Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:24:17 UTC No. 16609375

>>16609371
FIRST FOR EUROPE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:24:21 UTC No. 16609376

>saarship
nuclear holocaust of india please PLEASE PLEAAAAASEEE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:24:49 UTC No. 16609377

>>16609371

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:24:55 UTC No. 16609378

third for zubrin

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:25:54 UTC No. 16609379

>>16609376
no saar please

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:26:56 UTC No. 16609381

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1897707132276896092

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:27:07 UTC No. 16609382

Buy Gamestop

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:27:38 UTC No. 16609383

Where would the potentially massive starship legs even fit?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:29:18 UTC No. 16609386

>>16609383
they will be mounted externally like on HLS with the windward side ones being shielded

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:30:10 UTC No. 16609387

>>16609371
you should have made a thread that looked unrelated to starship so the launch thread diversion is maximally effective

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:32:17 UTC No. 16609388

>>16609382
jesus, what a cult

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:35:52 UTC No. 16609390

https://x.com/jackiewattles/status/1897724008201961862
>Intuitive Machines CEO Steve Altemus just addressed employees at a watch party in Houston. Honfirmed the vehicle is intact, delivering data, generating power — but "not enough," hence Intuitive Machines' efforts to shut down certain components to save energy.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:37:32 UTC No. 16609392

>>16609390
I really do hope it’s dust on the panels, although I’m not exactly sure how it would get there.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:38:23 UTC No. 16609395

>>16609392
engine wouldnt shut off

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:39:20 UTC No. 16609397

>>16609390
>Intact
But no mention of "upright".

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:39:32 UTC No. 16609398

>>16609395
it probably tipped over and kept running

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:39:44 UTC No. 16609399

>>16609395
Yeah but how does the dust curve back on the lander instead of away from it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:40:12 UTC No. 16609401

>>16609395
what trajectory would get dust kicked up by the engine onto the panels? It's in vacuum, no dust cloud floating around

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:43:16 UTC No. 16609403

>>16609401
it's not really vacuum because you just pumped your landing area full of your exhaust

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:45:39 UTC No. 16609405

>>16609381
What is this Eric guy on about? I didn't see anything in that statement blaming Space Force for rocket delays.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:46:55 UTC No. 16609406

>>16609377
>Vetruvian Lander

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:49:33 UTC No. 16609408

>>16609403
there's no atmosphere to contain the exhaust

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:49:50 UTC No. 16609409

>>16609405
Bruno expects most of the payloads to be delayed because of their extreme exquisiteness. So, there is no reason to hold them to a schedule like that. I mean, come on. These payloads are exquisitely unique and irreplaceable. We can shift to the right, just a little.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:51:50 UTC No. 16609411

>Intuitive Machines’ lunar lander, Athena, touched down on the Moon at approximately 12:30pm ET (1730 UTC). For more updates, please check @Int_Machines and tune in to the post-landing conference at 4:00pm ET (2100 UTC).

https://x.com/NASA/status/1897735915235131437

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:53:22 UTC No. 16609412

>>16609256
>I actually have a stockpile

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:53:38 UTC No. 16609414

>>16609411
>Landed side ways, but it landed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:53:55 UTC No. 16609415

why don't they just land with skates instead of l*gs

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:54:07 UTC No. 16609416

>>16609411
Lets Go! Round 2!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:55:04 UTC No. 16609420

>>16609415
Why don't they land with a bouncy castle?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:55:41 UTC No. 16609421

rational machines > intuitive machines

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:55:55 UTC No. 16609422

why don't they just land

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:56:06 UTC No. 16609423

instinctive machines

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 19:58:38 UTC No. 16609425

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1897737876819132846

Updateee

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:02:06 UTC No. 16609428

If you make it spherical, you won't have this problem.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:02:31 UTC No. 16609429

>>16609420
PICKLE RIICK

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:03:35 UTC No. 16609431

Why did they even make Nova-C taller than it's wider?

>Dimensions
>Length 3 m (9.8 ft)
>Diameter 2 m (6 ft 7 in)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:04:05 UTC No. 16609432

If you don't even attempt to land you wont have this problem

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:05:01 UTC No. 16609433

SpaceX will build tower on Moon before landing

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:05:37 UTC No. 16609434

>>16609431
it’s not that easy in landerery

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:06:36 UTC No. 16609435

some guy just violated the exclusion zone on a bicycle

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:07:21 UTC No. 16609437

>>16609431
>muh height
retard, it didn't tip over because of CoM issues, it tipped over because the fucking leg broke off

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:07:34 UTC No. 16609439

>>16609425
its over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:08:25 UTC No. 16609441

>>16609439
fell for it award

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:08:50 UTC No. 16609442

>>16609439
>>16609425 (You)
its over
almost fooled me, and I posted the fucking link

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:09:31 UTC No. 16609443

>>16609439
Nope.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:09:51 UTC No. 16609444

>>16609442
forgot to add lol

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:09:52 UTC No. 16609445

>>16609439
I wish. I’m going to miss the launch because of my commute but I don’t work tomorrow.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:10:38 UTC No. 16609446

>>16609437
Consider the following

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:13:01 UTC No. 16609447

>Post yfw 0/2

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:13:03 UTC No. 16609448

>>16609446
or they could get their GNC guy to stop hitting the surface at 10mph

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:13:33 UTC No. 16609449

https://x.com/cybertruck/status/1897730605519192098
>Godspeed, friend

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:13:53 UTC No. 16609450

>>16609448
Or they could use stronger legs.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:14:19 UTC No. 16609451

>>16609449
buy an ad Elon
better yet buy the website

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:14:46 UTC No. 16609452

Just cut engines and inflate airbags in the last 10 seconds and bounce/roll to a stop like Opportunity/Spirit

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:16:05 UTC No. 16609453

you may not like it but this is what peak stability looks like

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:16:49 UTC No. 16609454

>>16609450
Okay solution but that's mass inefficient. A soft touchdown with zero lateral velocity in 0.16g and no atmosphere shouldn't be the hard part.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:18:49 UTC No. 16609456

>>16609453
The Japanese tried that and it landed on its head, engine pointed upwards, instead.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:20:10 UTC No. 16609457

>>16609454
>mass inefficient
We are in post-starship society

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:20:21 UTC No. 16609458

>>16609449
is that ship 26

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:20:23 UTC No. 16609459

>>16609454
and yet here we are

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:20:53 UTC No. 16609460

>>16609456
Dumb lander

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:21:04 UTC No. 16609461

>>16609457
Starship is going to have to soft touchdown, too. If it pulls an IM-1 it just explodes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:21:27 UTC No. 16609462

>>16609460
needs correction

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:23:15 UTC No. 16609463

>>16609461
it will have abundant mass margins to install strong and wide landing legs

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:28:21 UTC No. 16609468

>>16609457
we live in a starship is currently in a r&d society. and intuitive machines is OVER society.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:28:33 UTC No. 16609469

>>16609382
shut the fuck up, just please shut the fuck up

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:31:25 UTC No. 16609470

>>16609452
>inflate airbags
>in space

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:31:57 UTC No. 16609471

>>16609470
yes

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:36:04 UTC No. 16609472

>>16609469
>>16609382

kek Dumbfuck Hedgies

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:36:07 UTC No. 16609473

Im-2 might not have flippes over, the solar cells could just be facing away from the sun or shadowed. It's the south pole. The sun's low.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:39:30 UTC No. 16609475

>>16609470
You heard me.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:39:37 UTC No. 16609476

