š§µ /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:08:52 UTC No. 16611866
Its fucking fucked big time - edition
previous >>16609371
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:15:49 UTC No. 16611874
>>16611869
it all used to be so fun and positive. now every webcast is a like a funeral
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:17:35 UTC No. 16611875
>>16611870
Imagine going on a moon-tour to visit all the tipped or otherwise dead rovers littering the moon, from the Soviet Luna missions to the Pioneers all the way to the recent private ones.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:18:31 UTC No. 16611878
I'm thinking it's over. Space exploration and expansion will be done via robots. Humans will never go above LEO ever again.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:18:41 UTC No. 16611879
>>16611869
kate was so sexy in the recent broadcast... Why does she look so mateable in the webcasts but clapped outside of them?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:19:43 UTC No. 16611881
>>16611878
The robots don't even work
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:22:37 UTC No. 16611885
>>16611881
It makes the Mars rovers even more impressive ngl
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:23:59 UTC No. 16611889
>>16611885
you could buy ever CLPS mission twice for the price of one mars rover
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:28:14 UTC No. 16611891
>>16611866
maybe they should specialize in in fireworks shows? they seem to be nailing it lately. there is a market for that, jussain
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:31:14 UTC No. 16611892
>>16611875
There will be a section explaining the later years of moon failures on the demographic decline and diversity programs in Chinese.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:32:52 UTC No. 16611894
>>16611892
There will be a display detailing the temporary nation known as China and how it collapsed (yet again) into smaller nation states before the 22nd century.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:33:42 UTC No. 16611896
>>16611886
what's the big fuckin secret here, niggers?
ya'll got nothing, when this is declassified in 40 years as being merely a toy for deluded area 51 engineers, with no purpose, technologically way behind as a me too hobby project, and a hundred billion wasted, heads will roll
even if we have to dig those skulls up, we are going to roll them eventually
like bowling, except worth watching
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:35:56 UTC No. 16611897
>>16611894
>still controls a museum on the moon even after the break up and reunification by baron musk.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:37:38 UTC No. 16611900
>>16611878
NASA must first put trans black illegal immigrants on the moon and then we will get robots
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:39:28 UTC No. 16611903
>>16611894
Russia's space program (kinda) survived the collapse of the soviet union. Maybe China's can too.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:43:46 UTC No. 16611908
>>16611892
You honestly think they'll fall for that?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:44:42 UTC No. 16611911
>>16611903
>Russia's space program (kinda) survived the collapse of the soviet union. Maybe China's can too.
Only because the US threw shitloads of money at them so the scientists&engineers would not go to the middle east and build ICBM's there.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:48:54 UTC No. 16611915
>>16611911
do you think we would let chinese engineers build icbms for the middle east?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:50:33 UTC No. 16611916
>>16611915
if we're being really based?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:56:51 UTC No. 16611924
>>16611920
>https://x.com/Firefly_Space/status
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:59:04 UTC No. 16611927
>>16611920
this bitch empty. YEET!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:59:08 UTC No. 16611928
>>16611920
This mission is so based. I kneel
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 16:59:53 UTC No. 16611929
so how do we cope with the fact that starship is a faillure?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:00:48 UTC No. 16611931
>>16611929
Go all-in on firefly
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:01:49 UTC No. 16611932
>>16611930
@the anon who said berger would share more fake budget cut and layoff news last thread lol
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:01:55 UTC No. 16611934
>>16611930
just cut the dogshit SLS and let the era of private space stations begin
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:04:50 UTC No. 16611936
>>16611930
Anyone know the cost breakdown of how much SpaceX make off of NASA contracts compared to their Starlink revenue? Iām assuming (just guessing) that itās in Elon Muskās favor to make sure NASA keeps getting missions that need F9 and FH (and later, Starship) to launch. These contracts are some times on the order of like $200 million a pop
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:07:26 UTC No. 16611937
>>16611934
Cut SLS, Orion, their billion dollar tower and there's your 25% right there.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:07:44 UTC No. 16611938
>>16611920
looks like it took a piss on the moon
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:07:57 UTC No. 16611939
>>16611920
Neato, what else does this little lander do? This is the best one so far.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:08:42 UTC No. 16611940
>>16611937
>billion dollar tower
if only
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:09:14 UTC No. 16611941
>>16611936
pretty sure that the lat couple years of starlink profts have at least equaled whatever they've had from NASA overs the last 15 years.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:10:51 UTC No. 16611943
>>16611939
https://fireflyspace.com/missions/b
scroll down to payloads
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:11:03 UTC No. 16611944
>>16611886
Looks neat.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:21:32 UTC No. 16611949
> Of NASA's roughly $25 billion budget, however, only about 30 percent is allocated to science. For fiscal year 2024, this amounted to $7.4 billion. This spending was broken down into approximately $2.7 billion for planetary science, $2.2 billion for Earth science, $1.5 billion for astrophysics, and $800 million for heliophysics.
