 UTC No. 16552446
>>16552420
I think I do. Turn on multi-select and check each plane in the area.
https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?ica
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:52:51 UTC No. 16552447
>>16552439
Small debris burn up, except for the tiles
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:00 UTC No. 16552448
>>16552440
How many flights were diverted because of Blue Origin's failure?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:09 UTC No. 16552449
>>16552420
Uhh... This isn't good, is it?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:19 UTC No. 16552450
>>16552378
You can do once around, it just has to launch to a specific inclination.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:21 UTC No. 16552451
>>16552434
that's why I said (we) baka
I'm not even american, I know I ain't going there.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:38 UTC No. 16552453
>>16552436
>May
Anon...
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:50 UTC No. 16552454
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:52 UTC No. 16552455
>>16552436
I unironically think this is game over for Starship.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:53:54 UTC No. 16552456
>>16552145
>>16552384
possibly more, still didn't check if they were duplicates
https://x.com/UlgenSpace/status/188
https://x.com/goLoko77/status/18800
https://x.com/newselfdestruct/statu
https://x.com/Grantjemima_16/status
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:54:06 UTC No. 16552457
>>16552445
Something tells me the FAA is cucked and brought to heel.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:54:22 UTC No. 16552458
SpaceX should stop fooling around and focus on getting an expendable variant of Starship into orbit.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:54:34 UTC No. 16552459
>>16552453
May of 2026, checks out
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:54:56 UTC No. 16552460
>>16552420
KEK, the mars dream is over
might as well kill myself now
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:00 UTC No. 16552461
>>16552428
>lots to learn
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:01 UTC No. 16552462
he's so lucky that Trump won
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:06 UTC No. 16552463
>>16552457
This is something that they won't be able to ignore even with trump as president
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:07 UTC No. 16552465
even if the FAA doesn't issue a new license for flight 8 isn't there still time today to put another Starship on Superheavy, load it up and go again today under the Flight 7 license
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:19 UTC No. 16552466
>>16552365
As soon as I saw that I told my wife no way it's coming back down in 1 piece. I was guessing that it would blow up on re-entry, but imagine that floppy bit of metal breaking off and hitting the hull when the Starship was hauling ass while still in relatively thick layer of atmosphere.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:38 UTC No. 16552468
>>16552465
kek
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:55:47 UTC No. 16552469
>>16552463
They ignored Boeing using scrap parts and dish soap as door seal lubricant.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:57:12 UTC No. 16552470
>>16552462
CAN YOU IMAGINE this failure with Kamala as president HAHAHA
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:57:20 UTC No. 16552472
>>16552426
a month or two longer compared to what it would have been with a successful flight
I wonder if someone is getting fired, I doubt they were going for a test this destructive
something got fucked with the fuel system
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:57:31 UTC No. 16552473
Surely nothing else can go wrong for Elon after all those disasters, luck has to eventually turn around, right?
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:58:18 UTC No. 16552478
>>16552458
They should just make a flat top second stage with a massive fairing. They can crank out a launch a month and keep the heavy lift needs satisfied that has not existed since buran
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:58:20 UTC No. 16552479
If I understand this right, what we had until now wasn't actually the Starship, but rather a toy just to make hype, akin to "fake it till you make it". Now, this was something closer to the real starship, and it failed miserably.
I think this is indeed a clue that this shit has no future.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:58:54 UTC No. 16552480
>>16552455
all according to plan and right on schedule
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:59:04 UTC No. 16552482
>>16552475
we need dedicated cameras in puerto rico
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:59:10 UTC No. 16552484
>>16552472
Fire from the flap hinge in total vacuum indicates both oxygen and methane leaking, not good.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:59:35 UTC No. 16552486
>tfw you'll never see something as beautiful as this in your lifetime
For fucks sake, even the sunlight was in the golden hours. I don't think anybody truly understand the absolute KINO some people got to see.
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:59:49 UTC No. 16552488
>>16552481
CRINGE
Anonymous at Thu, 16 Jan 2025 23:59:54 UTC No. 16552489
>>16552481
i hope the debris kills someone so this tweet looks bad
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:15 UTC No. 16552490
Elon is drunk
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:22 UTC No. 16552491
>>16552474
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:29 UTC No. 16552494
>>16552485
Uh oh.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:00:40 UTC No. 16552495
>inb4 media and normie outrage like NEVER before
Are we forgetting that china literally drops boosters with carcinogenic plumes ONTO their people and nobody gives a shit??? Only fucking hypocrites would complain about SpaceX now
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:16 UTC No. 16552496
>>16552495
It's on their own people and not on everyone in the world.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:17 UTC No. 16552497
>>16552481
Good to know he thinks putting people at risk is 'entertainment'.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:21 UTC No. 16552498
>>16552490
he's high on ketamine
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:23 UTC No. 16552499
>>16552486
yeah i think this was as close to seeing c-beams glittering in the dark near the tannhauser gate as anyone will ever get
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:27 UTC No. 16552501
>>16552484
I have a weird feeling they used some cleaning agent that caught on fire and I will not elaborate
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:28 UTC No. 16552502
https://www.liveatc.net/hlisten.php
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:35 UTC No. 16552503
>>16552485
>debris falls from the sky kilometers from the plane
>UHHH PAN PAN PAN HELP ME ATC I'M SCARED
>enters a holding pattern
>stays there for an hour after the debris fell
>MAYDAY MAYDAY BINGO FUEL
truly musk's fault
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:43 UTC No. 16552504
>>16552475
so no investigation necessary?
I would imagine the FTS activating would mean an investigation in any case even if there wasn't danger to flights due to the NOTAM
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:01:58 UTC No. 16552505
>>16552485
How is this possible without the planes violating NOTAM at the first place? Isn't NOTAM designed to prevent this from happening?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:04 UTC No. 16552506
>>16552436
It's genuinely so fucking OVER. Should have just manually activated the FTS the moment the saw the fucking flames.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:12 UTC No. 16552507
>>16552495
>>16552477
you are a retard shill
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:25 UTC No. 16552508
>>16552495
normies are mostly maga now, and don't care
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:28 UTC No. 16552509
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:38 UTC No. 16552510
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:47 UTC No. 16552511
>>16552504
>so no investigation necessary?
Not now that Musk owns the FAA.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:53 UTC No. 16552512
>>16552505
there's two stages to the NOTAM, a "don't fly here" zone near Boca and the further out "if you fly here watch for falling rocket parts" zone farther out, it fell in the second zone
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:55 UTC No. 16552513
No ift 8 until july right bros?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:02:55 UTC No. 16552514
>>16552487
these pilots are retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:03:01 UTC No. 16552515
>>16552500
Fuck you, more launches. Clear the way for the mars empire.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:03:14 UTC No. 16552516
Another tweet from Elon :
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18800
Improved versions of the ship & booster already waiting for launch
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:03:40 UTC No. 16552517
>>16552495
This, we need to import more H1B geniuses so we can drop rockets onto them to beat china.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:04:18 UTC No. 16552522
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18800
huh I thought S34 just got cryotested
still need to get modified for the failure case that happened during this flight + static fire it (in the very least)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:04:20 UTC No. 16552523
>>16552506
Are the pilots and passengers okay ?!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:04:36 UTC No. 16552525
>>16552487
>Amazon Air
>Prime Air
lel
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:04:49 UTC No. 16552526
>>16552519
uh oh big stinky
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:05:08 UTC No. 16552528
>>16552504
It will be necessary, however >>16552165
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:05:10 UTC No. 16552531
>>16552516
I doubt it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:05:45 UTC No. 16552532
>>16552516
Oh Elon, you're not getting clearance any time soon. Starship is done. SpaceX is done. The Mars vision is done. Enjoy spending the rest of your pathetic life in prison for causing dozens of planes to crash and killing innocent third worlders with rogue heat tiles!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:05:52 UTC No. 16552533
>>16552524
he launched?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:06:03 UTC No. 16552534
>>16552528
Musk says the next ones are already waiting, not months long test campaign necessary >>16552522 >>16552516
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:06:05 UTC No. 16552535
>>16552522
Stupid african american youve been saying this since 2023 and its just getting worse
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:06:36 UTC No. 16552537
>>16552530
based Spanish conquistadors not afraid of anything
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:06:41 UTC No. 16552538
>>16552516
>already waiting for launch
WE GAAAAAN, only launch license remains then
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:06:45 UTC No. 16552539
>>16552534
As if Elon is trustworthy
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:09 UTC No. 16552541
>>16552524
was 5 seconds away from posting that exact image
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:24 UTC No. 16552542
>>16552529
okay so did it or did it not go outside the NOTAM?
this seems to suggest it did
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:36 UTC No. 16552543
>>16552478
Totally. At SpaceX rate of production, they can maintain orbital depot with expendable tankers.
Cut the tiles, header tanks, etc and make the SHSS architecture functional first before pursuing reusability.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:39 UTC No. 16552544
>>16552502
oh they are actually talking about debris
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:46 UTC No. 16552545
>>16552534
>>16552538
>believing what that retard says
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:07:52 UTC No. 16552546
Nobody cares about the booster catch anymore ... something that was deemed impossible just a few months ago
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:08:31 UTC No. 16552548
>>16552259
Where's the quaaludes
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:08:32 UTC No. 16552549
>>16552532
>raining burning ceramic projectiles down on browns while pushing towards the Mars empire
holy fucking based
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:08:53 UTC No. 16552550
>>16552546
We were promised Mars years ago...
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:10 UTC No. 16552551
>>16552546
>something that was deemed impossible just a few months ago
it's the easiest thing to do
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:14 UTC No. 16552552
>>16552534
And in reality:
Booster 15
>cryo test on 28th December 2024
>no SF fire yet
https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/
Ship 34
>no cryo yet
>no SF tet
https://starship-spacex.fandom.com/
No idea if they even have engines installed
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:16 UTC No. 16552553
EDS faggots losing their fucking minds again
Flight 8 will happen in a number of months
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:27 UTC No. 16552554
>>16552506
Wtf I see multiple people flying
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:52 UTC No. 16552555
>>16552542
Makes sense if only one side of the ship was thrusting for a few seconds
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:09:53 UTC No. 16552556
when we load humans into starship?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:10:05 UTC No. 16552557
>>16552554
Of course they're flying, they're in a plane.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:10:31 UTC No. 16552559
>>16552552
I thought S34 went to do cryo?
SF aren't going to take that long, they are almost routine now
engine installation isn't some months long process either, they can probably do it in a day
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:10:34 UTC No. 16552560
>>16552481
w-were they right?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:10:51 UTC No. 16552561
>>16552546
Meanwhile reaching the orbit is supposedly the easy part and yet, 7 flights and still not there
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:11:15 UTC No. 16552562
Do you think there is some spy infiltrated working for SpX that sabotaged Ship 33 ?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:11:16 UTC No. 16552563
>>16552552
what's wrong with booster 14 it's right there just load it up again
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:11:42 UTC No. 16552565
dubs and plane gets hit by debris
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:11:49 UTC No. 16552566
>>16552562
Some woman drilled the fuel lines.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:08 UTC No. 16552568
>>16552546
Nobody ever doubted the catch would work
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:11 UTC No. 16552569
>>16552555
>this is exactly what happened according to the telemetry
Uh oh
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:24 UTC No. 16552570
>>16552554
>Finally some free space for my legs, fuck them cramped flights
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:35 UTC No. 16552571
>>16552546
Everyone would be talking about it if the ship didn't blow the fuck up. That's more significant.
Elon needs to get away from his yes men and get someone who keeps him on track. Why the fuck would you prioritize being a lolcow over managing a rocket company flying most of the mass to orbit that exists
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:40 UTC No. 16552572
>>16552566
I remember that
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:50 UTC No. 16552573
Memes aside how fucked are they because of this lightshow?
Will FAA ground them for a while?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:12:55 UTC No. 16552574
>AIRSPACE OPENS UP IN 5 MINS
AIRSPACE OPENS UP IN 5 MINS
>AIRSPACE OPENS UP IN 5 MINS
AIRSPACE OPENS UP IN 5 MINS
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:13:18 UTC No. 16552576
>>16552573
They will
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:13:44 UTC No. 16552577
>>16552544
Now someone talked about declaring an emergency again, it's over.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:13:51 UTC No. 16552578
Another aircraft soon to declare emergency
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:13:55 UTC No. 16552580
>>16552562
Itโs more likely than youโd think.
Mexico is right there and is the largest concentration of russian spooks and chinese spooks outside of russia and china themselves.
That said iโd still find it unlikely.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:14:39 UTC No. 16552581
>>16552579
Holy shit SpaceX is done lmfao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:14:47 UTC No. 16552582
>>16552579
Sauce on this one, I want the audio
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:14:52 UTC No. 16552583
>>16552126
Has anything like this ever happened and been filmed? I've never seen this kind of thing outside of Columbia, and that was much smaller.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:15:08 UTC No. 16552584
>>16552579
KINO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:15:22 UTC No. 16552585
>>16552573
Since it was a very not routine failure ie the flight path was fucked per >>16552529 a delay for a full investigation would not even be unfair desu.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:15:26 UTC No. 16552586
>>16552579
fuuuuuck imagine being on that plane and seeing it live
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:15:33 UTC No. 16552587
>>16552579
Is it legal to do this???
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:00 UTC No. 16552590
>>16552582
no audio
https://x.com/_thatonedolphin/statu
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:31 UTC No. 16552591
booster re-use when?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:43 UTC No. 16552592
It was bezos
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:44 UTC No. 16552593
>>16552346
I have always valued PFA's opinion, muskfags hated him because he had a good point.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:53 UTC No. 16552594
>>16552561
yes because they aren't trying to reach orbit, they are trying to develop a second stage that is able to return from orbital velocities in a controlled manner and land precisely in a specific spot (which they have done twice already)
developing rapidly reusable heat shields etc is the difficult part, not going to orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:16:58 UTC No. 16552595
>>16552575
NONONONONOOOO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:17:39 UTC No. 16552596
>>16552594
exploding before you experience reentry prevents meaningful reentry data from being collected
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:17:53 UTC No. 16552598
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:18:03 UTC No. 16552599
>>16552579
we at war
saddam hussein is bombing us
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:18:26 UTC No. 16552601
>>16552588
He looks like a nice guy.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:18:29 UTC No. 16552602
FAA Tomorrow:
>I will SMITE Starship
FAA on Jan 20:
>Starships are meant to fly!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:18:40 UTC No. 16552604
>>16552575
Following spaceflight and the Starship program has taught me more about vtubers than I ever thought I'd learn
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:19:05 UTC No. 16552605
>>16552596
What a disingenuous post
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:19:11 UTC No. 16552606
>bo succeds
>spacex fails
Did you expect that
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:19:23 UTC No. 16552608
it went outside the notam zone
its actually over
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:19:24 UTC No. 16552609
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:19:26 UTC No. 16552610
>>16552603
>setback
not really no
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:20:13 UTC No. 16552611
>>16552605
this was a bad flight even by starship standards
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:20:44 UTC No. 16552614
>>16552583
We got some similar footage when a Long March 5B core reentry roulette'd over the Philippines back in 2022
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:20:47 UTC No. 16552615
>>16552596
yes but that wasn't what you were whining about
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:20:55 UTC No. 16552618
>>16552579
the feel must have been surreal
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:21:26 UTC No. 16552619
>>16552616
my sides
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:21:30 UTC No. 16552620
>>16552611
That has nothing to do with the post you were replying to
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:21:45 UTC No. 16552621
>>16552617
yeah, investigations arent that long
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:21:56 UTC No. 16552622
>>16552599
armageddon
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:22:21 UTC No. 16552623
>>16552617
It'll take longer than we'd like but no where near as long as the doomers think it will.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:22:22 UTC No. 16552624
The debris reentry is gonna be spiraled into something significantly worse than it actually is by normies and the media, the overreaction of ATC and all those aircraft certainly doesn't help.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:22:35 UTC No. 16552625
>>16552617
>Surely they will fly again
Anon...