WHELP

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:40:19 UTC No. 16609478

It's officially over
>The landing appears to have had an issue. There is one pic which shows it may have tipped over; not generating full power (which may indicate it's tipped over) and engine did not shut off on landing which it should have done (if in upright position). Press conf at 4PM ET

https://x.com/redplanetrick/status/1897745470539341934

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:41:13 UTC No. 16609479

Kek

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:43:58 UTC No. 16609480

>>16609475
That looks stupid as hell, give me metal any day of the week.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:43:59 UTC No. 16609481

>>16609376
>Saarship
Nice meme I've got there.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:43:59 UTC No. 16609482

>>16609476

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:44:28 UTC No. 16609483

SPACE
IS
HARD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:44:30 UTC No. 16609484

>>16609476
>>16609478


What is this Amateur hour!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:44:54 UTC No. 16609485

>>16609476
I really wanted to see a photo from the permanently shadowed crater made by Micro Nova hopper. Do I have now to wait for Artemis 3? Or will VIPER be reactivated or is there another mission that will do it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:45:15 UTC No. 16609486

>>16609390
Is adding wipers to panels really too hard?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:45:28 UTC No. 16609487

It's even funnier the second time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:45:48 UTC No. 16609488

>>16609484
That guys is a NASA employee

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:46:26 UTC No. 16609489

>>16609478
On the stream, didn't some woman say the engine still running indicated it was upright? kek

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:46:47 UTC No. 16609490

https://x.com/VardaSpace/status/1897720121965396459

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:46:58 UTC No. 16609491

Moon is hard

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:46:59 UTC No. 16609492

>>16609480
I'll give you metal any day of the week.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:47:41 UTC No. 16609493

hop status?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:48:11 UTC No. 16609495

>>16609489
Here is a simulation from the expert
https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1897748180059734468

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:48:56 UTC No. 16609497

https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1897748180059734468

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:50:18 UTC No. 16609498

awaiting for thunderf00t to debunk IM...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:50:32 UTC No. 16609499

>>16609495
>>16609497

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:51:07 UTC No. 16609501

Is adding wider landing legs too hard?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:51:15 UTC No. 16609502

>>16609476
this is why you F5 BEFORE burning retro

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:51:18 UTC No. 16609503

>>16609498
Not an Elon company so it ain't gonna happen.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:51:53 UTC No. 16609504

>>16609497
Would be comical

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:52:03 UTC No. 16609505

>>16609501
Wider legs is planning for failure. Only losers do that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:52:25 UTC No. 16609506

>>16609501
Wider legs are heavier

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:53:30 UTC No. 16609508

>>16609506
Raptor 3 will solve this
(unironically)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:53:49 UTC No. 16609509

Just beef up the landing leg suspension and cut engine 2 feet above ground. How hard can it be?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:54:33 UTC No. 16609510

>>16609508
I wonder, spacex is no stranger to mass autism.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:56:15 UTC No. 16609511

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:57:02 UTC No. 16609513

>>16609511
use case for LIDAR/SLAM?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:57:26 UTC No. 16609514

>>16609506
If the first mission failed because it fell over it doesn't matter if wider legs add 20 pounds, you need to include it on the next go around. They failed to address it at all and it just tipped over again!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:58:19 UTC No. 16609516

>>16609513
use case for WIDER LEGS

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 20:58:49 UTC No. 16609517

>>16609511
rocks is hard job

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:00:23 UTC No. 16609518

>>16609513
Sounds like that would add a lot more complexity when they could add wider legs and be done with it.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:01:03 UTC No. 16609520

>>16609513
It didn't have LIDAR?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:01:18 UTC No. 16609521

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mMJxIttBc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mMJxIttBc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-mMJxIttBc

NEWS BRIEFING

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:01:21 UTC No. 16609522

>>16609516
>>16609518
>add wider legs
>land on taller rock

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:01:27 UTC No. 16609523

>>16609511
>when oyveying and shutting it down finally backfired

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:02:07 UTC No. 16609525

>>16609520
If it did then it really makes you wonder why they can't land on flat ground

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:02:15 UTC No. 16609526

https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/1897754053263999237

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:02:51 UTC No. 16609527

>>16609511
What is the solution to this? Especially if it’s something big like HLS?
Each leg getting a dedicated laser or lidar sensor?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:02:56 UTC No. 16609528

It IS on the moon, but then so was the last one.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:03:14 UTC No. 16609529

>WE DON'T BELIEVE WE'RE AT THE CORRECT ATTITUDE

O
V
E
R

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:03:51 UTC No. 16609530

"We don't know the ships attitude. We have images, but won't show them"

Same problem as before.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:04:29 UTC No. 16609531

>>16609529
TIPPED

O
V
E
R

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:04:31 UTC No. 16609532

>>16609527
Sure why not

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:04:46 UTC No. 16609533

>>16609522
Clearly the answer then would be even wider legs to avoid the even taller rocks. The space leg arms race.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:04:49 UTC No. 16609534

Shitty coding again, methinks

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:04:50 UTC No. 16609535

It's...... over......

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:05:07 UTC No. 16609536

>"Hey, when you think about it, when you don't mention the mission failing, the mission was a success!"

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:05:22 UTC No. 16609537

>>16609535
SALE

BUY BUY BUY

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:05:35 UTC No. 16609538

>>16609535
They are never getting another contract, it's fucking over for them.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:05:50 UTC No. 16609539

>>16609535
buy buy buy buy buy

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:06:43 UTC No. 16609540

>We ran our cryogenic engine flawlessly!
>We orbited the moon in perfect coms link!
>We had a great mission!

BUT DID YOU LAND ON THE MOON????

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:07:11 UTC No. 16609541

>LANDING ON THE MOON IS EXTREMELY HARD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:07:11 UTC No. 16609542

kind of copey
I guess it went better than last time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:07:47 UTC No. 16609543

Occult NASA lady..... SPACE IS FAKE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:07:58 UTC No. 16609544

>>16609540
They did, yes.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:08:22 UTC No. 16609545

How come Firefly succeeded on the first attempt?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:08:25 UTC No. 16609546

such is life...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:08:49 UTC No. 16609547

>>16609541
"Give me $20, I'll pay you back tomorrow"
I dunno, you never paid me back from the last $20 I lent you
"COMOOOOOOOOON"
Ok ok-

Hey where is my $20??
"Money is hard"

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:09:35 UTC No. 16609548

>>16609545
Those choose the correct name. If they choose fire"land" then it would have failed the landing since they tempted fate. Naming the lander "Intuitive" was the worst thing they could have done since nothing about space is intuitive and the name is tempting fate.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:09:43 UTC No. 16609549

>>16609545
Mandate of heaven

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:10:33 UTC No. 16609550

>>16609548
this is why Ultra Safe Nuclear Corp will never succeed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:10:37 UTC No. 16609551

Starship stuck the landing on third try too.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:11:23 UTC No. 16609553

>>16609545
flatter landing location, passively stable lander, more conventional thrusters (hypergolic)
basically they tried to make a simple semi-conventional MVP instead of a rube goldberg machine that Inuitive Machines seems to be doing with its rovers on top of rovers and other random ass shit

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:11:25 UTC No. 16609554

SFG is ALIVE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:11:55 UTC No. 16609556

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:12:05 UTC No. 16609557

>Congratulations to Intuitive Machines for putting another lander on the surface of the Moon

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:12:14 UTC No. 16609558

>>16609550
kek NTA but exactly. It’s the same thing with Astra putting stupid little googly eyes on their mission control monitors before having even one (1) success.
No horseplay until you can price yourself. No silly mission names. No childish gimmicks. Have some successes first, THEN start having fun.
Anything else is arrogance and cocky

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:12:42 UTC No. 16609559

https://x.com/NASASun/status/1897666708300562876

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:13:03 UTC No. 16609560

>Congratulations on landing your second mission on the moon!
If I crashed my car twice into my house on the drive home from work, I would not call it parking in the drive way twice.