Okay. Axe Earth and Astro. Done and done.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:24:18 UTC No. 16611951
>>16611949
earth science is critical, fuck off
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:24:50 UTC No. 16611953
>>16611951
we have NOAA for that
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:25:16 UTC No. 16611954
Just reuse the same fucking booster for IFT9. It's clear they can still land on the chopsticks even with several dying engines. If Elon is going to waste everyones' time by blowing up yet another ship then he might as well make it interesting.
>>16611950
>just add fire suppression bro
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:29:28 UTC No. 16611957
>>16611954
We don't know if it's reusable
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:29:43 UTC No. 16611958
>>16611951
"Muh warmerst Summer in the last 65 millon years!"
Oh dear. Guess we'll just have to do without that science.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:29:47 UTC No. 16611959
https://x.com/BrendanCarrFCC/status
>We issued an order at the FCC today that allows Starlink's direct-to-cell service to operate at higher power - enabling faster, more reliable, & innovative new services for consumers across the country.
>The @FCC will continue the work of unleashing America's space economy.
useful to have the government on your side instead of against you
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:30:50 UTC No. 16611961
>>16611957
Bits are. They have reused one or more engines.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:31:26 UTC No. 16611962
>>16611930
Their form is super handy!
I am writing to express my profound excitement regarding reports that the White House will propose a 50% cut to NASA's Science Mission Directorate in the FY 2026 budget request.
Such a cut would have amazing consequences for space science and exploration, not just the loss of bureaucrats and loafers on the federal dole, but the good it would cause for explorers and skilled engineers and scientists around the world, and the benefit to the future of mankind.
Existing missions such as the Hubble Space Telescope, Mars rovers, and Earth satellites should all be subject to premature termination. A senseless waste of taxpayer investment and scientific opportunity.
There are private and commercial options for breakthrough space science activities. Only NASA lacks this capability and the drive to use it.
I firmly believe that nothing would be lost if we abandoned what constitutes little more than a massive waste of taxpayer money and a form of political kickbacks. It's important to remove both economically and as a symbol of our ideals and values as a nation.
I strongly urge you to work to embrace these and more significant cuts to NASA Science efforts and support America's continued leadership in space exploration.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:32:11 UTC No. 16611963
>>16611957
Worst case scenario you just have to replace the engines (takes like 15 minutes and they have an army of them ready to go).
Also see: >>16611961
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:35:27 UTC No. 16611969
>>16611962
kek
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:36:23 UTC No. 16611971
>>16611930
> soulless midwits will celebrate this
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:36:55 UTC No. 16611972
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
>Fortunately, this is unlikely to be the end for the company. NASA has committed to a third and fourth mission on Intuitive Machines' lander, the next of which could come during the first quarter of 2026. NASA has also contracted with the company to build a small network of satellites around the Moon for communications and positioning services. So although the company's fortunes look dark today, they are not permanently shadowed like the craters on the Moon that NASA hopes to soon explore.