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:22:43 UTC No. 16552626
OK, I understand the "go fast and break things" mentality, testings things and letting them blow up instead of endless simulations, but after so many years of development and 7 test flights, shouldn't we be seeing more progress? Is it time to start thinking that starship is a bad design?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:22:56 UTC No. 16552628
>>16552617
The FAA was publicly spanked just months ago for being too stringent, they're going to have a field day.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:23:03 UTC No. 16552630
>>16552606
BO reached orbit, which is pretty run of the mill for even smallsat launchers, failed to land a booster which has been done only by one other company (SpaceX)
SpaceX landed a booster (again), but failed to test the actual systems they were mostly trying to test
but yeah I guess this is more right than wrong, very unexpected for Starship to blow up at this stage
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:23:19 UTC No. 16552631
>Towards the end of the second stage burn the Ship vented excess liquid oxygen, resulting in a fire in its aft section and loss of the vehicle.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:23:33 UTC No. 16552632
>>16552557
Now listen here you little shit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:23:47 UTC No. 16552633
>>16552631
Dejavu
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:11 UTC No. 16552634
>>16552624
The normies will forget by the end of the news cycle and the media is going to be losing all of their shit over the inauguration on Monday. SpaceX isn't going to be anywhere near their radar
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:15 UTC No. 16552635
>it's been a rough day today - ATC
Elon is going to be GRILLED
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:17 UTC No. 16552636
>>16552616
its easy in deorbitery
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:26 UTC No. 16552637
>>16552626
a second successful catch is important progress
everyone's overreacting for the memes but this was a good flight for booster and a bad flight for ship, it'll probably require an investigation but it's not the end of the program
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:26 UTC No. 16552638
>>16552631
No way they made the same mistake twice
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:27 UTC No. 16552639
>>16552614
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pmf
Starship's debris cloud was way bigger, but this is the only thing that comes close.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:33 UTC No. 16552640
nsf: faa just confirmed mishap investigation is likely
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:43 UTC No. 16552641
>NSF SAYS FAA IS AWARE
ITS ACTUALLY OVER
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:45 UTC No. 16552642
>>16552626
this was testing a new fuel piping system, the tanks were different etc
a completely new version of ship
basically flight 1 of this new series, not flight 7
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:54 UTC No. 16552643
>>16552617
the investigation will finish on january 20th for no reason in particular. yes, I am aware that it is a federal holiday.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:24:56 UTC No. 16552644
all these pilots have to find tiny Caribbean airports at night kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:25:01 UTC No. 16552645
>>16552626
There are no simulations to run when what you are trying to simulate has never been done. You will only get an approximation which is not enough
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:25:24 UTC No. 16552646
>>16552637
so just stack a booster on top of a booster next time? it's that simple
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:25:38 UTC No. 16552648
>>16552626
>Is it time to start thinking that starship is a bad design?
Nyo. Timidity like this is exactly how you end up in a BO situation taking 10 extra years to copy the other guy's homework. It's a reason to change some processes not to shelve the thing
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:25:46 UTC No. 16552649
>>16552631
why the fuck do they keep doing that
for fucks sake
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:01 UTC No. 16552650
>>16552607
i guess it broke apart in space and since it's space there was no explosion
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:14 UTC No. 16552651
>>16552644
if they hadn't been panicky retards and entered hours long holds for a five minute debris event they'd be fine on fuel
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:38 UTC No. 16552652
>>16552575
NOOOOOOOO MY OSHI NOOOOOOOOO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:49 UTC No. 16552653
he has to delay it for 4 more days so trump gets into office and vetos this
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:50 UTC No. 16552654
Bezos : Kudos to you and the whole SpaceX team on the flawless booster catch! Very impressive.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:26:53 UTC No. 16552655
ATC is chaos
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:27:05 UTC No. 16552656
>>16552631
No way this was at the end of second stage burn.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:27:10 UTC No. 16552657
>>16552637
>a second successful catch is important progress
it's not you retarded shill
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:27:42 UTC No. 16552659
>>16552657
repeated success is key in proving it was not a fluke
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:27:45 UTC No. 16552660
>>16552641
>NSF SAYS FAA IS AWARE
Why wouldn't they be, we all watched the same thing.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:00 UTC No. 16552661
>>16552641
how wouldn't they be retard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:05 UTC No. 16552662
>>16552606
>>bo succeds
>>spacex fails
>Did you expect that
I expected both to (mostly) succeed, as such I wasn't surpised that BO managed to get into orbit but fail to catch the booster. I was however surprised to find out that Starship disintegrated, I thought it would make it back partially melted at worst.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:11 UTC No. 16552663
>>16552579
I legit want a plane to crash and lives to be lost just to fuck over Elon
ending digits, do it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:25 UTC No. 16552664
>>16552637
It's completely overshadowed by the dozens of angles of the apocalyptic debris shower
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:31 UTC No. 16552665
FAA :
"The FAA is aware an anomaly occurred during the SpaceX Starship Flight 7 mission that launched from Boca Chica, Texas, on Jan. 16. The FAA is assessing the operation and will issue an updated statement."
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:42 UTC No. 16552667
>>16552655
which one you listenng to?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:28:43 UTC No. 16552668
>>16552659
it's the most pointless part about it, shit can't even fly into space
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:04 UTC No. 16552669
>>16552626
shit happens anon, in flight 1 the whole rocket spiraled a few times before exploding.
final versions of Starship will look nothing like the current one, v3 is way taller, will have new engines etc.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:16 UTC No. 16552670
>>16552657
of course it is retard
this needs to be routine and the fact that they had to divert on the previous one showed that things can still go wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:17 UTC No. 16552671
>>16552631
I thought the whole "go fast and break things" was to speed up the learning process but they don't appear to be learning
Assuming it's the reason for break up
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:17 UTC No. 16552672
>>16552668
this is bait
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:33 UTC No. 16552673
>>16552663
your case is as terminal as flight 7
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:38 UTC No. 16552674
>>16552503
thats modern flight in a nutshell
another plane within 2 miles HELP ME FAA
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:44 UTC No. 16552675
>>16552656
>>16552631
Burning inside the flaps suggests the inside was burning and they should have footage of that
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:29:57 UTC No. 16552677
"We don't have much gas to play with. We're not gonna be able to hold that" - pilot on ATC just now
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:30:18 UTC No. 16552678
>>16552664
normies love fireworks it's fine
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:30:20 UTC No. 16552679
>>16552673
I was 3 off, dammit satan
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:30:32 UTC No. 16552681
>>16552667
https://www.liveatc.net/hlisten.php
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:03 UTC No. 16552682
>>16552670
>>16552672
it's completely pointless you retard if it can't fly into space
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:06 UTC No. 16552683
>>16552677
Then land you fucking fool.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:14 UTC No. 16552684
>>16552639
Starship also weighs about 100 tons dry compared to the LM-5's ~20 ton core stage, and the LM-5 doesn't have nearly as many reentry-resistant components
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:21 UTC No. 16552685
>>16552677
Why are they still holding
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:23 UTC No. 16552686
>elon becomes progressively mentally retarded after buying twitter
>starship program flounders and keeps RUDing due to random easily preventable errors (flights 2, 3, 7), making near zero progress
It can't be a coincidence right
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:27 UTC No. 16552687
What would happen if a plane crashed because of Starship
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:39 UTC No. 16552688
>>16552680
> starlink deploy simulator
damn, I completely forgot about these. Would be kino to watch
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:41 UTC No. 16552689
>>16552590
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:44 UTC No. 16552690
>>16552680
the starlink deploy demo was kinda important, they're gonna want to try it suborbitally before deploying actual 'links with it
this failure probably adds an extra suborbital test flight to the program
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:31:47 UTC No. 16552691
>>16552677
then stop fucking holding
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:32:16 UTC No. 16552695
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:32:44 UTC No. 16552697
So, in the end, where did the debris ended up falling?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:16 UTC No. 16552699
>>16552682
this is like saying the only important part of Falcon is the second stage, but that's fucking stupid and everyone knows that's stupid and the first stage reusability is what made it take over the launch market
Starship is nothing without fully and rapidly reusable Superheavy, booster cadence is actually more important than ship cadence
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:16 UTC No. 16552700
>>16552687
pilot incompetence, no one would care
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:19 UTC No. 16552701
>>16552610
yeah actually this is a good thing right?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:27 UTC No. 16552703
>>16552669
Why even fly this one then?
What's the point of iterative development if you don't ever make any progress and just keep failing at doing the same thing over and over?
Falcon 9 wasn't like this.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:35 UTC No. 16552704
>>16552687
Starship will become the next spruce goose.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:39 UTC No. 16552705
>>16552694
>heat doesn't cause mirages
kys
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:33:46 UTC No. 16552706
Flight 2
>Nov 18, 2023
FAA finishes investigation
>February 29, 2024
Flight 3
>March 14, 2024
4 month long gap
Might be the same this time
or quicker
or longer
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:34:07 UTC No. 16552707
>>16552641
i would be more concerned if they weren't aware....
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:34:18 UTC No. 16552708
>>16552697
beyond the environment
there's nothing out there but birds, and fish, and lost pilots, and the parts of the ship that the debris fell off
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:34:33 UTC No. 16552709
>>16552661
>>16552660
>>16552707
they shouldn't be aware tho
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:34:42 UTC No. 16552710
>>16552677
Stupid No Nut November faggots
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:34:50 UTC No. 16552711
>>16552690
it adds an identical flight, they need to basically re-do this thing again because the ship exploded before any of the new things got tested (or most, I guess the flap aerodynamics and avionics did get tested somewhat, and of course the new fuel system lmao)
but they didn't test the payload system, relight the engine (which would have maybe tested the fuel system again?), didn't get to test the re-entry with new flaps and all the metallic heat shield tiles
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:08 UTC No. 16552712
>>16552674
You do realize planes can travel at like 500 mph, right?
Thatโs less than 15mins from death if youโre within 2 miles of another plane.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:10 UTC No. 16552713
>>16552642
oooh damn, thats actually a good new cope. everytime there is a failure, and something has been changed, just call it technically flight 1
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:13 UTC No. 16552715
>>16552694
and yet they're in reflyable condition. curious
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:23 UTC No. 16552716
>>16552709
anon if you try to hide a superheavy lift vehicle from the FAA you're in way more trouble than if they know you're flying one
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:27 UTC No. 16552717
>>16552682
>sees car crash
>OOHH YOU THINK CARS ARE USEFUL HUH?? LOOK AT THAT THEY CAN'T DO SHIT LOL THEY JUST EXPLODE
This is just beyond retarded, obviously the ship exploding isn't good, but pretending like a failure proves it can't work after it worked multiple times before is goldfish memory logic
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:33 UTC No. 16552718
>>16552694
do we know if this is actually bent engines or just atmospheric/heat distortion?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:55 UTC No. 16552720
>>16552703
>Falcon 9 wasn't like this.
yes it was
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:35:57 UTC No. 16552722
>>16552696
>pic title
what the fuck. I'm scared to go watch it.
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:02 UTC No. 16552723
>>16552703
it's just like software development, as you introduce new features, you sometimes get new bugs.
It's all about fixing the bugs quickly
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:13 UTC No. 16552724
>>16552716
they still shouldn't be aware tho
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:24 UTC No. 16552725
>>16552711
the new fuel system did get tested, the problem is the result was catastrophic failure, methane oxygen leak in the skirt into KB
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:25 UTC No. 16552726
This essentially pushes the HLS timeline (which was already ambitious) out of spring into late summer.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:42 UTC No. 16552727
ITS OPEN
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:42 UTC No. 16552728
>Elon Musk MIRVs hundreds of airliners
Yeah, this is going to congress floor. See you in a couple of years.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:46 UTC No. 16552729
>>16552715
>ONE engine having to go through considerable amount of refurbishment classifies as reflyable condition
Lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:46 UTC No. 16552730
>AIRSPACE IS OPEN
>DEBRIS IS GONE
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:36:59 UTC No. 16552731
I don't care about gay shit like landing on hecking mars, this was more soulful than anything going to space could provide.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:37:07 UTC No. 16552732
>>16552713
>something
lol
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:37:24 UTC No. 16552733
>>16552724
the FAA shouldn't be aware because the FAA shouldn't exist, US airspace should be a free for all PvP zone
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:37:30 UTC No. 16552734
>>16552730
aye but at what cost
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:37:46 UTC No. 16552736
This isn't the first time a Starship RUD on ascent (IFT-2), all doomtards need shut up lmao.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:38:08 UTC No. 16552737
>>16552725
thats what I said
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:38:16 UTC No. 16552738
>>16552645
uhh that doesn't sound right
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:38:17 UTC No. 16552739
>>16552734
hopefully a dozen dead cowardly pilots
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:38:22 UTC No. 16552740
>>16552706
i think it'll be faster this time because they already have experience with handling a starship investigation
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:39:00 UTC No. 16552742
>>16552736
>This isn't the first time a Starship RUD on ascent (IFT-2)
The fact that starship is having a problem like this nearly two years is not a good sign, it implies that they didn't resolve the issue.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:39:06 UTC No. 16552743
>>16552490
What an unserious person. Why is he acting like Slater and not like the Screech?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:39:23 UTC No. 16552745
>>16552740
Or it's going to be much longer because it veered off course and endangered the public.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:39:41 UTC No. 16552746
Airplanes that have been diverted are now landing we are about to get window seat views soon
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:40:06 UTC No. 16552748
>>16552720
Every falcon 9 failure during development were during landing, it wasn't randomly exploding on its way to orbit.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:40:47 UTC No. 16552749
>>16552733
It won't exist in a few days.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:40:49 UTC No. 16552750
>>16552742
no it doesn't, this is a new version of ship
why do you assume the issue is the same?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:40:56 UTC No. 16552751
>>16552742
That anon's post and your's are both fucking retarded for the same reason, there are no similarities beyond both involving the starship program and both going up. It's like comparing a grasshopper failure to a f9 failure
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:41:25 UTC No. 16552752
>>16552736
yeah that's exactly the problem
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:41:34 UTC No. 16552753
>>16552690
No, suborbital test flight is exactly the thing SpaceX need to stop doing. Make Starship expendable but orbital first.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:41:53 UTC No. 16552755
What if... SpaceX is moving too fast?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:41:58 UTC No. 16552756
>>16552741
There's no market for 550 tons to LEO, even with a low idealized $/kg and being extra thick.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:42:02 UTC No. 16552757
>>16552686
If youโre a bluesky midwit im just going to remind you if he ever sells twitter itโll be to some other rightwinger. The old employee clique of twitter is gone, scattered to the fucking wind like Ift 7.