Holy fucking COPE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:14:13 UTC No. 16609561

>>16609527
downward facing lidar and vision sensors to avoid boulders and slopes.
it's also possible to remote override, but landing prop margins need to be large to buy time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:14:17 UTC No. 16609562

>>16609559
I’m so autistic I knew this was parker solar probe looking at Venus, bc they’ve released similar footage before. I can now identify missions and planets from pattern recognition

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:15:05 UTC No. 16609563

>>16609562
nope, it's the Solar Orbiter

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:15:08 UTC No. 16609564

>Chief Growth Officer
Definitely doing a great job

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:15:18 UTC No. 16609565

>>16609560
lol it’s like saying the Columbia disaster was pretty much a success because it went to orbit and, technically, came back to earth

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:15:20 UTC No. 16609566

>>16609548
This is the correct answer. Names are POWERFUL.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:18:01 UTC No. 16609569

kino

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:18:38 UTC No. 16609570

>>16609553
>rube goldberg machine
Nova C looks like a satellite bus with legs

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:18:40 UTC No. 16609571

>>16609565
>congratulations to Columbia landing at Texas and Louisiana

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:18:56 UTC No. 16609572

>>16609553
The Moon isn't really great about doing "flatter." Blue Ghost came down in a fairly unchallenged area and there was more than enough topography and obstacles to make it auto-divert off of its original landing target. IM-2 was also planning to land near the pole which doesn't present as many clean landing zones as other regions.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:23:01 UTC No. 16609577

Let's discuss Titan.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:24:28 UTC No. 16609578

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:25:44 UTC No. 16609579

>>16609569
same vibes

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:25:52 UTC No. 16609580

>>16609570
it needs to land in a specific orientation with respect to every rotational axis or it doesn't get any power
if there is a small stone or the slope is just a little bit off flat, it falls over
the fact its not passively stable or powered without very specific things happening makes it more complicated than it needs to be

https://www.cgtrader.com/3d-models/space/spaceship/nova-c-lunar-im-1-mission

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:26:39 UTC No. 16609581

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:26:53 UTC No. 16609582

>>16609580

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:27:12 UTC No. 16609583

>>16609580
It's a very unintuitive design.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:27:48 UTC No. 16609585

>thunderf00t will not be streaming

what the fuck happened to /ourguy/

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:27:49 UTC No. 16609586

>>16609572
The moon is so low gravity a tiny motor and a long carbon rod could flip it the right way up. Would use like 100 grams of weight

hell deploy 3 meter carbon booms so that it can never land wrong even on rocky surfaces

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:29:17 UTC No. 16609587

>>16609572
> IM-2 was also planning to land near the pole which doesn't present as many clean landing zones as other regions.
exactly my point
they chose a more challenging landing location i.e. less flat hilly area instead of a plain, whether its absolutely flat is pedantry

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:29:46 UTC No. 16609588

>>16609585
day drinking is starting to catch up with him

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:30:16 UTC No. 16609589

>>16609572
Great let’s send a giant ass Starship there with humans in it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:30:28 UTC No. 16609590

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:32:02 UTC No. 16609592

>>16609476
US is now literally behind India levels technologically, big Oof

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:32:27 UTC No. 16609593

>>16609586
reminds me of this unintended feature I made one time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:33:38 UTC No. 16609594

>>16609593
kino

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:36:49 UTC No. 16609595

>>16609593
>Jeb looks in in awe

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:37:32 UTC No. 16609597

Who the FUCK cares about IM3? It's a dumb mid latitude mission, anything of value is at the poles. And they fucked up their polar mission.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:38:10 UTC No. 16609598

>>16609593
Very nice

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:38:43 UTC No. 16609599

>>16609587
They chose to land at the pole because their primary science payload was a drill that was going to be investigating potential ice deposits

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:38:57 UTC No. 16609600

>laser data was unexpectedly noisy this time
>they root caused last flight failure to laser being off instead of enginnering decision to not ensure safe landing with camera and imu only
>they didn't try their utmost to totally fix tipping over as a possibility
>they didn't add extra solar panels on the sides even though that would have dramatically helped both them and the japanese lander last time
>they had state confusion with the engine firing while grounded
>they SPACed
absolute joke of a company. ngmi.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:39:59 UTC No. 16609601

>>16609569
le sex

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:40:02 UTC No. 16609602

>>16609599
maybe they should learn how to land (at all) before trying to do polar missions

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:42:20 UTC No. 16609603

>>16609600
sadly I can't disagree

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:43:17 UTC No. 16609604

>>16609569
I hear Rafales fuck like gogo dancers.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:43:29 UTC No. 16609605

>>16609600
Third time is the charm!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:43:38 UTC No. 16609606

>>16609600
>>laser data was unexpectedly noisy this time
like from the regolith being kicked up?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:43:56 UTC No. 16609607

>>16609600
I wish this wasn't the case but some companies have it and some don't. This one clearly doesn't.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:46:04 UTC No. 16609609

uhh

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:48:08 UTC No. 16609611

>>16609609
BUY THE DIP

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:48:13 UTC No. 16609612

>>16609609
Imagine buying and expecting a big payout because the lander succeeded in landing and losing all your money because the lander fell over again

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:48:17 UTC No. 16609613

>>16609600
You’d think if the laser not even activating last time was the (seemingly sole) problem for mission failure, they would have covered their asses BIG TIME to ensure it worked completely and flawlessly

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:48:29 UTC No. 16609615

>>16609607
in this case it seems to be a handful of lead architects being retards.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:49:12 UTC No. 16609616

>do you know what you're doing?
Jesus

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:51:12 UTC No. 16609617

>>16609593

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:51:29 UTC No. 16609618

>>16609615
That's all it takes, once those kinds of people get lead positions then everything below them begins to fail. Happened at my job as well, there was one team that was filled with "the rejects" and somehow one of them got into a position of power and has been actively fucking things up. Get enough of the rejects into positions to dictate how things are done and it doesn't matter if everyone under them is Einstein, nothing good can be produced at that point.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:51:30 UTC No. 16609619

>>16609616
lmaooo

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:51:53 UTC No. 16609620

>>16609616
What?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:52:37 UTC No. 16609621

>we fit out at the limits of the SpaceX fairing
>the center of gravity was very low

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:53:34 UTC No. 16609623

>>16609620
IM press thing, one of the journos directly questioned the 'low-cost approach' after citing their failures.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:54:44 UTC No. 16609624

> IM crashes another lander

Well, at least they're consistent.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:55:10 UTC No. 16609625

Hopper is still deployable?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:55:14 UTC No. 16609626

Just keep launching!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:55:50 UTC No. 16609628

>>16609624
Consistency is the first step towards profitability.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:56:15 UTC No. 16609629

>its important that we learn
next time make the solar panel orientation even more precise

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:57:33 UTC No. 16609631

What if they add a drone on a string and attach the string to the to of the lander. That way when they fall over a third time they can activate the drone and have it pull it into an upright position

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:58:19 UTC No. 16609632

https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1897760082131403064

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:59:37 UTC No. 16609633

>Starship explodes for the 7th time without making it to orbit
>tHiS is FiNe!!111!!111 itS calEd iTeRRaTiVee DesDign

>Intuitive Machines manages to land on the Moon twice but has trouble with their orientation just like many young people
>THEY ARE A BAD COMPANY

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 21:59:52 UTC No. 16609634

>>16609632

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:00:09 UTC No. 16609635

https://x.com/shaunmmaguire/status/1897759723153506412
>"I really think Mars is going to be one of the biggest profit-generating endeavors in history." - @shaunmmaguire
>"(We need) nuclear power plants in a box, vertical farming, surgical robots, self-assembling fabs in space."
>"I think all the second-order businesses that spin out from this are going to be outrageously valuable."