Intuitive Machines won't be dead yet
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:37:06 UTC No. 16611973
>>16611962
>>16611930
>>16611934
>>16611936
this shit is scandalous. Musk was supsoed to pump space exploration with money but hes doing the opposite. fuck him. Idiot cant even get off his ass to fix the atrocious starship program
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:39:11 UTC No. 16611975
>>16611949
More money for Israel. Thank g-d for President Trump.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:40:13 UTC No. 16611978
>>16611973
no no no you see it isnt his doing https://newrepublic.com/post/192415
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:41:08 UTC No. 16611979
>>16611972
And if the next two missions are also failures?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:42:30 UTC No. 16611981
>>16611979
then at least they contributed to more GDP
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:45:44 UTC No. 16611984
>>16611978
embarrassing
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:51:54 UTC No. 16611991
> The proposed cuts are being driven by Russell Vought, the recently confirmed director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, which sets budget and policy priorities for a presidential administration. In some sense, the budgetary decisions should not come as a surprise, as they are consistent with what Vought proposed in a "shadow" budget for fiscal-year 2023 as part of his Center for Renewing America.
> "The budget also proposes a 50 percent reduction in NASA Science programs and spending, reducing their misguided Carbon Reduction System spending and Global Climate Change programs," Vought's organization wrote in its report published in December 2022.
Based Russel.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:53:08 UTC No. 16611993
>>16611991
he's an evil person
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:54:10 UTC No. 16611996
>>16611991
>Vought
āWe want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected, When they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work, because they are increasingly viewed as the villains. We want their funding to be shut down ā¦ We want to put them in trauma."
Another Curtis Yavin dick sucker
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:58:56 UTC No. 16612003
>>16611993
Abloo!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:59:37 UTC No. 16612006
https://x.com/RealDanODowd/status/1
ngl this is pretty funny for a retard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 17:59:44 UTC No. 16612007
>>16612003
that comment is not wrong
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:00:53 UTC No. 16612008
>>16611991
>Project 2025
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:01:11 UTC No. 16612009
>>16612006
Pretty good
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:01:42 UTC No. 16612011
>/sfg/ has full blown EDS now
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:02:08 UTC No. 16612012
>>16612011
we've always been elon dick suckers whats your point?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:02:43 UTC No. 16612013
>>16612011
correct
at the end of the day this is spaceflight general. we can only be pushed so far
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:07:30 UTC No. 16612018
>>16612013
Literally you.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:08:50 UTC No. 16612020
>>16612013
So what government are you actually working for? It's clearly not America.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:09:50 UTC No. 16612021
>>16612020
I have a PIV card you tard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:11:40 UTC No. 16612024
https://x.com/EricSnitilWx/status/1
>T-MINUS ONE WEEK: For those that don't know, the United States will be treated to a total lunar eclipse exactly one week from tonight (next Thursday night-Friday morning). Not everyone on planet Earth will get to see the show. The United States happens to be squarely within the corridor where the entirety of the eclipse will be visible.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:12:08 UTC No. 16612026
>>16612021
You realize that doesn't seem like much after guys with clearances started talking about selling secrets to Russia and China after being fired, right?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:12:58 UTC No. 16612027
>>16612021
Penis in vagina card?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:14:26 UTC No. 16612029
>>16611996
mencius moldbug invented wanting to cut the size of the federal bureaucracy in 2007. excellent demonology you've got going there anon.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:15:27 UTC No. 16612030
>>16612026
it's sure better than you, sperg. You lost btw.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:15:47 UTC No. 16612032
>>16612011
What did you get done this week?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:16:05 UTC No. 16612033
>>16612030
dont pretend to be me
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:17:19 UTC No. 16612034
>still no real solution from Musk
Fireworks in April
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:18:19 UTC No. 16612035
>>16612034
space is hard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:20:54 UTC No. 16612037
>>16612030
>"You lost" posting
>Having EDS
You may be brain damaged.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:21:51 UTC No. 16612038
>>16612035
Before block 2 it wasn't
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:22:04 UTC No. 16612039
so how long until the EDS afflicted start screeching about the truth of the flat-earth to own musk?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:22:54 UTC No. 16612040