If youโre genuinely concerned for his health then, yes your right, he needs to majorly recalibrate himself probably starting by putting the X addiction down.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:42:25 UTC No. 16552758
>>16552754
faa is the premier government agency managing aircraft for most of the planet
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:42:28 UTC No. 16552759
Elon is in absolute damage control right now lmao
Flooding internet with cool landing and cool explosion but not a single word about the dozens of flights and thousands of people not reaching their destination because of his rocket lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:43:10 UTC No. 16552761
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:43:31 UTC No. 16552762
>>16552753
If the Starlink dispenser chucks out a bunch of mass simulators in LEO how are they going to deorbit? Sure they'll be too low to be a long term issue but it's about principle
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:43:40 UTC No. 16552763
>>16552631
Just fucking keep it heavy you dumbfucks
WHO CARES ABOUT EXCESS SLOP IN THE FUELBAY
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:43:43 UTC No. 16552764
>>16552756
just build it a little smaller, 100 tons or something
(thanks for the pic didn't have this one yet)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:44:10 UTC No. 16552765
>>16552732
yea?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:44:31 UTC No. 16552766
>>16552759
who the fuck cares about these nigger cattle
probably the coolest thing they've ever seen in their lives and all at the cost of a few hours of delay
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:44:56 UTC No. 16552767
My feed is packed with the breakup videos. Everyone is using them
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:45:35 UTC No. 16552769
>>16552767
of course they are they're fucking gorgeous
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:45:48 UTC No. 16552770
>>16552746
there already is one in this thread
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:45:55 UTC No. 16552771
>>16552762
Either release them before orbital insertion, or put a small solid motor on each of them.
Or just use real Starlink sats.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:10 UTC No. 16552772
>>16552766
People who don't have autism would rather get home to their loved ones than see a failed basedence experiment.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:29 UTC No. 16552773
>>16552758
sounds gay
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:30 UTC No. 16552774
>>16552757
I've been on this general since 2019
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:33 UTC No. 16552775
>RUD was actually RSD and an advertisement campaign
>whole world will be talking about spacex and elon now
NEVER BET AGAINST MUSK
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:36 UTC No. 16552776
>>16552759
Elon's fragile ego is his critical failing. That said in this case he probably also is legally advised to not start talking fault
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:46:37 UTC No. 16552777
>>16552770
The cockpit one?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:47:12 UTC No. 16552779
>>16552288
ZEN ZEN ZEN
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:47:37 UTC No. 16552781
>>16552772
fuck em
they can go cry in the corner away from people with SOUL
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:47:37 UTC No. 16552782
>>16552770
would be very funny if it was uploaded over starlink
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:47:59 UTC No. 16552783
>>16552776
Who would be at fault here expect him? The laws of physics?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:48:04 UTC No. 16552784
>>16552759
Those were cargo flights
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:48:25 UTC No. 16552785
>>16552761
This dumb bitch keeps failing that simple task
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:48:34 UTC No. 16552786
>>16552777
yea
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:48:36 UTC No. 16552787
An hour ago :
"IBE0379 declared an emergency due to fuel and was told by atc to cross the debris field at their own risk."
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:49:28 UTC No. 16552788
If a mediocre subtard had their own rocket company, what would they do differently than SpaceX?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:49:42 UTC No. 16552789
>>16552111
>>16552126
>>16552132
>>16552151
felon husk has finally lost the mandate of heaven
ไป่ๅผๅฏไบไธญๅ็ๅฝ็ปๆฒปๅคฉไฝ็ 1000 ๅนด่พ็
ๅฒๆ
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:49:45 UTC No. 16552790
>American burning rocket parts fall on foreign seas and disrupt foreign air traffic
I don't see why the FAA should be involved at all 2bh
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:49:46 UTC No. 16552791
>>16552750
>this is a new version of ship
Wasn't Startship v2 supposed to be developed off what SpaceX learned with v1?
It's the same iteration plan ain't it?
>>16552751
SpaceX prioritized getting Falcon 9 to orbit first and then worked out booster recovery later.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:49:48 UTC No. 16552792
>>16552779
Sauce?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:50:04 UTC No. 16552794
>>16552209
sheesh
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:50:10 UTC No. 16552796
>>16552787
I can already see the headlines in media, kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:50:11 UTC No. 16552797
>>16552759
I would pay significant money for tickets on any of those flights, if they're going to get an up close view of a destructive reentry of a Starship they should appreciate the show and not bitch
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:50:14 UTC No. 16552798
the chance of debris hitting a plane is basically zero either way. not sure why the pilots are freaking out about it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:50:19 UTC No. 16552799
>>16552788
embezzle a lot of money, for one
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:51:12 UTC No. 16552801
>>16552764
So something in the vein of Percheron? If so I agree.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:51:20 UTC No. 16552802
>>16552798
because they're stupiud and don't know any better
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:51:43 UTC No. 16552804
>>16552798
>not sure why the pilots are freaking out about it
air travel is incredibly safe and routine and it's made that way by pilots who are intensively drilled on flying exactly by the book
there is no checklist for "a starship fell out of the sky vaguely near my flight path"
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:52:07 UTC No. 16552805
>>16552788
I would develop starship as disposable first to get 100 tonnes to orbit. Then develop recovery of the booster and possibly a dreadnought triple booster version
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:52:22 UTC No. 16552806
>>16552792
Boku no Namae Wa Pico
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:52:52 UTC No. 16552809
im going to sleep. What a fucking day
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:53:02 UTC No. 16552810
>>16552788
ARCAspace exists (on paper anyways)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:53:07 UTC No. 16552811
>>16552787
S33 exploded about 5:45pm eastern, would there really still be debris falling an hour later? Are the tiles that floaty?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:53:11 UTC No. 16552812
>>16552791
>SpaceX prioritized blah blah
Completely irrelevant, all you needed to do was understand that the failures are at completely different stages of development and happening to what for most purposes are completely different craft with very few components if any in common and on completely different trajectories and flight plans
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:53:54 UTC No. 16552815
>>16552809
yeah same, can't wait to wake up to a media meltdown...
gnight
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:54:10 UTC No. 16552816
>>16552768
There's larger size images on his site, but they're a pain to pull.
https://www.johnkrausphotos.com/Gal
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:54:13 UTC No. 16552817
>>16552801
yeah, just bigger, and launched from the ocean or a big pool
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:54:28 UTC No. 16552819
>>16552798
You probably have a higher proportion of foreign pilots operating in the Caribbean that are not trained up to American standards. You'll also have a lot of American pilots who are trained up to our standards who manage to be even worse
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:54:30 UTC No. 16552820
>>16552787
>due to fuel
methane and oxygen?
afaik nothing in starship should be a hazardous material, they don't even use monoprop for their reaction controll thrusters, no?
overall starship is pretty "green" and non-toxic, even when exploded and spread over a few square-miles.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:55:11 UTC No. 16552822
>>16552820
anon you're retarded
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:55:12 UTC No. 16552823
>>16552768
this is some anime shit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:55:16 UTC No. 16552824
>>16552814
the successful flight of the booster exactly cancels out with the failure of the starship to equal nothing happening, they'll need an extra suborbital flight, it'll be like flight 7 never happened and spacex just did nothing for six months
nothingbros undefeated
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:55:47 UTC No. 16552825
>>16552804
Not necessarily the pilots but SOMEONE in the chain probably should have realized that gravity exists so a field of debris falling is transient
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:55:57 UTC No. 16552826
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:03 UTC No. 16552827
>>16552820
they have been on a on-hold pattern for a while , they are running out of fuel
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:23 UTC No. 16552828
>>16552731
I can honestly see a view that the starship program's real purpose/objective is as a kino/sovl-maxximizer.. like, we'll get to mars, sure, but only when the kino reserves are mined and it's time for new ones.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:32 UTC No. 16552829
>>16552826
put the booster on the right with nuglin
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:40 UTC No. 16552830
>>16552820
lack of kerosene (in the jet [jet fuel {for the jet engines <on the jet declaring a fuel emergency>}])
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:56:53 UTC No. 16552831
>>16552151
I didnโt even know she was sick
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:58:49 UTC No. 16552837
>>16552814
Normally I don't care for jakslop, but I like this
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:59:09 UTC No. 16552840
>>16552834
V2 is ugly as hell and it deserves the treatment N-1 got. On to (hopefully pretty) V3 Starship
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:59:13 UTC No. 16552841
>>16552830
>>16552827
oh, okay.
uhh, just fcking stop the holding pattern and go land on an airport then?
its been over a fcking hour, I doubt there's any starship debree still in the air.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 00:59:56 UTC No. 16552842
>>16552837
wojack is older than AI slop memes
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:00:18 UTC No. 16552843
>>16552503
this was supposed to be a joke how are they STILL holding
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:00:19 UTC No. 16552844
>>16552806
uuuhhhh, yeah... no.. not getting into that. Akira is after what I draw the line
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:00:26 UTC No. 16552845
>>16552580
it flew right over Cuba, think about it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:00:40 UTC No. 16552847
>>16552753
That is retarded, they have a working eorkhorse already
Starship is about cost of mass to orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:01:13 UTC No. 16552848
>>16552842
I know, that's why I'm sick of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:02:18 UTC No. 16552851
>>16552250
It seems, in your anger at asmon, you killed her.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:02:42 UTC No. 16552852
>>16552816
Well let me introduce you to 2 plugins
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:03:43 UTC No. 16552854
>>16552816
>>16552852
And
If it's on my screen, I'm fucking getting it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:03:58 UTC No. 16552855
>>16552847
>cost of mass to orbit
And "to orbit" is exactly the part SpaceX should focus on first.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:05:31 UTC No. 16552858
>>16552855
Wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:05:40 UTC No. 16552859
"The FAA briefly slowed and diverted aircraft around the area where space vehicle debris was falling. Normal operations have resumed.
A Debris Response Area is activated only if the space vehicle experiences an anomaly with debris falling outside of the identified closed aircraft hazard areas. It allows the FAA to direct aircraft to exit the area and prevent others from entering."
The FAA confirming that there was debris was outside of the hazard areas.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:05:47 UTC No. 16552860
>>16552855
There is a world outside of shitposts where SpaceX is getting plenty to orbit, retard. The cost part is absolutely the important bit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:05:56 UTC No. 16552861
This thread is called /sfg/. Why are people allowed to discuss sub-orbital rockets like Starship?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:06:49 UTC No. 16552863
https://x.com/BCCarCounters/status/
>"The FAA briefly slowed and diverted aircraft around the area where space vehicle debris was falling. Normal operations have resumed.
>A Debris Response Area is activated only if the space vehicle experiences an anomaly with debris falling outside of the identified closed aircraft hazard areas. It allows the FAA to direct aircraft to exit the area and prevent others from entering."
>The FAA confirming that there was debris was outside of the hazard areas.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:06:57 UTC No. 16552864
>>16552353
he's going to blame it on asmongold
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:07:02 UTC No. 16552865
>>16552859
>>The FAA confirming that there was debris was outside of the hazard areas.
>debris was outside of the hazard areas.
ITS ACTUALLY OVER
INVESTAGTION IS REQUIRED
ITS OVER
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:07:14 UTC No. 16552866
>>16552859
>The FAA confirming that there was debris was outside of the hazard areas.
ITS FUCKING OVER
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:08:19 UTC No. 16552868
>>16552861
It's space flight general, not orbital flight general
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:09:13 UTC No. 16552869
>>16552861
this doesn't even work as a le clever gotcha because space is a region of.. space. and starship has been there.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:09:25 UTC No. 16552870
/sfg/ - Suborbital Flight General
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:09:43 UTC No. 16552871
>>16552861
suborbital space is space
>nuh uh
*asats you*
heh, nothing personel
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:13:04 UTC No. 16552873
we need a second space age art wave
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:13:34 UTC No. 16552874
>>16552873
starship is an art deco cathedral to humanity and the ego
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:17:17 UTC No. 16552878
>>16552694
Ignition rounds them out, so there's no point.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:17:31 UTC No. 16552879
>Preliminary indication is that we had an oxygen/fuel leak in the cavity above the ship engine firewall that was large enough to build pressure in excess of the vent capacity.
Apart from obviously double-checking for leaks, we will add fire suppression to that volume and probably increase vent area. Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18800
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:18:48 UTC No. 16552880
>>16552876
what a lazy ass ms paint tier edit, you can see straight lines where he's cut the dust clouds
nsf are hacks
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:19:23 UTC No. 16552881
>>16552879
Still probably need to have a conversation with the FAA about exclusion zone size, but this doesn't sound that bad
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:19:59 UTC No. 16552883
>>16552879
Doomerbros....
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:20:42 UTC No. 16552885
>>16552879
>Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.
Uh-uh. It's not over until the FAAt lady sings.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:21:22 UTC No. 16552886
>>16552879
>>16552881
reentry debris was outside the hazard zone per the FAA: >>16552863. Elon clearly doesn't give a shit. But regardless of what he thinks, the FAA will not grant SpaceX another license until after an investigation. Only way around that is if Trump intervenes via EO, declares national security importance, and grants SpaceX legal immunity to launch. But pulling that card, so early into his presidency, is basically asking for a revolt from all his constituencies.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:22:13 UTC No. 16552887
>>16552879
So basically there was a big boom between the engines and the ship which probably severed engine connections and in turn triggered FTS. I don't think Elon is taking FAA into consideration here lol.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:22:15 UTC No. 16552888
>>16552126
This is what hundreds of Starships arriving on Mars will look like
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:22:34 UTC No. 16552889
>>16552879
Imagine losing your ship to the same design flaw twice, embarrassing
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:23:14 UTC No. 16552891
>>16552879
>Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.