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:00:10 UTC No. 16609636

>>16609631
What if they added inflatable balloons they could fill to raise it up?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:00:52 UTC No. 16609637

>>16609449
wtf is that supposed to mean? the speed of god?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:00:53 UTC No. 16609638

On the flip side it wasn't a regression.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:01:13 UTC No. 16609639

>>16609633
SpaceX started with extremely simple MVP rockets, they didn't start with Starship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:01:24 UTC No. 16609640

>>16609633
>Intuitive Machines manages to land on the Moon twice but has trouble with their orientation just like many young people
jej

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:01:44 UTC No. 16609641

>>16609633
obligatory (You)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:01:55 UTC No. 16609642

>>16609636
That could also work

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:02:13 UTC No. 16609643

FUCK CLPS! cheaper spacecraft ain't working, just build fewer and build them RIGHT!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:02:54 UTC No. 16609644

>>16609642
>parachute
>in a vacuum
/sfg/ is a brilliant

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:03:04 UTC No. 16609645

>>16609476
shittiest possible legs to put on a moonar lander

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:03:48 UTC No. 16609646

>>16609644
We are talking about a balloon here, not a parachute.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:04:24 UTC No. 16609647

>>16609490
saarda space jabpoopal

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:05:15 UTC No. 16609648

>>16609521
just now:
>and thats what these contracts are written for, to allow for misssteps or failures...
but not basically the same error happening two times in a row?!
How can you build this, fuck up the landing manouver, then build basically the exact same thing once more, and fuck up the landing manouver AGAIN?!
The Indians have managed to land something on the moon FFS.
Like do they expect "me" (as a taxpayer) to fund an exact repeat of the previous 2 failed missions a 3rd time?

oh and:
> the same error happening two times in a row?!
please dont make me eat my words and explode again just like flight 7 starship, pretty please?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:06:43 UTC No. 16609649

>>16609545
way better legs/feet, center of mass

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:06:49 UTC No. 16609650

>>16609633
>has trouble with their orientation just like many young people

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:06:59 UTC No. 16609651

>>16609643
its clearly working somewhat, inuitive machines design just seems overly ambitious and complicated
maybe they nail it the third time, the mountain said that on IM-1 they could barely control the lander and now it was basically a breeze so clearly they have improved a lot
doing it this way just seems kind of unnecessarily risky, what if the NASA contracts stop?
instead they could have landed a simple lander to show that they are capable of doing it and then start making it fancy

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:07:20 UTC No. 16609652

>>16609633
kek

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:09:01 UTC No. 16609655

>>16609651

> clearly they have improved a lot

Yeah, last time they crashed then fell over on their side.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:09:02 UTC No. 16609656

>>16609635
>Mars will need to buy a lot of stuff and that makes it a profit center
Okay great, but how does Mars make money to pay for any of that? That's the part that has never made any sense?

inb4
>well uh elon is going to sell lots of cars and satellites and stuff and will then generously fund all the mars colony stuff as an act of charity
wonderful. but not sustainable.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:10:05 UTC No. 16609658

>>16609454
You know what's also mass-inefficient? 100% useless mass because it's fallen over and can't do its job.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:11:25 UTC No. 16609660

we iz need mo' moneh fo' them pograms

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:11:45 UTC No. 16609661

>>16609656
the mars colony could own a part of SpaceX and then own the technologies that are developed as a result of trying to build the colony
then you make money by applying that tech back on earth, at least that seemed like the argument
the colony itself being a massive RnD project with monetizable research

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:12:42 UTC No. 16609662

>>16609648
>please dont make me eat my words and explode again just like flight 7 starship, pretty please?
you jinxed it. At least now we know who to sacrifice as a scapegoat

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:12:51 UTC No. 16609663

"Stop me if you've heard this one before."

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:13:10 UTC No. 16609664

>>16609639
and all three of them blew the fuck up and VCs ran for the hills

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:14:34 UTC No. 16609665

https://mainenginecutoff.com/podcast/296
BIG JIM

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:14:50 UTC No. 16609666

it will fucking explode

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:14:55 UTC No. 16609667

>>16609656
Mars will export Martian rocks/regolith, Martian grown foods, cutting edge research and technology, and tourism.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:14:55 UTC No. 16609668

SOMEONE BAKE A LAUNCH THREAD ALREADY

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:15:29 UTC No. 16609669

>>16609408
Moon's gravity is sufficient that landing exhaust will kick up a cloud of razor dust that will circle the surface and land back, some of it anyway, where it was kicked off from. Which may be sufficient to impact the power production. This is in addition to any dust that got kicked up straight up and then came back down and deposited on the panels. Moon's gravity is 1/6th Earth's, but for dust, that's 1/6th too much. Lack of atmosphere is irrelevant.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:15:59 UTC No. 16609670

>>16609666
fuck you satan

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:16:48 UTC No. 16609671

>>16609668
you do it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:16:48 UTC No. 16609672

>>16609478
If you fail the same way TWICE when landing on the Moon, your entire design team needs to be fired. Holy fuck.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:17:11 UTC No. 16609674

>massive prop leak on the tower
it's over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:17:14 UTC No. 16609675

who is this skelly tranny

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:18:04 UTC No. 16609676

I just woke up. How did the moon landing go?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:18:51 UTC No. 16609677

>>16609676
As usual

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:19:10 UTC No. 16609678

>>16609676
shit went sideways real fast

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:19:43 UTC No. 16609679

>>16609676
close flyby at -90 degrees attitude

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:20:30 UTC No. 16609680

>>16609676
Well, it landed.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:20:43 UTC No. 16609681

>>16609527
HLS is big enough that most "boulders" aren't really a problem. The sheer mass of the ship will crush the rock, and the Starship is expected to have independent electrical control on the positioning of the legs to adjust in case there's an angling invariant. But for small landers with fixed legs and no option for balancing, you need use what Ingenuity did on Mars: a basic fucking camera and AI based navigation to avoid the boulders. The fact that they didn't even bother to implement this after the probe tipped over last time is incomprehensibly retarded. They KNEW the Moon doesn't have ideal flat ground to land on, and that the probability of boulders that would tip the balance is high. Intuitive Machines is Intuitively Retarded.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:20:46 UTC No. 16609682

>>16609676
We're on the Moon!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:21:45 UTC No. 16609683

>>16609664
it wasn't the same issue
engine failure (Merlin 1A), harmonics and engine control issue (Merlin 1C) are all different problems

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:21:53 UTC No. 16609684

>>16609676
why do space companies have so many cute girls working at them? you never see this many cute women irl in the US. its mostly fat ugly hippos.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:23:14 UTC No. 16609685

>>16609674
ITS OVER

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kzdUmBIUus

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:25:30 UTC No. 16609687

GO FOR PROP LOAD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:25:36 UTC No. 16609688

>>16609683
who tf asked bro

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:25:55 UTC No. 16609689

>>16609685
Jesus, what happened to NSF?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:26:25 UTC No. 16609690

>>16609609
The sell off is entirely justified. Structurally incompetent to not consider the possibility that the place you're sending your landers to is inhospitable to conventional landing patterns, and that you need to basically overengineer for the possibility of everything going wrong during touch down and then over time, scaling things back as needed. They went with SpaceX's "best part is no part" by applying "best brain is no brain." Every failure is a success if the brain is smooth.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:26:43 UTC No. 16609691

>>16609651
NASA confirmed that they don't plan to launch the experiments it had for looking for ice ever again. It was our last chance and they fucked it up

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:30:09 UTC No. 16609693

>>16609689
sold out to the streamer meta, COME ON GET HYPE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:32:04 UTC No. 16609695

> FH8 go for prop load

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:34:13 UTC No. 16609698

>>16609671
I would but I don't know how to get the twitterx link for the OP

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:34:27 UTC No. 16609699

>>16609691
>VIPER cancelled
>IM-2 flipped
Hopefully going to a permanently shadowed crater will be a part of Artemis 3.....