>>16611869
Where was she this week? Is she okay
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:24:31 UTC No. 16612041
>>16612011
Sometimes you just have to appreciate the SLS and Orion
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:24:38 UTC No. 16612042
With SpaceXās interactive development cycle, itās not surprising to see a few rockets blow up on the road to reliability. But back-to-back failures, especially with so many similarities, may point to a more fundamental issue.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:25:33 UTC No. 16612043
>>16611930
Literally just cut the SLS, that is all you need to do. Reorganize NASA into focusing exclusively on space science and let other companies worry about getting them where they want to go.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:25:44 UTC No. 16612044
>>16612041
no I don't
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:25:58 UTC No. 16612045
>>16612043
cut SLS + consolidate a few centers. But yes, that's about all that is needed
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:26:01 UTC No. 16612047
>>16612006
>in a vain attempt to reach orbit
lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:26:07 UTC No. 16612048
>>16612042
this was the first time where there was indisputably no progress made from one flight to the next. that's why it hits different i think.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:27:00 UTC No. 16612049
>>16612048
Yeah only positive was another booster catch
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:27:25 UTC No. 16612050
>>16612048
Flight 7 had no progress either
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:27:30 UTC No. 16612051
>>16612048
You suck big cocks dont you. Bug bug cock and big black cock. You fucking muskrat
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:28:25 UTC No. 16612054
>>16612048
>indisputably
no
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:28:53 UTC No. 16612055
>>16612024
What do the oracles and soothsays think of this?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:29:00 UTC No. 16612056
>>16612050
it was the first v2 flight and they fixed the ground equipment issues that prevented the catch on ift-6. i'm not saying you have to think that qualifies as actual progress, just that it could be reasonably argued.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:29:25 UTC No. 16612057
>>16612049
She said, "this will never get old", but in her voice, you can hear it's getting old
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:29:49 UTC No. 16612060
>>16612043
>that is all you need to do.
NASA has deep rot. See MSR for proof.
All the science missions are tremendously inefficient and the graft is steadily increasing.
There needs to be firings, someone who can make lots of chaos, and a realignment of incentives
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:30:39 UTC No. 16612063
>>16612048
You must be new here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVh
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:30:52 UTC No. 16612064
>>16612061
cant wait for the strap on booster version of starship for when we are building that space elevator counterweight
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:30:58 UTC No. 16612065
>>16612051
huge tranny seethe
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:33:04 UTC No. 16612067
>>16612066
Why make it so tall? Have these people never played KSP?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:34:49 UTC No. 16612071
Recently someone on xitter posted about orbital rings. seems pretty doable.
The cable is in just a little bit of tension and orbits.
The elevator part is stationary and levitates on the cable.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:35:19 UTC No. 16612072
>>16612048
This time we got to see the failure from on-board the Starship, so more data was being sent for longer than last time.
>indisputably
Wrong, I can dispute anything.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:36:10 UTC No. 16612074
>>16612066
Cute feet
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:36:16 UTC No. 16612075
>>16612061
Still has a better chance of reaching orbit than Block 2 Starship
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:36:37 UTC No. 16612076
>>16612071
picture
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:37:03 UTC No. 16612077
>>16612066
so theyve proven they can land it sideways on the moon, twice
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:37:18 UTC No. 16612078
>>16612040
she got deported.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:38:03 UTC No. 16612079
>>16612076
Or you just build a rocket that takes the same path. Costs 0.0000000000000001% the cost and does the exact same thing. Best part is no part
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:38:09 UTC No. 16612080
>>16612067
They are simulating Starship HLS. Without Elon Musk they wouldn't do it.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:39:29 UTC No. 16612082
>>16612071
>>16612076
if someone hurries up and invents graphene super laminate then sure, it won't even be that expensive to make
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:39:52 UTC No. 16612083
Any chance they'll refly B15?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:40:28 UTC No. 16612085
>>16612082
you do it I'm busy
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:40:57 UTC No. 16612086
So, it happened AGAIN. We can blame Elon Musk, we can blame FAA regulations, we can blame NASA micromanagement, we can blame faulty welds, we can blame space being hard, we can praise the engineers' effort, but the truth is it's simply not enough. Planning, execution, you name it, it all stinks.