Is he retarded or is it the drugs speaking?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:23:15 UTC No. 16552892
>>16552126
This looks amazing they should do it more often
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:24:29 UTC No. 16552893
>>16552886
They investigated, isolated the problem, and will have an engineering solution mapped out by Monday. The only significant unanswered quesions are if the exclusion zones are sized appropriately.
The rest of your speculation is completely fucking retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:24:31 UTC No. 16552894
>>16552879
>Nothing so far suggests pushing next launch past next month.
WE ARE SO FUCKING BACK
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:24:40 UTC No. 16552895
>>16552880
yeah they're beta males what did you expect? anyways they're selling it on their website if you want it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:25:50 UTC No. 16552897
>>16552879
yeah, I'm hearing that we're back
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:26:12 UTC No. 16552899
Original patent-pending idea (DO NOT STEAL): Rockets that don't leak
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:26:48 UTC No. 16552900
>>16552484
that's okay, it was outside the environment
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:26:51 UTC No. 16552902
>>16552879
Fucking hell, I knew it would be something like this; IFT-2 all over again. >>16552150
Hopefully the FAA investigation doesn't hold them up too much, and hopefully from now on planes planning to fly under the planned Starship flight path will just delay takeoff a little bit to account for the ~8-9mins the ship would take to get to its planned final velocity, just in case something like this happens again.
Starship launches out of the Cape hopefully won't have this problem, at least not to this degree.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:27:38 UTC No. 16552903
>>16552900
in another environment?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:29:27 UTC No. 16552905
>>16552893
Screencap me faggot, prove me wrong. I'll be around.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:31:13 UTC No. 16552907
>>16552879
>next month
Musk time lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:31:15 UTC No. 16552908
not really a critique, but is starship the rocket with the greatest number of test flights BEFORE putting a useful payload into orbit? most others do it on #3 at the latest
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:32:10 UTC No. 16552910
>>16552906
>Screencap me faggot, prove me wrong. I'll be around.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:34:37 UTC No. 16552913
>>16552910
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:38:54 UTC No. 16552917
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:42:59 UTC No. 16552922
>>16552917
>>16552908
Vanguard got a satellite up on the 3rd launch attempt.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:43:45 UTC No. 16552923
>>16552287
>leave living planet for dead planet
>even if it worked, mars support would be a massive financial burden on earth
It's a retarded idea anyway
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:45:33 UTC No. 16552924
That booster catch is fucking unreal. I keep replaying it. I know it's a massive fucking feat of engineering, an incredible step forward in this space race, something I can tell my grandkids about how I was there, watching the live feeds (like people harping on about Apollo) but I can't feel it... it overwhelms me to the point of apathy & disbelief.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:48:21 UTC No. 16552926
>>16552908
It showed me even the most amazing things get boring fast when repeated
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:50:39 UTC No. 16552928
>>16552924
you had nothing to do with it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:51:15 UTC No. 16552931
>>16552879
Still doesn't explain the fire we saw in the forward flap hinge
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:51:40 UTC No. 16552933
>>16552927
will be 2 launches lol
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:52:10 UTC No. 16552934
>>16552931
It wasn't in the forward flap hinge
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:52:18 UTC No. 16552935
>>16552928
oh look at mr grinch here
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:52:52 UTC No. 16552936
>>16552931
The hinge location where the fire was visible is where that cavity above the engine firewall is.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:53:02 UTC No. 16552937
>>16552931
No, that was the aft flap lower hinge which pretty much lines up perfectly with propellants burning in the upper skirt
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:53:23 UTC No. 16552938
>>16552906
prolly hit some sick PRs and then went ferociter mode on his boglina
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:56:08 UTC No. 16552939
>>16552870
new glenn went to orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:59:04 UTC No. 16552941
Why do people really think he'll have any trouble with the FAA after Monday? Don't you know how buying the government works?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:59:14 UTC No. 16552942
>>16552886
The investigation is performed by SpaceX, all the FAA does is sign off on it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 01:59:18 UTC No. 16552943
>>16552111
Ironically, every single launch of Elon's Folly has been very successful in demonstrating the intellectual and cultural deficiencies that hobble the U.S. technology industry. From the beginning of the ridiculous strategy of welding together something vaguely rocket-like in a tent, every serious aerospace engineer (REAL, LICENSED engineers, not hobbyists, amateurs, or the uneducated with YouTube as a soapbox) knew it was utterly ridiculous and would never work. Other serious launch vehicles (including Falcon) are manufactured in clean, climate-controlled settings with precise methodologies arising from a combination of expert engineering talent and a legacy stretching back to the very origins of rocketry at Pernemรผnde. With the "Starship", musk decided to sidestep this and reinvent the wheel in a tent (After all, isn't he smarter than everybody else? He certainly believes so.) It was essentially a glorified hobbyist project no different in character than other inane diversions that billionares quench their boredom with. Raptor, arguably the only successful component, dates from an aforegoing R&D effort funded by the USAF for a high-energy upper stage, so its development followed rigorous practices and produced a functional result. (unlike "starship," which has failed in some way on each flight.)
This sort of surreal incompetence is emblematic of the present technology and engineering sectors. I would intuitively imagine that its causes are multivariate, but almost certainly one among these is the inability of people today to think critically. The attrition of intelligence itself truly began in the 1990s, when we began offloading cognitive tasks to computers and mass networking inflated the value of communication.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:00:36 UTC No. 16552944
>>16552943
Why think critically about writing a letter when you can send an instant email instead? Over time, these abuses of technology proliferated into just "tech", which we might use to denote all the contraptions to offload mental effort and discourage/ divert from serious intellectual inquiry. It became even worse with smartphones inescapably short-circuiting the hedonic structures supporting cognition, apocalyptic with "TikTok", and the advent of AI has enabled us to avoid thinking even for trivial tasks. Why learn mental math when you have a calculator? Why practice your writing if a spell checker, "Grammarly" or "ChatGPT" can write for you?
Education is also among the preeminently culpable structures for the erosion of intellect. Present-day mass education is more about establishing fixed patterns of reaction to authority. (Gatto, 2003) It is more rewarded to mindlessly memorize the narrow use-cases of some relation than to cultivate the deep understanding that gives rise to engineering insight. I teach an SI class, and the practice of such in no way involved arming students with analytical tools and turning them free to engage on the delightful (and truly rewarding) task of insight. Such inference, planning, or even desire is alien to them. They want to go back home and play computer games, or stare at their phone, which reduces teaching to "This is the law in question. Here are the types of problems that will be on the test. Here is the equation to be used for each type of problem," followed by rote reinforcement.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:01:22 UTC No. 16552945
>Musk uses his newfound power as the US president by cutting the FAAs heel so SpaceX can launch quicker
>immediately gets a huge disaster launch that endangers several flights
comical.
karmical.
proof that god exists and he wants shit to be fucking funny.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:01:31 UTC No. 16552946
>The President says next flight still expect this month
WE ARE BACK BROS
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:01:58 UTC No. 16552947
>>16552944
Another obstacle is cultural. Back in the 1950s when the U.S. aerospace industry was strongly expanding, almost all the engineering staff had some form of military experience, which taught them not to work as self-absorbed hooligans but as a team. People today, especially young people, are self-centered and have no idea how to put aside such a view of the world. The military VERY quickly extirpates that from people, and it stays with you for the rest of your life.
Corporate culture is another problem entirely, but it compounds on the prior shortcomings. Most of those in executive positions are beset and blinded with a sense of personal superiority that they become detached from reality. This may only evoke inefficiency in other areas, but in engineering, it's fatal. Musk illustrates this excellently: the strategy of welding together 304 stainless rings to make a pressure vessel was obviously some drug-induced flight of fancy (Musk has admitted to being a drug user, smoking cannabis on a recording). Musk was so confident in his personal ability to solve problems that evidence indicating the insufficiency of such a method was ignored. For certainty's sake, BUILDING LAUNCH VEHICLES IN A TENT IS NOT A VIABLE MANUFACTURING METHOD. Intuitively, we could very reasonably expect the same mismanagement pattern to be present in a preponderant share of other companies.
Hiring engineers is another problem. DEI efforts, which exclude the most qualified candidates, are a form of expensive signaling by corporate leadership that their company is strong, appealing to investors.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:02:33 UTC No. 16552949
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:03:03 UTC No. 16552951
>>16552947
Preponderant hiring of women is a different matter, which arises out of a desire by corporate leadership (which is almost exclusively male, in line with feminist critical theory) to exclude sexual competition and surround themselves with females. The complicated U.S. system of Title IX, "sexual harassment" laws, HR, etc. is not meant to actually protect women in line with emancipatory feminist objectives. Instead, it serves the purpose of a series of sexual laws that assert soft ownership of women and restrict female access to an exclusive cadre of elite men. It is actually strikingly similar to islamic sexual jurisprudence. A professional arena that is a transparent legitimating rationale for a personal sexual harem is not a fertile ground for engineering tasks.
The spectacular engineering failures by groups like SpaceX and Boeing seem to indicate that technology is regressing into a form of mysticism, where even its practitioners hold a limited understanding of their trade. Innovation and technological development require a commitment to scientific truth that present educational, social, and technological factors all militate against. (Actual science, as in the rich empirical tradition that grew out of the Enlightenment instead of the statistical cargo cult McScience that frequently replaces it today.) Without dramatic social changes to support engineering, we face an ominous risk of being stuck on earth forever.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:04:26 UTC No. 16552953
something something happy for you or sorry that happened
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:04:34 UTC No. 16552954
>>16552943
>>16552944
>>16552947
>>16552951
stfu chatgpt
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:05:04 UTC No. 16552956
>>16552346
I KNEEL
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:07:21 UTC No. 16552959
>>16552949
They didn't double check for leaks this time? I would have thought the hardworking geniuses from India would have thought about that.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:11:34 UTC No. 16552962
>>16552959
they only do singhle check
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:11:51 UTC No. 16552964
>>16552959
sadly ITAR means only white people are hired. Indians could have saved starship
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:12:29 UTC No. 16552965
>>16552964
wtf I love ITAR now?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:15:32 UTC No. 16552966
>>16552879
why don't they just install some fans in that area to blow the methane out?
problem solved
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:17:57 UTC No. 16552969
>>16552965
President Musk will make quick work of the pesky ITAR on January 20th.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:23:23 UTC No. 16552972
>>16552259
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMC
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:23:57 UTC No. 16552973
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:25:03 UTC No. 16552976
>>16552288
looks magical
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:26:51 UTC No. 16552982
>>16552976
It is pretty in a melancholic way
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:27:19 UTC No. 16552983
>>16552443
HLS is shit anyway
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:27:43 UTC No. 16552984
>>16552346
kill, as they say, yourself
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:30:01 UTC No. 16552988
>>16552770
be commercial passenger in window seat
see one of many Starship explode while in a commercial flight
have shit video skills and be a jobber
oh well
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:31:08 UTC No. 16552990
>>16552373
one of the most amazing things I've ever seen
>>16552374
good thing scott manley isn't in charge of the FAA
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:33:17 UTC No. 16552997
>>16552988
trash ass phone camera
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:33:33 UTC No. 16552999
https://x.com/DJSnM/status/18800803
>Using common features I put a few of the debris videos together to extend the timeline
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:33:34 UTC No. 16553000
>>16552949
>liked
>retweeted
>condemned hamas
>good goy
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:35:01 UTC No. 16553003
>>16552994
modern post-processing makes everything look like fucking star citizen
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:37:03 UTC No. 16553004
>>16552943
Well done anon your incredible intellect and unrivaled observation skills you have identified the entire point of the starship program and it's reason for existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:38:45 UTC No. 16553009
>>16552964
Database says 13% of SpaceX employees are H1B.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:36 UTC No. 16553011
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:39:39 UTC No. 16553012
>>16553009
what database? don't they all have to be US nationals?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:40:41 UTC No. 16553014
>>16553005
>please contact your local authorities
lol no
I'm on my boat searching for souvenirs
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:41:31 UTC No. 16553016
>>16552954
You are proving my point. Intellectual inquiry (even the non-serious form done as a pastime) is so foreign to young people these dats that they label it "AI". This is why rockets are exploding and planes are falling from the sky.
The seventh Saturn V launch was Apollo 15. The seventh "starship" launch not only fails to make orbit but fails dramatically, goes off-course, and disrupts commercial air traffic. What if a fragment had hit an aircraft and we were instead discussing a 200+ casualty SAR operation at present? The answer is that SpaceX would never fly anything again. Musk continues to bring shame to the U.S. aerospace industry.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:41:57 UTC No. 16553017
>>16553011
good webm
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:42:09 UTC No. 16553019
today was a good day for spaceflight. its been so boring lately that we needed it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:42:29 UTC No. 16553020
>>16552579
try to convince me this isn't magic (you will lose)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:43:27 UTC No. 16553021
>>16553019
it's a good time to be a space enthusiast, can't wait to reminisce on it a decade from now
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:44:50 UTC No. 16553023
>>16552998
*three burns
*seven engines
you forgot the SRBs and the core doesn't put ICPS fully in orbit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:44:50 UTC No. 16553024
>>16552603
I have always hated this guy
His articles are shit
He is the Jim Cramer of spaceflight
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:45:49 UTC No. 16553025
>>16552603
where's the lie
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:46:18 UTC No. 16553026
>>16552626
>three generations ahead of the rest of the world
>this is too slow
you are retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:47:18 UTC No. 16553027
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:47:21 UTC No. 16553028
>>16552998
>with 4 engines
would you believe they did it with three?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:48:27 UTC No. 16553030
>>16552653
good thing we're set for a three day weekend
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:51:19 UTC No. 16553032
>>16553002
you fucks made my wife cry???
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:51:28 UTC No. 16553034
>>16552607
Best shot I've seen yet since it shows the whole thing from start.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:51:55 UTC No. 16553035
>>16552759
>thousands of people on delayed flights
nigger, air canada does that every 30 minutes
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 02:53:57 UTC No. 16553037
>NASA is paying Firefly $101 million for its payloads to ride with Firefly to the Moon, plus another $44 million for developing the instruments themselves.
yeah thats way too much. cut it $40 million total. and not cost plus.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:02:56 UTC No. 16553044
>>16552938
There's probably like 200 people on Earth that could translate this entire comment >>16553016
If you can't say it concisely then you can't say it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:04:16 UTC No. 16553045
>>16553044
I feel like I'm one of them
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:06:41 UTC No. 16553046
>>16553044
>If you can't say it concisely then you can't say it
reason being?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:09:01 UTC No. 16553047
>>16552954
nice
I wish there was a second sign
SINEKASU
SHIH-NEH-CUH-SUE
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:11:30 UTC No. 16553049
>>16553016
>The seventh "starship" launch not only fails to make orbit but fails dramatically
It's supposed to fail. It's very amusing to me that you "intellectuals" simply can't comprehend the fact that the flight is a test. They have stated they're developing the vehicle like software. Meaning a lot of constant testing of the state the vehicle as it is and learning from failure. Hence why there's so many cameras on it.