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:35:04 UTC No. 16609700

I made my last hot chocolate for Wednesday's flight before it got scrubbed. Now I do not have any hot chocolate for today's flight. This is really pissing me off.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:36:32 UTC No. 16609701

>>16609700
*makes hot chocolate for you*

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:37:08 UTC No. 16609703

>>16609670
omg its the /g/ girl that hates itoddlers

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:37:19 UTC No. 16609704

Launch day? more like... SCRUB

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:38:46 UTC No. 16609706

>>16609700
Hopefully there won't be those digit posters again. Well.... uhh... IF DIGITS THEN IT WILL BE SCRUBEBD AGAIN

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:38:58 UTC No. 16609707

>>16609704
scrub my sweaty balls

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:40:43 UTC No. 16609709

>>16609704
hold, sike, hold, scrub

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:42:00 UTC No. 16609710

get EL creaturo off the screen already

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:42:17 UTC No. 16609711

>no fog
SOVLLESS

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:42:48 UTC No. 16609712

>>16609710
Why does he think that hair looks good?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:42:48 UTC No. 16609713

I been strokan mah peen in preparedly for this launch. WISHING LUCK TO THE SHIP OF STARS

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:44:17 UTC No. 16609714

>nsf mods dilating at any mention of "gulf of america"

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:45:21 UTC No. 16609715

>>16609714
no politics in chat o algo

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:46:04 UTC No. 16609716

>>16609710
It should be an ITAR violation for a foreign adversary to own the leading media organization feeding propaganda and surveillance about the Starship/American space program.
Can we get a PATRIOT to do it instead? And no, its not Tim fucking Dodd. I mean a true blooded American organization.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:46:05 UTC No. 16609717

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:46:09 UTC No. 16609718

We will never colonise the outer Solar System. We will never go past the asteroid belt. Mars and the Moon will be the extent of human space exploration. Probes will be used to explore Alpha/Proxima Centauri. We will never go further than that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:47:25 UTC No. 16609720

>>16609712
Hes a repressed tranny for sure. You can tell by the shape of the face. Very similar to the skitzo criminal face

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:47:58 UTC No. 16609721

>t minus 40 mins to starship launch
>118% board activity
It's well and truly over, isn't it?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:48:00 UTC No. 16609722

PROP LOAD
>PROP LOAD
PROP LOAD
>PROP LOAD
PROP LOAD
>PROP LOAD
PROP LOAD
>PROP LOAD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:49:03 UTC No. 16609724

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:49:07 UTC No. 16609725

>>16609688
fuck off zoomer

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:49:36 UTC No. 16609727

>>16609717
that was a piece of plastic used to guide the stack
not vital or something

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:50:29 UTC No. 16609728

Resticky the leftovers on page 10, janny.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:50:33 UTC No. 16609729

>>16609724
>is launching
will launch*

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:51:05 UTC No. 16609730

Launch ETA? My family is calling me to dinner......

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:51:09 UTC No. 16609731

>>16609718
That’s not so bad I guess. Remember that 12 men on the moon and no boots ever on mars is still a real possibility.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:51:52 UTC No. 16609732

Dear Baby Jesus, please can you make Elon's rocket explode? That would be so fucking funny. Thank you.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:51:55 UTC No. 16609733

>>16609725
Oooh you so got me bro!!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:52:26 UTC No. 16609734

>>16609718
>We will never colonise the outer Solar System
Why not? Some moons of the outer Solar System seem to be interesting and habitable assuming you can handle 0.1 gravity long term or have the ability to artificially make gravity. Also the gas giants have a lot Helium-3 for fusion, which could be the main source of energy somewhen far in the future.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:52:34 UTC No. 16609735

>>16609732
No, Inshallah

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:52:34 UTC No. 16609736

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1897780923581472872

VALVE ISSUES, DELAYED UNTIL TOMORROW (sike)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:53:04 UTC No. 16609737

>>16609732
stupid frogposter, pray to adult jesus like a real person

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:53:23 UTC No. 16609738

>>16609666

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:53:50 UTC No. 16609740

I really hope they will have different videos and new information for the pre launch stream. I don't want to hear the same again.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:54:18 UTC No. 16609741

LAUNCH THREAD
>>16609739
>>16609739
>>16609739

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:54:22 UTC No. 16609742

>>16609371
>Saarship
you jest but starship wouldn't have been possible without H1B indians

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:54:24 UTC No. 16609743

Tacobell is my methane
My asshole is a raptor
That was a good pre-launch shit

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:55:24 UTC No. 16609745

>>16609742
They're called GOLD now, chud

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:56:27 UTC No. 16609749

Launch thread

>>16609748
>>16609748
>>16609748

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:56:48 UTC No. 16609753

>>16609749
delete this

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:57:43 UTC No. 16609757

>>16609749
Other one already got stickied

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:57:45 UTC No. 16609758

https://youtu.be/7CjPUDTWhJ4
MAXQUTE

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:58:52 UTC No. 16609760

>>16609730

One hour from now or so.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:59:00 UTC No. 16609762

godspeed starship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:59:14 UTC No. 16609763

>>16609758
She finally made a new thumbnail, the flight is going to be a success

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 22:59:33 UTC No. 16609767

>>16609758
Max-qute

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:00:44 UTC No. 16609771

https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1lPKqMQbAWLKb
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1lPKqMQbAWLKb
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1lPKqMQbAWLKb

SPACEX IS LIVE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:02:57 UTC No. 16609778

Is Kate married?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:04:08 UTC No. 16609786

> 27 minutes to launch

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:04:24 UTC No. 16609788

dinner scarfed, family snubbed
ready for hop!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:06:52 UTC No. 16609803

>>16609788
>Notifications: paused
>Company time: burning
Go for maxqute

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:09:25 UTC No. 16609814

how can it be that she's grown even more beautiful than earlier this week?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:10:05 UTC No. 16609818

>>16609762
o7

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:10:09 UTC No. 16609819

>>16609814
are you talking about Clear or Starship?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:10:54 UTC No. 16609823

>>16609819
baka

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:11:16 UTC No. 16609824

>>16609819
kate

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:12:15 UTC No. 16609831

Dan fell off

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:12:39 UTC No. 16609834

Elon's Cross

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:13:24 UTC No. 16609837

>>16609831
Yeah somebody needs to buy this guy an electric razor.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:13:36 UTC No. 16609839

>>16609831
Men age like wi-ACKK

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:14:04 UTC No. 16609841

>>16609819
both

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:14:27 UTC No. 16609844

>>16609831

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:14:58 UTC No. 16609848

>>16609844
He looks like a hobo now

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:15:00 UTC No. 16609849

>>16609844
He's floridaman-maxxing

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:15:45 UTC No. 16609853

>>16609839
He just needs to shave and use some sunscreen to stop being red, his skin looks like it's still soft and youthful.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:17:36 UTC No. 16609863

sweaty starship-chan...
contemplate the smell

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:18:14 UTC No. 16609868

>>16609853
you are right, he's a beautiful young man with the complexion of babys bottom