It is only a "failure" to you because you're forcing your own framework on the rockett development and you simply won't accept the reality that they're not developing it the way you want to.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:16:32 UTC No. 16553051
>>16553016
>This is why rockets are exploding and planes are falling from the sky.
Is it also why Apollo 6 failed to get to the correct orbit, the SM for Apollo 13 suffered a catastrophic oxygen tank explosion, and 3 astronauts were cooked alive in the Apollo 1 incident? Not to mention the huge number of failed launches and other anomalies and mishaps involving non-Apollo rockets and space hardware in the 50s and 60s.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:30:06 UTC No. 16553058
MAKE
STARSHIP
SMALLER
FFS
HOW MANY TIMES DO STRUCTURAL FAILURES NEED TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU START REDUCING THE TOTAL SURFACE AREA
DO IT
JUST
DO IT
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:30:17 UTC No. 16553059
>>16553056
they should put like holes in the engine skirt or something so the fire has a place to go instead of just being stuck in the engine bay like that.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:30:17 UTC No. 16553060
>>16553051
pretty sure it's a chatGPT response you're replying to bro
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:30:51 UTC No. 16553061
Interesting that one of the engines failed to relight during the initial burn back but successfully relit during the final landing burn. I actually thought this was going to prevent them from trying the catch again but nope. Losing the ship is going to be such a massive setback though. I know musk wants to pretend he will just launch again next month but the fts doesn't seem to have even activated and debris went all over the fucking place. Worst of all they did not get any heat tile data, which is arguably the primary goal of this launch. They may well not even get more tile data for half a year after this failure. Big sad.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:36:30 UTC No. 16553065
So let me get this right
>no new data, saarship didn't even make it to orbit
>failed because of the exact same reason that another ship failed, just keep the excess prop load you fucking dipshits
>RUD, FTS did not activate
>Giant fucking debris swath falling outside NOTAM zone caught by over 9000 cellphones looking like gods judgement
>Dozens of planes shitting themselves, calling emergencies, diverting (granted the pilots are subtard pajeets for this but still)
What a fucking DISASTER, maybe Elon will cease his ketamine binge now
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:36:48 UTC No. 16553066
>>16553061
LLM begone
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:37:47 UTC No. 16553068
>>16552210
dont they send potential debris field to everyone before flight
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:38:38 UTC No. 16553070
>>16553065
>didn't even make it to orbit
wasn't supposed to
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:39:34 UTC No. 16553071
>>16553070
Whatever gaynigger you know what I mean
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:42:07 UTC No. 16553074
>>16553071
>you know what I mean
yeah you're seething. You people are really quiet when starship makes a world first. As long as nobody is on it then Elen can blow up infinite rockets
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:44:40 UTC No. 16553077
>>16552542
It's still within the zone, it's pretty thick
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:45:14 UTC No. 16553078
>>16553074
I've been here longer than you. Having a second ship fail because of the same already stupid reason that caused a previous vehicle to fail is embarrassing.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:47:09 UTC No. 16553080
>>16553028
Shuttle used 7 engines to get into orbit, actually.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:49:53 UTC No. 16553083
>>16553079
BO toasted
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:51:01 UTC No. 16553085
>>16553079
The SpaceX investigation will be cleared by Monday, Blue Origin will stretch on for months now.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:51:06 UTC No. 16553086
>starship couldn't fart properly it exploded yet again
sigh
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:52:01 UTC No. 16553087
>>16553079
rip, bye bye blue urine. no coming back from this
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:53:57 UTC No. 16553088
"we will perform reentry testings with test articles at orbital velocity"
"good to know you can reliably launch test articles to orbital velocity"
"..."
"you can reliably launch test articles to orbital velocity, right?"
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:54:12 UTC No. 16553089
>>16553079
Incoming environmental study requirements
>>16553087
This is the piece of art I was waiting for.
>Local rocket not so smug after slamming into the sea.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:54:16 UTC No. 16553090
>>16553085
>The SpaceX investigation will be cleared by Monday
Not with this level of fuckup it won't. FTS failing to activate can't be swept under the rug. Even with cheeto hitler paid off, it's going to be a while.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:57:32 UTC No. 16553092
>>16553078
You wouldn't know
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:59:21 UTC No. 16553094
>>16553085
Not to the defend the FAA, but if the year-long investigation after NS-23 blew up is any indication Blue was already going to take months and months to complete its own internal review
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 03:59:25 UTC No. 16553095
>>16553079
KEK, they might as well do a 2x1 promo.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:00:07 UTC No. 16553096
Calling it now Musk will totally fail because he grinds down and burns out all his engineers with insane work hours.
Its like with H1B, Musk was too retarded to realize that the facism is deal is "We will be forced to buy your shitty cars, you will be forced to hire us" but just wants to take everything.
He thinks engineers are just a consumable resource that he can just abuse because they are hyped by spaceflight but also that they will somehow deliver a top product.
SpaceX engineers are not improving or learning, they are continuously replaced.
๐๏ธ Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:00:32 UTC No. 16553098
>>16553090
Hello? Who do you think owns the FAA now?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:01:02 UTC No. 16553099
>>16553097
Finally, accuracy
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:01:36 UTC No. 16553100
>>16553097
lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:05:10 UTC No. 16553103
>>16553096
how many hours per week does the average spacex engineer work? Do we know? Is it that much worse compared to other companies?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:05:27 UTC No. 16553104
>>16553101
>Nooo don't you understand the FTS actually failed to activate you can't just sweep this under the rug like this it's not fair
Today was a very good day. Not a completely successful day, but still a very good day
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:06:02 UTC No. 16553106
>>16553097
Yup
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:10:00 UTC No. 16553110
>>16552363
my boomer parents are completely impervious to all sorts of attempts at talking about world changing technologies or trends. it would be comical if it wasn't so infuriating
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:10:46 UTC No. 16553111
>>16553110
if they're boomers they already saw the space race go down and how it never did more
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:13:19 UTC No. 16553114
>>16553110
be glad they didn't resort to the ol' and classic "fix earth problems first"
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:14:14 UTC No. 16553116
>>16552568
Tons of people doubted the catch would work.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:15:38 UTC No. 16553118
https://x.com/ispace_inc/status/188
>Mission 2 Milestone Success 4
>The RESILIENCE lunar lander successfully completed its first orbital maneuver at 19:40:18 UTC, Thursday, Jan. 16, 2025, at 250,000 kilometers from Earth, setting the lander on a course towards the Moon and verifying operation of the main propulsion system, as well as the related guidance, control, and navigation system! The orbital maneuver required a main thruster burn that lasted approximately 16 seconds. RESILIENCE is currently in Earth orbit ( in the image). Next it will complete a lunar flyby, known as Success 5, and then enter a low energy transfer orbit ( in the image). Stay tuned for updates!
https://ispace-inc.com/news-en/?p=6
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:16:28 UTC No. 16553120
>>16552388
they never were for someone in the first place, its just entertainment to them, or programming for the NPCs.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:21:12 UTC No. 16553128
puzzle cuz bored
https://jiggie.fun/PErUFN
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:21:27 UTC No. 16553129
>>16553103
Private company, so no way to know exactly, but every info available states that SpaceX has insanely high staff turn over.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:22:20 UTC No. 16553130
>>16553116
he's using that old revisionist bullshit tactic that's quite popular these days around musk's companies. if musk does something successful, then nobody ever doubted that it was possible. plebbit uses this argument all the time, as they can't admit they were wrong in the first place. thankfully there are internet archives showing you the real general opinion towards all the things spacex said they would do, and ended up doing.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:22:46 UTC No. 16553131
>>16553118
Call me when it's getting close to the landing
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:27:39 UTC No. 16553134
>>16553125
the writing was on the wall over 5 years ago
only now spacex cultists are starting to finally wake up
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:32:19 UTC No. 16553136
The booster might be big and heavy but I still can't believe it's easily maneuverable and very durable too
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:37:03 UTC No. 16553139
>>16553125
Its the Hyperloop of spaceflight. Nothing about Starship makes sense. To go anywhere, it needs a retarded amount of refuelings...and since it has cryogenic fuel, you can't even store the fuel in it for any appreciable amount of time. It guarantee you will never see it put people on another body. At best its contribution to lunar projects will be launching some of the hardware into space. It will never go to mars.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:39:52 UTC No. 16553143
>>16552346
Has this fat fuck ever done anything productive with his live other than contribute to the obesity statistic?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:40:11 UTC No. 16553145
>listening to asmongold video about the elon spat
>said elon started to argue with asmon in a DM at like 2am last night
you know what happened around that time? blue origin reached orbit. looks like elon may have been absolutely malding last night.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:40:32 UTC No. 16553148
>>16553130
And you are using the tactic where you ignore all of his obvious scams (hyperloop, cyberpunk buses, robots that were controlled by humans lol) to focus on meaningless successes. Who gives a shit if you can catch a booster if that booster isn't capable of delivering anything?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:41:19 UTC No. 16553149
>>16553111
Nah boomers were born near the end of the space race, consequently when they became adults space became stagnant
Add it to the list of things boomers ruined
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:41:35 UTC No. 16553150
what is elon's substance use like these days?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:43:34 UTC No. 16553152
>>16553090
Elon is head of DOGE. He will disband the FAA before he bows to them.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:43:40 UTC No. 16553153
at this point rocketry is just an expensive cope
we shouldn't bother at all with spaceflight anymore until we get some new breakthrough in propulsion.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:46:37 UTC No. 16553156
>>16553070
>Call a ship Starship
>It can't even get to orbit
Lol. Lmao.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:47:12 UTC No. 16553157
>>16553153
Maybe we could have Starship 2.0: orion boogaloo if the gubinment let Elon Musk play with nuclear material. But noooo, only Lockheed and friends can do that.
>inb4 elon is the government
it's not that easy in redtape-ry
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:47:53 UTC No. 16553159
>>16553056
SAAAR PLS DELETE MR. MUSK WILL FIRE ME IF HE SEES THE FIRE SAAR
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:48:19 UTC No. 16553161
https://x.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status
>And after all those excitements over the Karman Line, the one rocket that launched operational sats to orbit in the last 24h is this LM-2D @ 04:07 UTC today. Surprisingly main passenger is for a foreign customer, the PRSC-EO1 Earth observation sat for Chinaโs pal Pakistan
One completely successful flight from the 2nd oldest operational rocket in the world
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:48:23 UTC No. 16553162
>>16553152
It's an advisory agency bro. He has 0 official powers.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:49:19 UTC No. 16553165
>>16553049
>Its supposed to fail
Elon wanted the ship to suddenly explode into a million pieces scattered well outside their exclusion zone in what seems to be an identical repeat of an earlier failure?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:50:16 UTC No. 16553168
>>16553162
His office is next to Trump's. He will tell Trump that if he wants lunar landing on his 2nd term resume, the FAA has to fuck off.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:51:17 UTC No. 16553170
Grok TUAH!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:52:10 UTC No. 16553173
>>16553153
>we shouldn't bother at all with spaceflight anymore until we get some new breakthrough in propulsion.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:52:29 UTC No. 16553176
>>16553157
If Elon had nuclear material on-board, today would have been the biggest environmental catastrophe in the history of the planet.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:53:34 UTC No. 16553178
>>16553161
And unlike a lot of Chinese launches, this time we actually have a lot of info on the payload
https://x.com/The_SharkSlayer/statu
>This launch is significant because it will the launch of the first Pakistani Earth Observation Satellite named the PAK-EO1. According to reports Pak-EO1 will be carrying cutting edge multi-spectral electro optical payload that would provide very high resolution images of the Earth in near real time. This is a major upgrade from the PRSS-1 which was able to provide images with a modest sub meter resolution. This is a multi purpose satellite; the data from which will provide tremendous insights to multiple sectors Such as agriculture, disaster management, urban planning, conservation, military. This satellite will join the two other Pakistani optical/remote sensing (PakTES-1A, PRSS-1) satellites in orbit. Like its predecessor it will be Low Earth Orbiting Satellite with a Sun Synchronous Orbit.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:55:55 UTC No. 16553183
>>16553179
nuclear powered starship warships
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:56:47 UTC No. 16553184
>>16552608
a million puerto ricans are showing up at emergency rooms right now with bandage wrapped heads claiming a piece bonked them on the cabeza
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 04:58:05 UTC No. 16553187
The whole point of Elon partnering with Trump is so he can get fta issus rubber stamped through, see you all next month
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:02:28 UTC No. 16553191
>>16553188
Sorry you have to update your meme now. China space program is coming along fine, haven't annihilated a village in ages. Meanwhile Elon almost blasted a dozen commercial airliners out of existence.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:02:59 UTC No. 16553192
>>16553179
should've wished for nuclear to be financially viable and seen the genie sweat
There are things that even magic can't fix anymore
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:03:22 UTC No. 16553193
>>16553191
Those were Boeing plans with Indian pilots. They always fly like that.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:04:36 UTC No. 16553194
>I was in Port Mansfield when it launched. The rumble was crazy powerful. I had never experienced something g like that.
Port Mansfield is over 20 miles from Boca Chica beach btw
Just imagine when Starship starts flying in Florida lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:04:57 UTC No. 16553195
>>16553191
USA #1
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:07:14 UTC No. 16553201
>>16553194
no one lives there
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:08:01 UTC No. 16553202
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:08:38 UTC No. 16553204
>>16553194
About 20 miles from the pads to the edges of Orlando. The whole city is going to be subject to starship noise. Shits not gonna last, all the richnigs and countless karens will sue NASA to oblivion if it launches more than monthly.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:09:07 UTC No. 16553205
>>16552651
adult hispanic males tend to get histrionic and unpredictable when put under stress, that's why they don't make the best first-responders to school shootings or pilots facing an unusual event like this
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:14:49 UTC No. 16553213
>>16553205
this us true
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:16:54 UTC No. 16553215
Wild how mundane the tower catch felt the second time, blew my mind the first time but now it was like alright cool, good that they got it working reliably
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:19:31 UTC No. 16553218
>>16553216
basado
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:20:08 UTC No. 16553219
>>16553215
true, i think landings legs are cooler. I'm still not completely tired of falcon 9 landings desu
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:23:00 UTC No. 16553223
sponge anon... y-you still alive?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:23:49 UTC No. 16553224
>>16553128
ty and gn puzzlebros
>Closeup of LDEF experiment trays documented during STS-32 photo survey
>Closeup of Long Duration Exposure Facility (LDEF) experiment trays is documented during STS-32 retrieval activity and photo survey conducted by crewmembers onboard Columbia, Orbiter Vehicle (OV) 102. Partially visible is the Polymer Matrix Composite Materials Experiment. In the background is the surface of the Earth.
https://images.nasa.gov/details/s32
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:27:05 UTC No. 16553227
>>16553222
>2 steps back, 1 step forward
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:28:32 UTC No. 16553228
oh, very rigorous... aerospace engineering standards
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:28:58 UTC No. 16553229
If sp*cex had perfect precision it wouldn't have mattered, it would have still reached orbit. Why can't they do perfect precision?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:31:03 UTC No. 16553231
https://old.reddit.com/r/aviation/c
bros...