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:18:22 UTC No. 16609869

Good news I found some hot chocolate in the cupboard

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:18:45 UTC No. 16609872

> checks for wedding ring

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:20:19 UTC No. 16609883

500k vs 2m viewers, "wdr" aka attempt 1 vs this live

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:21:07 UTC No. 16609888

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:21:08 UTC No. 16609889

>>16609869
blessed

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:21:20 UTC No. 16609891

cute pinguine starship flaps

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:23:27 UTC No. 16609908

>>16609891
>flightless bird
not a good sign

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:25:29 UTC No. 16609923

This better be good.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:27:37 UTC No. 16609943

>>16609923
DO IT FOR HER

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:29:39 UTC No. 16609952

AAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:29:40 UTC No. 16609953

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
FFFFFFFUUUUUCK

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:29:47 UTC No. 16609956

It's over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:29:55 UTC No. 16609961

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:30:22 UTC No. 16609969

TRUST THE PLAN

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:30:31 UTC No. 16609975

HOLD 40

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:30:48 UTC No. 16609982

We're back

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:30:49 UTC No. 16609984

DÉCOLLAGE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:30:56 UTC No. 16609985

woosh

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:31:32 UTC No. 16609993

>>16609371
Is there any way for the athena IM2 mission to not be a complete failure at this point? Not even going to lie - I'm a little gambling stock faggot but it's not even about money at this point. I'd be ok with it if Athena got fucked because of some unforseen consequences. I thought that they'd at least fix their fucking shit and learn their lesson from IM1 but haha noooooooooooooo, why should they? Just gib monies plox NASA. Fuck, I'm mad.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:32:21 UTC No. 16610002

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:32:50 UTC No. 16610009

GLORY
>TO
THOSE
>THAT
LOOK
>FORWARD

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:32:51 UTC No. 16610012

I'm more nervous for this launch than any other

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:33:21 UTC No. 16610017

Launch tower isn't fucked, go for catch

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:33:42 UTC No. 16610020

UH OH

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:33:57 UTC No. 16610024

See ya nigga

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:34:02 UTC No. 16610027

>2 engines dead
IT'S

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:34:05 UTC No. 16610028

2 raptors out on boostback

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:34:14 UTC No. 16610030

G A A N

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:34:30 UTC No. 16610035

CHAT THEY AIN'T GONNA BELIEVE THIS, TWO BOOSTERS OUT BUT STILL A CATCH

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:34:40 UTC No. 16610038

>>16610027
No big deal. They'll relight like last catch.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:35:07 UTC No. 16610043

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:37:44 UTC No. 16610063

oh shit shit shit

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:37:52 UTC No. 16610066

>One didn't catch

FAK

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:37:56 UTC No. 16610071

yay

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:38:21 UTC No. 16610080

its routine now, doesn't matter if some engines don't light

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:00 UTC No. 16610098

I thought the chopsticks were a dumb idea, but now I am a fan.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:10 UTC No. 16610105

NOOOOOOOO
WHAT

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:26 UTC No. 16610121

Fuckity shit!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:29 UTC No. 16610123

its fucked

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:38 UTC No. 16610128

It’s fucking over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:45 UTC No. 16610133

rip Starship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:52 UTC No. 16610139

NOT AGAIN

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:39:54 UTC No. 16610141

uh-oh

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:14 UTC No. 16610147

It's actually over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:14 UTC No. 16610149

Do I remember wrong or stream numbers are lower than they used to be?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:20 UTC No. 16610153

OKAY WHO THE FUCK HIT THE WRONG BUTTON? I KNOW IT WAS ONE OF YOU FAGGOTS.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:20 UTC No. 16610154

thunderf00T WON

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:22 UTC No. 16610157

Computer, play that song from Gravity.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:23 UTC No. 16610158

Would you buy a ticket to Mars from SpaceX?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:24 UTC No. 16610159

Oh come on

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:25 UTC No. 16610160

Told you those jank mods they added to the ship wouldn't work.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:26 UTC No. 16610161

the fuel readings as the thing flips around like crazy is humorous

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:29 UTC No. 16610165

SELL SELL SELL

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:42 UTC No. 16610175

Yeah -- might want to tighten up QC on Starship.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:43 UTC No. 16610176

>two tip overs in a row
>two Starship disintegrations in a row
>two jerk offs this morning in a row

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:48 UTC No. 16610180

I am going to kill myself

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:40:54 UTC No. 16610183

block 2s seem to be completely fucked
what the fuck happened

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:15 UTC No. 16610187

Ouch another failure.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:16 UTC No. 16610188

>>16610183
POGO

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:22 UTC No. 16610194

NUMBERS DECIDE WHERE IT LANDS

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:24 UTC No. 16610196

>Lost telemetry
It's so over

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:36 UTC No. 16610200

SpaceX sisters....
Not like this....

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:46 UTC No. 16610206

Where is that pic of Elon and the crash debris???

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:41:56 UTC No. 16610208

I'm blackpilled.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:03 UTC No. 16610211

time to move on to v3

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:11 UTC No. 16610213

ariane 6: 2 successful orbits
starshit: 0 successful orbits
the future is here

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:16 UTC No. 16610216

>>16610194
Bezos' mansion

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:17 UTC No. 16610217

>>16610158
I could think of better ways to suicide.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:22 UTC No. 16610220

on the other hand, brace for kino reentry debris

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:27 UTC No. 16610222

If this isn't a signal for Elon to get the fuck out of bureaucracy and back to work, I don't know what is.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:28 UTC No. 16610224

>>16610194
I N D I A

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:38 UTC No. 16610227

they completely redid the avionics, maybe thats the problem?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:59 UTC No. 16610234

This one better had been loaded with fireworks for a more spectacular show over some island full of brown dumbfucks.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:42:59 UTC No. 16610235

my decision to become a rocketlab fan is paying off but I'm not happy about it

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:01 UTC No. 16610236

NOT AGAIN

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:05 UTC No. 16610240

What's he filming?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:11 UTC No. 16610241

>>16610194
Elon’s house, checkem

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:17 UTC No. 16610243

>>16610183
Elon became a meme politician instead of focusing on SpaceX. It's actually over.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:26 UTC No. 16610248

>>16610227
did the new avionics tell an RVAC to explode?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:41 UTC No. 16610251

EUROPE 1
AMERICA -2

EUROPE IS WINNING! APOLOGIZE TO EUROPE!!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:43:54 UTC No. 16610254

TIME TO STOP WORKING FROM HOME ELON, GET BACK IN THE OFFICE.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:13 UTC No. 16610259

So what island is going to get nuked

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:14 UTC No. 16610260

>>16610251
Europe can never into space.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:18 UTC No. 16610261

>>16610213
It would be hilarious if ESA and Chinks catch up.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:34 UTC No. 16610265

>>16610240
supposed to be happy reactions for another promo vid

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:37 UTC No. 16610266

Time for more reentry footage

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:41 UTC No. 16610267

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:43 UTC No. 16610268

are there videos of the reentry yet?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:44 UTC No. 16610269

New Glenn on Super Heavy.

it started as a joke....

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:44:58 UTC No. 16610272

usa usa usa?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:05 UTC No. 16610274

>>16610267
>JUST

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:24 UTC No. 16610277

This is Ground Control to Major Tom

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:31 UTC No. 16610279

>>16610267
Tice gets sexier every stream. OMG...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:34 UTC No. 16610281

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:49 UTC No. 16610282

>ship catch attempt postponed again
I'm getting blueballed hard

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:59 UTC No. 16610286

>>16610269
>>16610272
Fucking hell she's so beautiful

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:45:59 UTC No. 16610289

>>16610235
Why not? Elon is deserving all this failure for acting like a complete retard.

Next one is going to blow up the tower.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:08 UTC No. 16610294

>we're gonna get a ship to mars
>time passes
>we're gonna get a ship to moon
>time passes
>w-we're totally gonna get a shit to sspace...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:11 UTC No. 16610297

a few more iterations and we'll be back to ift-5!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:20 UTC No. 16610298

>>16610269
its going to happen....

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:25 UTC No. 16610301

Post debris fireworks.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:36 UTC No. 16610305

>>16610261
Apples with oranges.
The point of starship is to be reusable, ariane6 was never designed for that.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:46:53 UTC No. 16610307

>>16610236
this actually goes hard.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:01 UTC No. 16610308

this is kind of retarded

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:11 UTC No. 16610311

>>16610305
At this point, Starship can't even reach orbit

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:23 UTC No. 16610316

>>16610261
The Chinese will catch up, the Euros will continue to be their own worst enemy

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:24 UTC No. 16610317

>goes all in on politics to get the FAA off his back
>now the ship can't even get it up (to orbit)
the most ironic outcome is the most likely isn't that right elon?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:35 UTC No. 16610320

>>16610305
>The point of starship is to be reusable

Yeah about that...

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:40 UTC No. 16610323

>>16610305
the point of ariane 6 is to be useable, which puts it ahead of starship

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:47:55 UTC No. 16610327

THREAD THEME
THREAD THEME
THREAD THEME

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kguaGI7aZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kguaGI7aZg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kguaGI7aZg

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:48:02 UTC No. 16610330

https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1897794299384807486

inb4 interstellar edits

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:48:10 UTC No. 16610331

>>16610305
the point of any rocket is to be USED
saarshit is a long long long possible infinite way away from that

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:48:27 UTC No. 16610337

Launches were more successful when a Democrat was in the White House.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:48:40 UTC No. 16610339

the most important payload which was lost on this flight was data

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:06 UTC No. 16610344

I'm losing my faith in starship bros, next one will make it, right?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:07 UTC No. 16610346

Reentry videos are coming in
https://x.com/NStewWX/status/1897795175633592384

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:29 UTC No. 16610349

EAGER BROS...
https://x.com/eager_space/status/1897796227103686732

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:29 UTC No. 16610350

can you fix v2?
just move on to v3?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:31 UTC No. 16610351

Lisan al Gaib!

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:36 UTC No. 16610352

>https://x.com/davidaj_fh/status/1897795271167250832
SHIP RE-ENTRY OVER MIAMI

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:48 UTC No. 16610354

>>16610346
expect most of these to be fake for a while

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:49:49 UTC No. 16610355

Fuck twitter fuck X whatever you want to call it. FUCK IT.
People are posting footage of the breakup but X SUCKS MAJOR ASSHOLE as a video streaming service so it’s just 144p pixelated GARBAGE

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:50:01 UTC No. 16610357

I agree with based Casey, when are we going to launch east from Vandenburg
basically all inclinations are accessible without overflight of cities

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:50:11 UTC No. 16610361

FUCK V2

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:51:32 UTC No. 16610373

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:51:51 UTC No. 16610378

>>16610352
No way, that's the Starship, it should be way past Florida at 20,000 km/h

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:52:27 UTC No. 16610386

We're back to this it feels like.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:52:43 UTC No. 16610390

it landed in the florida area https://old.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/1j59qt5/starship_from_my_house_in_orlando/

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:52:46 UTC No. 16610391

/Sad Flights General/

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:52:52 UTC No. 16610392

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:53:03 UTC No. 16610394

>>16610357
worst possible time to post this at

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:53:15 UTC No. 16610398

Is this rapid destruction, eh, supposed to, lead to, a manned mars mission?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:02 UTC No. 16610406

Is Elon gonna reimburse all that jetfuel?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:04 UTC No. 16610407

>>16610357
*scatters debris all over new mexico*

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:15 UTC No. 16610409

KINO

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:19 UTC No. 16610411

>>16610398
At this point it's getting delayed by years.

They are still nowhere near getting the actually hard parts right.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:21 UTC No. 16610412

>>16610398
No it’s supposed to lead to a 10 year delay for the Artemis program

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:31 UTC No. 16610414

>https://x.com/MrGilyard/status/1897796482129908152
Looks like it was visible from Florida

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:54 UTC No. 16610418

there is quite literally no way to sugarcoat this

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:54:59 UTC No. 16610419

>>16610398
Yes, the fine astronaut organic particles scattered evenly across the martian surface will help organics to grow and produce oxygen to bring about the new martian atmosphere.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:13 UTC No. 16610423

sir a second ship has hit the ocean

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:16 UTC No. 16610425

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:21 UTC No. 16610426

>>16610418
Yeah this is a disaster.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:25 UTC No. 16610427

> It is also speculative, but the call out for "vehicle safed" suggests SpaceX & FAA did revise the conditions for activating the FTS, so the IIP was likely tracking somewhere into the open ocean? We should be getting some visuals from people downrange confirming entry of SS as a single piece, vsi thousands of pieces as on F7.

One big piece of debris instead of thousands of tiny pieces. Guess that's progress.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:25 UTC No. 16610428

>Super Heavy relights its engines multiple times and sticks the catch
>Ship shits itself during a single burn
What's their problem?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:28 UTC No. 16610429

>>16610418
Yup. Time to stop working from home, Mr. Musk.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:38 UTC No. 16610432

>>16610391
good one

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:55:56 UTC No. 16610434

I'm not seeing them launching anything to Mars during the next window at this rate

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:01 UTC No. 16610435

I am now convinced that even if the FAA gave SpaceX some kind of hypothetical “infinite launch” license, they’d still be exactly where they are at today.
The problem wasn’t the FAA. It wasn’t regulation. The bottleneck is SpaceX themselves.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:10 UTC No. 16610436

>>16610409
My God, Bones. What have I done?

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:25 UTC No. 16610437

>>16610418
Time to get the fuck out of Do(d)ge and focus on the mission.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:29 UTC No. 16610438

>>16610428
They have a lot of work to do on vibrations. This is likely the same fucking issue as previous flight on this jank block of starship, only kicked slightly further down the flight than first.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:40 UTC No. 16610441

>>16610434
Moon program is also fucked. No way this is getting rated for human flight any time soon.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:24 UTC No. 16610442

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:55 UTC No. 16610445

This whole spaceflight thing isn't working out. It's time for man to return to the simple things
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_03FWDBZG0

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:56:55 UTC No. 16610446

ShartX needs to be nationalized.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:57:18 UTC No. 16610450

elon's going to save SLS at this rate

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:57:20 UTC No. 16610451

>>16610411

They had Starship v1 reentering to splash down. Something is effed in v2 that's making it rudd before orbit.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:01 UTC No. 16610455

https://www.twitch.tv/tpain/clip/TemperedIgnorantHeronOSfrog-aowJ27rcgpBY8mlU

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:05 UTC No. 16610456

>>16610438
just go back to V1 downcomer those worked every single time

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:08 UTC No. 16610457

https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1897795136056442923

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:09 UTC No. 16610459

>fucked up moon lander
>fucked up human moon lander
This is the leading nation in spaceflight btw. This is as good as it gets. We suck as a species

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:15 UTC No. 16610460

>>16610435
They managed to copy the parts Falcon 9 already perfected just at bigger scale, but can't do the new stuff right.

The #1 issue is still heat tiles and they are not even making progress there.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:38 UTC No. 16610461

FUCK
SLS does not look that bad now

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:58:40 UTC No. 16610463

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:20 UTC No. 16610467

>>16610459
meanwhile europ:
>another success

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:25 UTC No. 16610468

>>16610463
literally no one cares. SuperHeavy at least works
(until they move on to the next block and it fucks up as well)

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:27 UTC No. 16610470

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:36 UTC No. 16610471

If I was China I'd just copy the Super Heavy with rest not being reusable. Starship is not going to work.