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:37:11 UTC No. 16553236
>>16552746
(Video truncated for file size reasons)
https://www.reddit.com/r/aviation/c
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:39:52 UTC No. 16553238
my penis fucking exploded and died
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:41:10 UTC No. 16553239
>>16553236
I just think it's cool we're able to see stuff like this. Go back 30 years, it would take a day for the news to reach around. Now we hear about it in real time, and then some guy posts a video he filmed from an airplane. Just on an abstract level it's neat
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:41:43 UTC No. 16553240
>>16553236
Ok that's fuckin cool
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:42:45 UTC No. 16553241
>>16553090
See
>>16553101
FTS fired
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:43:51 UTC No. 16553242
>>16552438
PoE zoomers are not gamers and PoE is not a game
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:46:28 UTC No. 16553243
>>16553239
astronauts post on reddit from the iss
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:49:20 UTC No. 16553247
>uhhh we forgot to double check for leaks OOPS
>uhhh add some fire suppression to it next time (that we didn't have before for some reason)
>uhhh we shoulda made the vents bigger than thatโฆ
Why is Elon and the SpaceX team such retards sometimes? I hope to fucking god the FAA doesn't fuck them too hard this time or that Trump is able to pull some sneaky shit on them
>>16553179
Elon musk making a modular nuclear power plant company is the only way he can be redeemed imho
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:56:32 UTC No. 16553256
>>16552210
this is what elon gets for bein a xitter addicted cheat in poe2 while shilling for zigger simps in europe. now everybody hostile to him will be out for the hunt for this
>>16552288
K-I-N-O
>>16552495
musk bought it onto his head himself. should have stayed out of politics
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:58:34 UTC No. 16553260
>>16552561
orbit was in reach of extra +2 sec burn retard. It was never the purpose of the tests. Reentry and landing is the money shot
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:59:34 UTC No. 16553262
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 05:59:46 UTC No. 16553263
>>16553236
>brilliant pebbles
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:00:17 UTC No. 16553264
>>16552580
you are confusing mexico and canada
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:00:56 UTC No. 16553266
new hullo
>SpaceX's New Starship Upgrade Puts On Amazing Show As Space Debris
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfV
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:06:56 UTC No. 16553270
>>16553227
>it's not retreating it's advancing to the rear!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:08:41 UTC No. 16553272
>>16553256
>while shilling for zigger simps in europe
settle down Zubrin
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:10:03 UTC No. 16553273
>>16553227
The kino EVA character!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:10:09 UTC No. 16553274
Super Heavy exudes menace. It's like a giant steel god.
They should have saved the name Dragon for this thing, honestly, because watching it come down to land on the tower is what I imagine it would feel like to be a peasant in some fantasy setting watching a dragon swoop down and perch on a nearby mountain to survey the valley I live in before it turns everything there into ashes. There's a certain dread and awe.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:15:49 UTC No. 16553278
EDS sufferers really hoped it was over for SpaceX and are now dealing with being blueballed
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:18:35 UTC No. 16553281
>>16553278
just shut up
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:23:06 UTC No. 16553288
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:28:11 UTC No. 16553293
>>16552111
>>16552122
>>16552125
>>16552127
Ahem:
Thanks H1B's you're the best.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:30:13 UTC No. 16553295
>>16552164
Yes
From one to a million in a millisecond.
H1B's worth every penny.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:30:58 UTC No. 16553296
There's no way to sugarcoat this. This should not happen on your seventh flight!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:31:33 UTC No. 16553298
>>16552111
What lack of Indian programmers does to a muthafucka
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:32:57 UTC No. 16553299
>>16553296
This but unironically
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:34:50 UTC No. 16553300
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:36:51 UTC No. 16553302
>>16553296
yeah
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:42:38 UTC No. 16553305
>>16553300
How did you figure that out detective
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:43:27 UTC No. 16553306
>>16553296
Agreed. Even if it's a new model or whatever.
They plan to launch people in this in 2026!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:47:13 UTC No. 16553312
>>16553300
No really, how did you figure that out
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:52:40 UTC No. 16553314
>>16553308
that manhole cover story is so funny. people think gravity turns off when you go high enough and reach space. that shit never went anywhwere close to orbital velocity, and even if it did it wouldnt have been in orbit. at best it went on a long ballistic arc
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:53:31 UTC No. 16553318
>>16553308
Don't think it could given that starship wasn't going fast enough at SECO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:54:15 UTC No. 16553320
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:55:02 UTC No. 16553321
>>16553192
What about the solar and wind companies who threaten to cease operations if subsidies are lowered.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:55:36 UTC No. 16553323
>>16553320
>that piece of steel that's folding over like a rubber gym mat
This irritates me on a visceral level, part of me just wants to go up there and press it down my hands
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 06:56:04 UTC No. 16553325
>>16553314
it vapourized
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:00:13 UTC No. 16553329
Blue Origin won?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:01:22 UTC No. 16553331
>>16553329
Musk has fallen, billions must RUD
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:03:19 UTC No. 16553333
>>16553247
or he could be a big boy and apologize publically for not playing nice
like just own it, and say he needs to do some personal work on himself and will do better in the future
dude seriously needs to demonstrate a higher level of maturity, being sorry and trying to make up is part of that
people in his kind of position truly do not understand very often that they are not gods, and showing a little vulnerability isn't necessarily a weakness but an exercise in humility (a virtue and strength of character seldom recognized in this hellhole culture, to the detriment of all)
everyone is so wrapped up in trying to be gigachad they forgot who they really are, and that is the real failure
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:04:27 UTC No. 16553334
you can see just how risk averse cuckmuricans have become from reading this basedthread, you can even tell tell how new to the /sfg/ thread the faggots replying are
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:04:28 UTC No. 16553335
>>16553333
Being capable of humility precludes being the kind of person who will change the world.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:05:13 UTC No. 16553336
>>16553333
>dude seriously needs to demonstrate a higher level of maturity
he's an autist a literal retard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:06:22 UTC No. 16553338
>>16553335
Bullshit. You can definitely be ballsy, rich, and not a petty obnoxious piece of shit at the same time
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:07:25 UTC No. 16553339
>>16553300
do not redeem the indian programmers
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:07:40 UTC No. 16553340
>>16553338
sure you can, that's why you're so rich isn't it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:10:47 UTC No. 16553343
>>16553340
Gates seems like a well-adjusted dude
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:11:07 UTC No. 16553344
lying about being a gamer was worse than nuking 15 passenger jets anyway
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:16:13 UTC No. 16553345
>>16553335
nah
men who are capable of humility build coalitions and recognize they are making mistakes when others point it out because they aren't delusional
those who aren't burn bridges and alienate themselves from potential allies, or put themselves in situations they cannot win from because of hubris
a great example of humility and self-awareness in leadership is George Washington, Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior is a good read
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:17:56 UTC No. 16553346
>>16553343
ask him if he ever apologized for the recent server shutdown, people that powerful understand the weaknesses of apologizing to nobodies vs the time spent doing something more productive, you could apologize to 10 or twenty people, or people in an isolated case, any more invites serious litigation because you are essentially admitting guilt to a universe of potential butthurt from everyone who hates you
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:19:25 UTC No. 16553348
>>16553343
He's nice about wanting humanity to go extinct.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:20:56 UTC No. 16553350
>>16553343
go to bed Bill
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:22:28 UTC No. 16553351
>>16553346
>any more invites serious litigation
>the weaknesses of apologizing
so you're insecure about your self image and feel the need to project nothing but the *image* of strength
but that's the definition of being an overcompensating little bitch and it makes you look small minded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:23:29 UTC No. 16553352
>>16553349
Yes, if you were actually serious about mars colonization, it makes far more sense to have mock-up mars base than to ramble on about "spreading the light of consciousness"
>>16553343
I'm not going using your shitty pajeetware OS Bill, I've already switched to Linux
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:25:35 UTC No. 16553353
>>16553349
They can, but there are already private astronaut training centers that arrange that stuff
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:28:45 UTC No. 16553354
>>16553351
yea i'm sure elon, of all people is worried of lookinhg small minded with all the shitposting and trolling he does
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:31:11 UTC No. 16553356
>>16553320
lero lero lero lero lero lero lero
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:33:01 UTC No. 16553357
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:34:19 UTC No. 16553358
Thank you vacuum tubing, very cool!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:35:41 UTC No. 16553359
>>16553353
you are a fucking retard, shill
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:35:48 UTC No. 16553360
>>16553354
this obsession with the image of false machismo as a zero-sum game is actually a deeply sublimated feminine impulse, mere performative display; it comes from a place of primary concern for social approval (a well known trait in humans generally, but an instinct usually stronger in women than in men) rather than an interest in genuine personal development and mutually uplifting dialogue or other such meaningful intercourse with others
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:36:26 UTC No. 16553361
Elon's proposed solution sounds like a bandaid and wont acrually work
>ummm errr aarruuuggg fire suppression?
>uhhhhhh
are you retarded musk??
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:36:45 UTC No. 16553362
>>16553334
cope retarded shill
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:37:57 UTC No. 16553364
fix the rocket you stupid nigger and stop doing this gay internet ego bullshit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:38:03 UTC No. 16553365
>>16553361
They did the same thing after IFT2 blew up for the same reason and it worked well enough for the next 4 flights. Only question is why they didn't do it on Ship 2 to begin with.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:38:53 UTC No. 16553367
>>16553361
literally just make the ship a mite smaller, and launch a few more of them
suddenly all these problems are resolved
but then you might not have muh biggest di- I mean rocket
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:38:53 UTC No. 16553368
>>16553359
https://www.sierraspace.com/press-r
https://starharbor.us/
And those are just the two I know about
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:41:56 UTC No. 16553369
>>16553361
The twitter explanation did nothing to clarify why this thing leaked methane out of its ass. This shit has only happened like once on the ship, with LOX, and has never been an issue for at least the last two or three times. Why is leaking suddenly a problem again?
For fucks sake, it's been 7 flights already I just want to see Starship land and not explode with them sneakily cutting away the cameras ONCE
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:42:27 UTC No. 16553370
>>16553367
Tourists say the dumbest shit and think they're incredible engineers
>HUR YOU HAD A FAILURE BETTER REDESIGN THE WHOLE VEHICLE
It's incredible the kind of retards that crawl out of the woodwork every time SpaceX has a setback. You will be back on reddit in your hugbox in a few years
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:45:22 UTC No. 16553372
>>16553360
You're the one interpreting it as "false machismo"
It simply doesn't occur to him to apologise. He doesn't care what people think.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:48:28 UTC No. 16553374
>>16553367
They will make Gigaheavy 18m in diameter and there is nothing the FAA can do about it. Ships will max out there because anyone who thinks we will be able to set up logistics for space-proonting or space-welding structure greater than 18m within our lifetimes is basically just coping
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:49:25 UTC No. 16553376
oh my god...elon is low T
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:51:10 UTC No. 16553377
>>16553376
Has been since SNL/Twitter buyout when he had a mental breakdown and became a schizo Q-tard republican
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:52:14 UTC No. 16553378
>>16553377
(Probably Grimes broke him beyond repair)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:54:38 UTC No. 16553382
>>16553377
>>16553378
does no one remember the thai cave rescue? yall were born yesterday it seems. the howard hughes arc has been long and gradual
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 07:59:56 UTC No. 16553386
>>16553370
Less surface area exposed to reaction means less chance of failure at any given point in the structure, and overall less resonance due to launch and reentry forces.
This is incredibly basic shit.
The longer a stick is, the easier it is to break; per given thickness of material, a larger shell will be always easier to break than a smaller one because it has more exposed surface area.
>>16553374
Why though?
>>16553372
>He doesn't care what people think.
That's so hilariously untrue in such an obvious way that I am forced to conclude he literally pays you to shill here for him.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:00:08 UTC No. 16553387
>>16553382
Well, maybe I am wrong, but I think the thai incident was just a minor bump in the road. I think most people honestly didn't care at all and he didn't say anything noteworthy or controversial for a while after that iirc (other than just sharing a few cringe memes nobody has cared about since 2010)
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:00:21 UTC No. 16553388
>>16553367
it's past your bed time zubrin, get a goin
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:03:08 UTC No. 16553391
>>16553349
Yes, but wtf is that shit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:06:25 UTC No. 16553392
>>16553386
>why though?
Telescopes and not to mention reactors are limited pretty hard by payload diameters and trying to pull origami shit again adds a ludicrous amount of cost and complexity. 18m of breathing room is super helpful and becomes exponentially so with the more volume you are able to create via diameter. Even 9m starship is spacious as fuck when you compare it to the capsules men were stuffed inside during apollo era when you are trapped with a bunch of life support and there is basically no point to unbuckling your seatbelt
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:15:58 UTC No. 16553400
>>16553392
>Telescopes and not to mention reactors are limited pretty hard by payload diameters
Yeah, that's the main reason you would want a bigger vehicle.
But it's also a problem because making something that large only increases the amplitude of vibrations because saturation increases with mass, and putting something that valuable and important on something with an increased risk of structural failure is not ideal.
I am personally more in favor of furthering capabilities for assembly in space and multiple launches than putting all your eggs in one basket as it were.
Something that large (if not much larger) should be constructed in space and remain there rather than being launched from the surface.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:31:29 UTC No. 16553412
>>16553333
>apologize publically for not playing nice
How would that advance the Starship program?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:32:30 UTC No. 16553414
>>16553400
>constructed in space
This is a meme
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:34:40 UTC No. 16553416
>>16553320
>PLAP PLAP PLAP PLAP
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:36:19 UTC No. 16553417
>>16553414
It's not.
Particularly sensitive components may literally require manufacturing in low-g.
Earth needs an orbital dockyard within a generation if Mars colony is to be anything more than a glorified research outpost in our lifetimes.