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:37 UTC No. 16610472

https://x.com/DJSnM/status/1897795895393181875

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:44 UTC No. 16610473

that tower catch was super sketchy
or was it the camera angle?
idk

Anonymous at Thu, 6 Mar 2025 23:59:55 UTC No. 16610475

Whoever the project manager is for the booster is probably secretly feeling pretty smug right now.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:00:11 UTC No. 16610478

>>16610473
I think a bit of both
>>16610463

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:00:20 UTC No. 16610479

It's the leak again, isn't it?
Should have waited for that FAA investigation to finish

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:00:57 UTC No. 16610481

>>16610455
I wonder if he caught the full re-entry, would be hilarious if his footage was the best to analyze

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:03 UTC No. 16610483

it looks like its still tumbling as it fell through the atmosphere
https://video.twimg.com/amplify_video/1897795043290746880/vid/avc1/720x1280/tBbTPT3gsz8xnYnO.mp4

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:11 UTC No. 16610485

was pressurefed/thunderf00t right?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:21 UTC No. 16610486

hey guys I just woke up and was trying to find footage of IM-2 and flight 8, but I can only seem to find IM-1 and flight 7
where is the new stuff?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:22 UTC No. 16610487

>>16610470
My question is why didn’t the flight computer have the wherewithal to say
>oh fuck, some engines just died and I’m going into an unbalanced force spin. Better shut these engines down
I’m not an expert when can accept that I may be wrong—but this looks like jeet coding to me

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:22 UTC No. 16610488

>>16610470
Mr. Musk's wild ride.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:01:57 UTC No. 16610494

>>16610442
>altitude:50 km
incredible cameras

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:02:22 UTC No. 16610497

Fuck it: just put a F9 second stage and a Dragon on top of SH

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:02:34 UTC No. 16610501

>>16610494
superheavy's just really big and really easy to see compared to everything else

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:02:38 UTC No. 16610502

>>16610470
>>16610488

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:02:40 UTC No. 16610503

>>16610485
Who?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:02:56 UTC No. 16610505

Gulf of drowned muskrat

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:03:23 UTC No. 16610507

Let that sink in

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:03:27 UTC No. 16610508

Definitely another fire in the aft section. It looks like one of the vac engines had some damage happen after stage sep cause there's damage present at 7:47 that isn't there at 3:52

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:03:39 UTC No. 16610510

>>16610470
>11s in puffs.
Poof goes the fuel lines/raptors.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:03:48 UTC No. 16610513

>>16610494
There's these boomers in Florida that sometimes film launches and they basically use 2 giant telescopes as binoculars for their camera, on a WW2 naval anti-air turret mount

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:04:07 UTC No. 16610516

https://kick.com/wvagabond/clips/clip_01JNPXETMPHAN0Y6DXJZ4XH7V6

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:04:21 UTC No. 16610518

>>16610508
Could you make it smaller?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:04:24 UTC No. 16610519

>>16610508
https://x.com/jackywacky_3/status/1897796181478027470
Engine blew up, probably took others with it

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:04:25 UTC No. 16610520

>>16610473
All of the catches and booster landings are sketchy as fuck, suicide burns are just insane to watch

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:04:40 UTC No. 16610521

>>16610485
I'm more worried about the feasibility of rapid reuse of the heatshield part. This failure is completely tractable.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:08 UTC No. 16610524

>>16610508
>553x273
anon...

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:09 UTC No. 16610525

>>16610521
>This failure is completely tractable.
IT HAPPENED TWICE
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:32 UTC No. 16610529

>>16610508
It looks like a specific part of the engine that started glowing. You can see the same thing on the other engine to the right.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:34 UTC No. 16610530

>>16610521
then why aren't they tracting it?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:38 UTC No. 16610532

>IM-2 failed in the same way that IM-1 failed
>IFT-8 failed in the same way that IFT-7 failed
poetry

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:05:52 UTC No. 16610533

>>16610519
Nice spot

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:06:24 UTC No. 16610538

>>16610508
Something definitely fell off the engine at some point

>>16610518
>>16610524
I took some screenshots from discord and I'm too lazy to go find the actual timestamp on the stream

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:06:27 UTC No. 16610539

>>16610519
yikes

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:06:34 UTC No. 16610543

>shit day in us spaceflight
Thanks Trump.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:06:54 UTC No. 16610547

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:14 UTC No. 16610549

>>16610538
the camera is engulfed in flames as well, there is an orange hue

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:14 UTC No. 16610550

>>16610513
As does the DoD

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:28 UTC No. 16610555

>>16610470
just realized the moon was in shot on the first spin, kino

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:43 UTC No. 16610559

>>16610525
Thrice actually

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:50 UTC No. 16610561

SPACE IS HARD BROS, I BET IT WAS A CANADIAN SABOTEUR

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:52 UTC No. 16610562

>>16610470
Sure looks like one of the vacuum raptors grenaded and took the other engines with it, you can even see some pipe burning on one of the vacuums earlier

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:57 UTC No. 16610564

It’s so over it’s unreal

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:07:59 UTC No. 16610565

>>16610550
yeah but the boomer one has a chair

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:10 UTC No. 16610566

When it rains it pours
>inb4 Escapade is cancelled

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:10 UTC No. 16610567

GOES-16 SAT CAPTURE

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:20 UTC No. 16610568

raptor 3 will fix this

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:22 UTC No. 16610569

>>16610564
ESA won. China won.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:42 UTC No. 16610570

>>16610520
Booster is capable of hovering unlike F9. Obviously they don't want to spend much time doing that due to fuel burn.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:08:45 UTC No. 16610571

>>16610564
is it gonna be more fake news about nasa layoffs that didn't happen?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:09:09 UTC No. 16610575

>>16610571
kek

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:09:16 UTC No. 16610577

Euro Gods
I kneel

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:09:19 UTC No. 16610578

>>16610567
>-A- (too quick for full ack)

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:09:56 UTC No. 16610583

Elon better take notes on how to actually build a rocket

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:10:12 UTC No. 16610584

>https://x.com/John_Winkopp/status/1897798335336980961
At least it's kino

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:10:14 UTC No. 16610585

>>16610564
That's just gonna be some shit startups calling it quits.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:10:22 UTC No. 16610587

>>16610568
Seeing as it's vibrations, they got bigger issues than just raptor reliability.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:10:43 UTC No. 16610588

Maybe there is such thing as iterating too fast

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:10:55 UTC No. 16610592

so when is the next starship launch?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:11:14 UTC No. 16610595

why is truthful so optimistic

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:11:19 UTC No. 16610597

>>16610592
August

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:11:58 UTC No. 16610598

>>16610595
this chinky leaf knows if he keeps a positive attitude he’ll get more engagement from Elon

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:11:58 UTC No. 16610599

>>16610592
january

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:12:17 UTC No. 16610601

>>16610562
>the chilled CH4 pumped through the engine bells to keep them cool ignited
Hasn't this only happened like once or twice? It nearly happened on the shuttle iirc.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:12:22 UTC No. 16610602

>>16610595
tfw no anime bf

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:12:45 UTC No. 16610605

Speaking of FAA, you think they'll ground them?

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:12:57 UTC No. 16610606

>>16610592
2 weeks

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:13:20 UTC No. 16610608

>IM GONNA INVESTIGATE OOOOOOO IM INVESTIGATOOOOOOOOONG

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:13:23 UTC No. 16610609

F

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:13:23 UTC No. 16610610

>>16610587
Raptor 3 is so beautiful, it will imbue the rest of Starship with success.

Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 00:13:42 UTC No. 16610613