Maybe you can just use the internal space gains that scale with increase in outer surface area to simply incorporate more vibration isolators or inertial dampeners to deal with that problem, but I don't know of any tests being done currently to examine that particular interaction.
https://technology.nasa.gov/patent/
>NASA Langley Research Center has developed a compact self-tuning damper to reduce vibration occurring at a fixed frequency. Tuned dampers reduce vibration of the base structure by the dissipation of energy. The magnitude of the dissipated energy is proportional to the range of motion. The NASA damper design allows the slider mass to achieve 2x-3x greater range of motion than that found in conventional devices. This enables 4x-9x more effectiveness for the same size and weight; or the same effectiveness for a 4x-9x decrease in weight. The damper is self-tunable and can be adjusted in effectiveness. The damper can be made small enough for use in wind tunnel tests or scaled up to large sizes, like those used in helicopters, wind turbines, or skyscrapers.
Structural vibrations frequently need to be damped to prevent damage to a structure or payload. To accomplish this, a standard linear damper or elastomeric-suspended masses are used. The problem associated with a linear damper is the space required for its construction. For example, if the damper's piston is capable of three inches of movement in either direction, the connecting shaft and cylinder each need to be six inches long.
>The NASA invention is a compact and self-tunable structural vibration damper.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:37:31 UTC No. 16553418
>>16553179
Safe doesn't mean cost effective.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:48:41 UTC No. 16553422
>>16553400
>constructed in space
I just told you that will probably never happen within our lifetimes. It is "better", yes, but the demand to set up space-welding stations is practically nonexistent. It is 1000x easier even if it doesn't seem like it to simply scale Starship up and put the big structure inside it than make a fucking space proonter that can make things in 0g environments. It's the space elevator problem all over again. It's the best way to ferry stuff to and from the surface, yes. But you ignore that you would have to build the fucking thing first to reap the monetary benefits and exactly 0 people will say yeah I will do that right away upfront because they aren't fucking insane. They will just opt to send ore to and from Earth on Starships, because that system is already in place and works well enough
Same with space welding. And probably space mining to a degree as well.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:52:53 UTC No. 16553423
>>16553418
It's only not cost effective because it is
>designed so that it needs to be operated by many people with a gajillion degrees and paid gazillions of dollars to function instead of by the bottom of society, which nowadays is most of your society
>still has to compete with the dying fossil fuel industry that still gets gorillions of dollars pumped into it from politicians to desperately keep it relevant and filling their pockets
>anti-nuke propaganda
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:56:17 UTC No. 16553425
sugarcoat status?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 08:59:46 UTC No. 16553426
>>16553425
>IFT8 will launch early n-n-next month t-trust the p-plan!
>fails reentry because another stupid fucking retarded oversight Elon never considered
>IFT9 is j-just a-around the c-corner guyz, excitement g-guaranteed!!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:06:40 UTC No. 16553427
>>16553418
Nothing is cost effective when you regulate the shit out of it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:08:38 UTC No. 16553428
>>16553320
FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP FLAP
GO ORBITAL GO ORBITAL GO ORBITAL GO ORBITAL GO ORBITAL
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:09:18 UTC No. 16553430
>>16553428
>go orbita-ck!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:11:19 UTC No. 16553431
>>16553425
SALTED
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:12:47 UTC No. 16553432
>>16553422
>demand to set up space-welding stations is practically nonexistent
most people are stupid and do not understand what kind of cracked technology shit of all different kinds it's possible to make in space that would be too difficult on Earth for reasons relating to imperceptable vibrations we wouldn't know existed if we didn't already have equipment sensitive enough to detect them
kind of like an earthquake, but it's always happening and this interferes with things on nanoscales
there is "demand" for a LOT of really dumb and counter-productive things, we shouldn't be basing space policy on the whims of popular libido
>1000x easier even if it doesn't seem like it to simply scale Starship up and put the big structure inside it than make a fucking space proonter that can make things in 0g environments
how hard is it to put a 3D printer into space though
you might be able to get away with using rivets in any space-built craft because it isn't designed to sustain the shearing force from launch and reentry, seeing as it's main purpose is to remain in space for it's entire operational lifetime
>you would have to build the fucking thing first to reap the monetary benefits and exactly 0 people will say yeah I will do that right away upfront because they aren't fucking insane
dude why would you ever make a long term investment in a colony when it's going to result in short term financial losses
are you crazy or what
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:22:18 UTC No. 16553435
>>16553432
>dude why would you ever make a long term investment in a colony when it's going to result in short term financial losses
That's the whole point
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:25:09 UTC No. 16553436
I'm gonna be honest i would have never expected New Glenn to triumph over Starship, but here we are.
I apologise to Blue Origin and Jeff Bezos.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:25:18 UTC No. 16553437
>>16553422
>It's the space elevator problem all over again
No it's not, the space elevator problem is that it's literally impossible with our current level of technology.
>It is "better", yes, but the demand to set up space-welding stations is practically nonexistent.
>But you ignore that you would have to build the fucking thing first to reap the monetary benefits and exactly 0 people will say yeah I will do that right away upfront because they aren't fucking insane.
You are describing almost to a T the arguments people had against reusable high-frequency rocketry, in which launch technology stalled for 40 years because of upfront costs and 'not enough demand to warrant it' until spacex obviously showed up and made their own demand.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:28:07 UTC No. 16553438
>>16553436
Karma for having a meltdown at everyone on X
>>16553437
Even if we had the materials to make a space elevator we still would just launch ships to orbit. Nobody is going to pay for that elevator
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:34:18 UTC No. 16553441
>>16553435
anyone interested in the full potential of a Mars colony should be investing in space manufacturing endeavors designed to expedite and scale up regular interplanetary deliveries, I cannot see why Musk shouldn't lead the charge personally on that one considering the kind of infrastructure he is developing
not only would these kind of new products and facilities help the Mars mission, they would be an important asset to relevant organizations on Earth too, driving broad multi-national interest
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:35:14 UTC No. 16553442
>https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1880
>"higher thrust engines... were tested."
Does this confirm Raptor 2.5?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:35:22 UTC No. 16553443
https://youtu.be/1dm03yxr3sI
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:41:50 UTC No. 16553449
>>16553435
>colony
What the fuck are you talking about? We were talking about space welders why do you keep bringing up colonies?
Building a colony is easy as fuck compared to building an orbital station that can create ships
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:42:51 UTC No. 16553450
>>16553449
Meant for
>>16553441
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:48:27 UTC No. 16553454
>>16553247
>uhhh we forgot to double check for leaks OOPS
Presumably only happened after experiencing the actual forces/vibrations/etc associated with a real launch
>uhhh add some fire suppression to it next time (that we didn't have before for some reason)
Fire suppression has a mass penalty, which is especially bad on a second stage.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:49:31 UTC No. 16553455
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:50:31 UTC No. 16553456
>>16553449
>Building a colony is easy as fuck compared to building an orbital station that can create ships
lol are you retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:51:54 UTC No. 16553458
>>16553442
there has been some speculation about raptor 2.5?
probably means just going closer to the limit or changing some parameters how the engine operates so they get more thrust perhaps losing something else
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:51:59 UTC No. 16553459
>>16552406
No one notices that this time the engine bells are not deformed, SpaceX fixes his problems. That damn unified bulkhead tho, I hope their telemetry and image data was good enough to identify root causes.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:52:19 UTC No. 16553460
>>16553443
cats are useless in space
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:52:51 UTC No. 16553461
why is elon beefing with e-celebs?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:53:26 UTC No. 16553462
Will they use this opportunity to make the nose rounder?
I never liked the pointy nose.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:53:47 UTC No. 16553463
>>16553455
>>16553442
I guess they got enough data about the forward flaps
and the launch is more violent with respect to tile fastening than re-entry I guess?
so the fastening got tested, but not the actual tiles
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:54:47 UTC No. 16553465
>>16553455
>9m starship will only fly about 10,000 times before being retired for a WIDER starship
oh shit
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:54:48 UTC No. 16553466
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:56:36 UTC No. 16553468
I noticed that the staging was like 800 km/hr slower and the max altitude of the booster was ~5km lower. Presumably this is just due to ship weighing more?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:56:52 UTC No. 16553469
>>16553456
No, and I will be proven right since we will build a colony long before we even build our first 3d welding/printing station
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:57:00 UTC No. 16553470
>>16553455
10 000?
Ten thousands?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:57:23 UTC No. 16553471
>>16553465
he has talked about a few times, just like few weeks ago there was a tweet about the ship getting 10m longer before it gets wider
10k means 10 years with this form factor or something?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:58:10 UTC No. 16553472
>>16553449
>Building a colony is easy as fuck compared to building an orbital station that can create ships
no
a station is much closer to Earth which means the launch windows aren't measured in years, we already have experience with them
the kind of ships you could make in proximity of one would be more efficient because they are bigger, since they don't have to launch or land
an idea would be to eventually reproduce a similar station for Mars by using these large space-bound vessels to transport it in parts
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:58:14 UTC No. 16553473
So all the debris fell into hazard zone of the atlantic ocean right?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:58:51 UTC No. 16553474
>>16553468
the ship has 25% more propellant so could take more of the work
but the booster is still v1 so maybe v2 booster is going to keep a more similar boosting velocity/altitude
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 09:59:55 UTC No. 16553476
>>16553471
yeah i was thinking 10 years
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:00:11 UTC No. 16553477
>>16553382
>guy calls Musk to shove his sub up Musk's ass
>Musk calls him a pedophile for being a expat looking for young ins in thailand
This is a Howard Hughes arc?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:00:47 UTC No. 16553478
>>16553469
space welding has already been tested
by colony you mean boots on mars with starship or a self-sustaining colony? that encompasses a pretty wide range of things
also "a 3d printing station" also encompasses a very wide thing, not really sure what you have in mind
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:01:32 UTC No. 16553479
>tranny manley thinks the FAA-mandated FTS caused an unnecessary debris field when starship could've fallen safely into the ocean intact
so the faa is in the wrong again?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:01:46 UTC No. 16553480
https://x.com/TechTonicAK/status/18
We only got two videos from planes in flight?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:01:48 UTC No. 16553481
>>16553473
that is what it sounds like from spacex and the optimism from musk
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:02:16 UTC No. 16553482
>>16553016
>Intellectual inquiry
You mean midwit inquiry, chatgpt just imitates self-absorbed midwits on the left edge of the dunning-kruger curve.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:03:20 UTC No. 16553483
>>16553058
go home zubrin you're drunk
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:06:55 UTC No. 16553484
>>16553472
Nobody even knows what a welding station will look like yet. A cylindrical mesh with extenders that go forward and back welding metal? What if you want to weld something that isn't a tube of specified diameters? Well, I guess we will make it a giant cube instead and do it in coordinate space kinda like a CNC machine. Let's get to building that. Oh wait, we have to put the parts in starships and send them up. Oh, and all the steel gold and silicon we need for the ships being built. And then put it together, in space, using our totally real team of professional space engineers.
There is a reason you only see this shit in powerpoint presentations
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:08:20 UTC No. 16553485
>we have to put the parts in starships and send them up. Oh, and all the steel gold and silicon we need for the ships being built. And then put it together, in space, using our totally real team of professional space engineers
space is hard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:08:38 UTC No. 16553486
>>16553478
We are talking about a station, in orbit, that can robotically mass-produce space ships and structures like Starship like a sort of floating assembly line.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:08:48 UTC No. 16553487
>>16553455
>next month's launch
If my understanding is correct, that's 2 weeks times 2.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:10:38 UTC No. 16553488
>>16553487
He says "next month" every time, and every time it ends up being two months. He basically confirmed that it will be roughly March 17th
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:17:42 UTC No. 16553490
>>16553486
well then a rudimentary colony will probably happen first
but just doing 3d printing or any type of space welding, then not sure
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=d
the dude in the video is the CTO of thinkorbital
and funnily enough they got selected for NASA NIAC with a proposal for a space dry dock on the 14th
https://x.com/ThinkOrbital/status/1
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:18:43 UTC No. 16553491
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:23:47 UTC No. 16553496
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:29:32 UTC No. 16553501
>>16552996
I don't know who bob is, but he looks like a massive insufferable faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:30:18 UTC No. 16553503
>>16553486
That's not what I'm talking about.
You don't strictly need to make things like Starship, because we can already make those on Earth, and you shouldn't rely on robotic workers to do everything without the ability for a human to directly intervene in operations in case of communications failure or some other coding error.
What you *need* one for is to build things it's impossible to do on Earth.
For example, something too big to ever get off the ground conventionally.
Starship-like craft could be the main form of transportation from planet to station, since withstanding the forces of launch and landing is what they are designed to do.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:31:09 UTC No. 16553506
>>16553002
WHAT THE FUCK IS THAT HAIR HAAHAHAHAHA
America are you ok?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:32:50 UTC No. 16553507
>>16553506
She's cute tho
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:34:16 UTC No. 16553508
https://x.com/SaintDiscoRosso/statu
someone speculating on the feasibility of getting ready for the 2026 mars window (2026 Nov/Dec, so over 20 months)
Musk replied with "accurate"
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18801
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:35:39 UTC No. 16553510
>>16553508
>5 more test flights for integrity and heat shield testing, orbital refueling late 2025
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:37:23 UTC No. 16553511
>>16553508
why the fuck do so many people rely on AI for everything. you have a brain, literally use it.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:39:58 UTC No. 16553512
I can't get over all the break up footage. It's so fucking beautiful bros. I'm actually crying. Is this what cavemen felt when they stared up at the heavens and saw shooting stars?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:40:17 UTC No. 16553513
>>16553511
because its much quicker than googling
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:52:13 UTC No. 16553522
>>16553486
>We are talking about a station, in orbit, that can robotically mass-produce space ships and structures like Starship like a sort of floating assembly line.
oh yeah I rember that part in Star Wars, the best part was when the kid in a space ship blows it up while going WAAAHOOO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:54:09 UTC No. 16553524
So many double standards imagine Russian or Chinese rocket falling from space in thousands of pieces causing planes to declare emergency dodging debris. But that was American rocket. So we can type
>wow so beautiful
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:56:11 UTC No. 16553525
>>16553523
SpaceX has shipped some of their docking systems to Johnson Space Center for testing and they use the NASA Dockign system
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:58:54 UTC No. 16553527
>>16553525
the life support system is progressing well, they had a mockup of some of the systems 8 months back already
Starship might or might not use a touchscreen like Dragon
Watson sees the ship-to-ship propellant demonstration ocurring in 2025
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:00:13 UTC No. 16553528
>>16553526
what do you even mean? of course there are flaws/improvements, that is why they are doing these test in the first place
if you are talking about some unfixable design flaw, then no
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:01:22 UTC No. 16553531
>>16553523
>V3
So refueling doesn't begin until like 10 flight from now? It's so over
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:05:41 UTC No. 16553532
>>16553527
SpaceX doesn't necessarily need the second tower to be built for the refilling demonstration, just two rapid launches
the more important thing for them is thermal characterization and a "long duration flight" which means more than 45min or something so I guess just staying in orbit for a while
refusing to answer question about how much propellant is transferred during the demonstration and how much NASA wants to see demonstrated
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:08:04 UTC No. 16553535
>>16553531
probably 5 if this is accurate >>16553508
which would be 6 flights for Block 1 and 6 Flights for Block 2, so it kind of makes sense
though I'm not sure SpaceX would want to test re-filling on the maiden flight of Starship Block 3/V3, as it would again have a bunch of new things, be much longer than the current ship for one and have Raptor V3s
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:31:37 UTC No. 16553545
>>16552485
Pilots these days are massive drama queens.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:31:56 UTC No. 16553546
>>16552879
https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1
>This is the area above the firewall or false ceiling where the flames were seen escaping through the opening for the aft flap hinge
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:35:36 UTC No. 16553549
How are the engine bells looking today? Were those lopsided views just a refracted mirage caused by hot air?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:39:52 UTC No. 16553552
>>16553455
>he thinks the next launch is gonna be this year
what's the FAA gonna say?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:45:05 UTC No. 16553555
>>16553552
what indeed
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:46:20 UTC No. 16553556
>>16553546
Just put a bigger hole on the leeward side so if their is a buildup gas can easily escape
Lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:47:05 UTC No. 16553559
ship is busted, bottom is fucked with engine section and top is fucked with flaps
elon ketamine riddled game cheater:
>Makie it more pointy!
>Change the flaps to shitty ones!
>never stop thrusting!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:50:00 UTC No. 16553560
>>16553513
>just guess the result bro, no need to make any calculations, I'm sure nothing wrong can happen
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:50:30 UTC No. 16553561
>>16553559
The only thing wrong with starship is that it still has an obsession with leaking methane and LOX into its ass section 7 flights into testing. Fix the leaky pipes once and for all and slap a docking port on there for refueling and Starship is 99% finished
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:53:15 UTC No. 16553563
>>16553455
>launch next month
Nigga you caused a dozen passenger liners to divert and land. The FAA is gonna tear out your asshole. I could see the next launch pushed back to the summer now.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:53:16 UTC No. 16553564
>>16553560
grok at least gives sources when you ask
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:54:17 UTC No. 16553565
>>16553563
there was a NOTAM there retard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:55:17 UTC No. 16553566
>>16553565
I'm guessing all the planes that diverted and did racetrack holding patterns didn't get the memo?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:01:46 UTC No. 16553568
It's over. China will own the moon because boomers vacationing in the Caribbean got their flights diverted.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:02:40 UTC No. 16553570
>>16553412
I guess more than paying someone to play video games for him
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:02:55 UTC No. 16553571
just wait for v2 booster and how it will have fire and engines too
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:10:34 UTC No. 16553575
>>16553566
not SpaceXs problem
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:25:59 UTC No. 16553594
was this the first time flatter methan top cover was used? lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:27:52 UTC No. 16553596
>>16553594
yes I think so
but I haven't seen any indication that the problem was there
it was a leak in the engine area which is on the other side of the ship from the methane tanks top
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:34:15 UTC No. 16553602
>>16553563
https://x.com/Space_Time3/status/18
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:41:47 UTC No. 16553609
>>16553455
This suggests that they'll switch to 18m girthmax Starship before the first full Martian fleet of 1000 Starships per synod or before the second at latest
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:41:49 UTC No. 16553610
>>16553602
doomers btfo
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:43:04 UTC No. 16553611
>>16553455
>Probably solved in next month's launch.
>next month's launch.
LAUNCH NEXT MONTH CONFIRMED
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:43:22 UTC No. 16553612
>>16553455
>doesn't change the likely date at which mars becomes self sufficient
That's actually true.
Even if not for the reasons he's thinking.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:48:18 UTC No. 16553617
>>16553610
retard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:50:23 UTC No. 16553620
Cryptoniggers and pajeets spamming it's a success to defend musk makes me hate him even though i don't give a fuck
hurr durr legacy media, hurr durr it's acfually a success.
Shut the fuck up, only half of it made it, the primary test was about the heat tiles, which never made it to that point.
The whole tower catching is about cattles being impressed.
God i fucking hate Xtards. I want starship to become a reality, but the fans are just annoying
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:54:08 UTC No. 16553628
>>16553620
fuck off retard
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:54:36 UTC No. 16553629
>>16553391
That's a martian colony simulation.
Just don't think too much about the free breathable air, water and in case food runs out a visit at walmart.
It's Mars.
Sort of.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:57:01 UTC No. 16553632
>>16553552
He has an office next to the President and Trump wants to see men on the moon. No one at the FAA will open their mouth if they don't want to be fired.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:59:55 UTC No. 16553633
>>16553620
why do we suddenly have so many ESL retards in this thread?
stay in your shithole countries and leave the rest of the world alone
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:01:07 UTC No. 16553635
I hope Bezos leaves a spot on Mars for Musk to claim. It will be heartbreaking if Blue Origin colonizes the whole planet before Starship gets there.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:07:39 UTC No. 16553639
>>16553635
lol
Blue Origin will never go to mars
New Glenn is built for today's payloads not tomorrows
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:09:15 UTC No. 16553643
>>16553639
Are tomorrow's payloads suborbital debris scattered across the entire carribean?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:09:48 UTC No. 16553644
>>16552178
fuck, this stuff could have landed on these islands couldn't it....not feeling good about another launch anytime soon
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:11:13 UTC No. 16553646
>>16553644
shhh listen to the muskrats here
Starship superpower by 2030
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:11:40 UTC No. 16553647
>>16553644
that's not how trajectory works but sure
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:12:00 UTC No. 16553649
Imagine there was no atmospheric burn and all our orbital shit could just randomly fall on your head
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:16:14 UTC No. 16553656
the EDS crowd really thought they had something finally?
lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:16:18 UTC No. 16553657
>>16553628
>>16553633
you are a retard pajeet shitskin
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:20:02 UTC No. 16553662
>>16553643
yes
Earth 2 Earth
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:20:03 UTC No. 16553663
>>16553649
With DOGE overseeing the FAA, that's about to be commonplace.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:20:19 UTC No. 16553664
>>16553649
This would bother me if I lived on a lunar colony. So many retard countries are going to do drop stages as they go more and more to the Moon. Hell, chinas lander requires drop stages. And more and more satellites are going to be placed in extremely unstable low lunar orbits
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:20:53 UTC No. 16553665
>>16553649
That's why we don't remove Earth's atmosphere, even if it would be a bit easier to launch, landing our shit would be much more complicated
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:24:56 UTC No. 16553666
I know everyone wants to talk about Starship but do we have any idea what happened to new glen's first stage? Did it crash into the sea? Did it blow up the landing barge? Did it disappear into thin air?
I've not heard anything about it apart from that it didn't land and someone might have mixed up imperial and metric units so it's return burn was too early.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:25:02 UTC No. 16553667
just woke up. over status? flight 8 in feb?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:26:38 UTC No. 16553668
>>16553667
it's totally over, but there's also another test flight in 2 weeks
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:28:29 UTC No. 16553673
>>16552579
this is really bad. i am sad
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:29:10 UTC No. 16553675
>>16553649
why a moon base is pretty retarded
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:30:25 UTC No. 16553677
>>16553667
WE ARE SO BACk
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:32:11 UTC No. 16553680
>>16552579
why so many pretty colors?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:34:30 UTC No. 16553682
>>16553667
it's in two weeks
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:35:20 UTC No. 16553683
>>16553666
Sorry Satan, we're never gonna find out.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:35:22 UTC No. 16553684
I swear to god this guy posted here before with his plans to become an EDS troll to get famous.
He's definitely trolling. Guy even quotes Shelby as a good guy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGZ
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:37:02 UTC No. 16553687
>>16552579
Desu they should start intentionally doing this like fireworks. Imagine the 4th of July, or the Super Bowl
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:38:08 UTC No. 16553688
>>16553666
FAA confirmed it was out of the exclusion zone. So missed hilariously. Being so far off probably means it also had an engine failure.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:41:10 UTC No. 16553692
>>16553686
does it even have the thrust to weight to take off
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:41:44 UTC No. 16553695
are they going to release vibeos from Starship before it went bang?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:42:33 UTC No. 16553696
>>16553490
over the last 4 years or so, this guy went from "ideas guy" on youtube
wrote and self-published a paper
went to a handful of conferences
now has a company with sever million funding and already sent the first prototype to space
what is your excuse?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:42:38 UTC No. 16553697
>>16553692
Doubt it since even New Glenn launch 1 was barely crawling off the pad. I have birds faster than that rocket.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:43:55 UTC No. 16553700
>>16552579
whoa aliens are here
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:44:30 UTC No. 16553702
>>16553688
Outside the exlusion zone, not outside the notice zone
As nothing bad happened to the airplanes, the notice zone worked exactly as planned
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:47:26 UTC No. 16553704
>>16553686
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:50:16 UTC No. 16553705
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bwu
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 13:50:38 UTC No. 16553706
>>16553686
you get the woooorst of both worlds
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:01:32 UTC No. 16553716
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:02:38 UTC No. 16553717
>>16553714
>our build quality is shit, we don't test it and the pajeets can't fix it
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:04:38 UTC No. 16553718
https://x.com/s2a_systems/status/18
>And here a short animation of the New Glenn upper stage from 08:05:43 - 08:14:59 UTC this morning. Unfortunately, dawn was already beginning.
https://x.com/mickeywzx/status/1880
>New Glenn flight 1: Blue Ring tech demo: 16 January 2025 (07:03 UTC). And here a short animation of the New Glenn upper stage from 08:05:43 - 08:14:59 UTC this morning. New Glenn upper stage 'cloud' is likely ice.. 1/17/2025
Hmm
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:10:07 UTC No. 16553722
>>16553714
>fix the issue?
>no
>just add a fire extinguisher
>but there's still leaks
>add a fire extinguisher!!!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:21:48 UTC No. 16553727
>>16552288
Gravity's Rainbow
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:25:06 UTC No. 16553731
>>16552111
From now on PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE only post images if they are IMPORTANT! Just 7 more pictures and we will reach the image limit!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:25:28 UTC No. 16553732
>>16553722
they added those in the boosters too as a temporary measure so other systems can be tested meanwhile while a more permanent solution is developed, it makes sense
with v3 raptors they might not a CO2 system
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:29:22 UTC No. 16553736
>>16553731
>ERM YOURE NOT ALLOWED TO POST IMAGES BECAUSE I SAID SO
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:31:00 UTC No. 16553739
>>16553737
Grok tuah!
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:33:40 UTC No. 16553743
>>16553735
>>16553736
>>16553737
>>16553739
>>16553741
[math]\unicode{x1F62D}[/math][math]
math]\unicode{x1F62D}[/math][math]\
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:33:53 UTC No. 16553744
>>16553737
with all the pajeet shills here straight up from pol probably yes
>>16553740
>zero testing
>it's more likely to explode
nice
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:34:11 UTC No. 16553745
>>16553561
Ass fires, aka bonus thrust
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:34:21 UTC No. 16553746
>>16553740
ah yes a meme account on twitter said its not speculation so it must be true
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:34:50 UTC No. 16553747
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:35:35 UTC No. 16553748
>>16553746
Glad you understand how it works
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:35:36 UTC No. 16553749
>>16553746
they are tesla bots so they should know
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:36:57 UTC No. 16553750
>>16552111
Some one make a new /sfg/ ULA edition please.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:38:41 UTC No. 16553753
>>16553750
We're still on page 7 and the next launch isn't until Saturday. We're fine
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:38:50 UTC No. 16553754
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:41:10 UTC No. 16553757
>>16553737
He's the autist who loses his shit about the way OPs are formatted or staging done before page 10.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 14:59:36 UTC No. 16553782
>>16553222
Was engine out on boost back burn even an issue? It relit just fine on catch burn.
Apologize at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:22:54 UTC No. 16553804
>>16553740
shouldn't they just launch it without starship, and if everything goes well, try to catch it again and again until it fall apart?
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:26:03 UTC No. 16553807
>>16553666
>and someone might have mixed up imperial and metric units so it's return burn was too early.
Plz be true, not that it didn't happen before, to boot. That would be well deserved for using retarded relics.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:32:33 UTC No. 16553815
>>16553807
If they never tell us what happened I'm just gonna assume it's true and they didn't want everyone to know how retarded they are.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:46:52 UTC No. 16553828
>>16553746
one particular X memer is the single best source of information about the future of human spaceflight
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 16:56:41 UTC No. 16553921
>>16553508
I despise when people use AI for highly speculated retard questions
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:02:11 UTC No. 16553923
>>16553526
It's funny how the goalposts continue to move
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:06:36 UTC No. 16553927
>>16553732
>as a temporary measure so other systems can be tested
You just made that up
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 17:12:50 UTC No. 16553941
>booster successfully caught in mid air for the second time
>overshadowed by loss of Starship
sad
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 18:24:22 UTC No. 16554060
>>16553927
It wasn't there to begin with, they added and are going to remove it when Raptor 3 comes online
that is by definition temporary
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:44:54 UTC No. 16554157
>>16553300
>>16553305
>I don't know what samefagging is
Good morning Saar!
>>16553312
Generally Patel thinks anyone making fun of H1Bs for literally blowing up in Elons face is the must be the same person.
Also, samefagging is replying to the same post twice while pretending to be a different person... so they're also an idiot.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:50:16 UTC No. 16554160
>16553941
>booster successfully caught in mid air for the second time
completely pointless
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 19:58:34 UTC No. 16554174
>>16554060
>continues making up bullshit
you dont know shit, stop pretending
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:00:27 UTC No. 16554177
>>16554157
you just replied to me twice. so you're a samefag
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:21:35 UTC No. 16554204
>>16553511
>Here's what ChatGPT told me
It's a calling card for midwits.
Anonymous at Fri, 17 Jan 2025 20:33:00 UTC No. 16554223
>>16554174
nope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oed
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/18195
Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 01:58:34 UTC No. 16554642
https://x.com/_jaykeegan_/status/18
>In response to a FOIA request from NSF, Customs & Border Protection has released the footage from the aerostat stationed at South Padre Island of launch and booster catch from *Starship Flight 5*.
Anonymous at Sat, 18 Jan 2025 10:06:16 UTC No. 16554954
>>16553649
Marslink bros... I don't feek so good...