Don't get me wrong, I still have full faith in SpaceX and the vision, but MASSIVE improvements are desperately needed before Starship is truly orbital-ready. Otherwise, I'm not very optimistic about our chances of Mars in this decade. Not launching like this.
What do you think, /sci/? Where is the heat shield? Do you think we can get anything from NASA for all these test flights? Is Starship just another Starhopper? How can we feed Raptor engines more reliably? Has the Musk era stalled?? ELON #IN or #OUT?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:41:22 UTC No. 16612087
>>16612085
/sfg/ needs me, it's gotta be someone else
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:42:31 UTC No. 16612089
>>16612082
Why do you need it? The ring could just be steel.
I guess the elevator cable would have to be pretty strong but nothing compared to a space elevator
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:42:48 UTC No. 16612090
>>16612071
>>16612076
Oh that is nice!!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:43:44 UTC No. 16612091
>>16612089
because i don't feel like launching enough steel to make a ring that encompasses the entire planet
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:43:57 UTC No. 16612092
>>16612083
No. That's progress. Elon can't have that. You watch ze explosion and you will be happy
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:44:43 UTC No. 16612094
>>16612076
Thing is, doable with Starship. Call it three launches. But try it with Ariane and it's another 20 billion Euro project that takes 10 years.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:44:52 UTC No. 16612095
Lol we're not going to Mars ever kek
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:45:34 UTC No. 16612096
https://x.com/NASA_Orion/status/189
>Solar array wing installation complete! The solar array wings that will power Orion and crew around the Moon on the Artemis II mission have been installed ā next, the team will install the three protective fairings that enclose the service module.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:45:49 UTC No. 16612097
>>16612086
The only thing wrong is Raptor 2.5 being pushed to too high pressure. It can't handle the extra stress. Need to change to 6 weaker vacuum engines
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:45:52 UTC No. 16612098
>>16612095
Muskrat chuds really thought the ripoff nazi rocketman could do it LOL
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:46:39 UTC No. 16612101
>>16612098
we need the real nazi rocketmen back
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:46:40 UTC No. 16612102
>IM2 fails to land on the moon again
>Starship blew up for the eighth time in a row
When will americans accept that this private space program experiment is a complete failure?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:47:01 UTC No. 16612104
>>16612095
Not if we keep bashing our heads against a wall doing the same mistakes over and over
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:47:34 UTC No. 16612106
>Rubio and Duffy clash with Elon Musk in cabinet meeting, accuse him of lying; Trump praises Rubio ā NYT
So it begins.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:48:13 UTC No. 16612107
>>16612089
>>16612094
I don't think this is right.
Chatgpt says the maximum length of a hanging high strength steel cable is 26km
Then the top part can't carry its own weight
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:49:47 UTC No. 16612110
>>16612101
He's overrated. It's not reusable, the capsule is tiny, it doesn't use methalox, is unreliable and almost killed people several times, and the engines are garbage tier technology
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:50:43 UTC No. 16612111
>>16611950
>we're back
>it's over
>we're back
>it's over
If I had time I would do the edit, but I don't, so someone else do it.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:50:44 UTC No. 16612112
>>16612096
Theses niggas could launch artemis II as soon as this year, but they wont because NASA does not want a big gap between artemis II and III
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:52:33 UTC No. 16612115
>>16612101
You know, our Nazi got a Hollywood bio movie back in the day.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:54:58 UTC No. 16612117
>>16612107
>Chatgpt says the maximum length of a hanging high strength steel cable is 26kmThen the top part can't carry its own weight
And what is chat and anyone dumb enough to use it missing?
Hint: Stress on an object in Orbit.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:55:09 UTC No. 16612119
>>16612106
oh no...
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:56:34 UTC No. 16612121
>>16612115
awful casting. looks nothing like him.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:56:50 UTC No. 16612122
>>16612107
what does grok say though?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 18:59:30 UTC No. 16612123
>>16612106
>NYT
*yawns*
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:00:29 UTC No. 16612124
>>16612117
The elevator cable is not in orbit retard.
>>16612122
Idk but Dyneema or Carbon fiber cable would probably work for a low orbit altitude.
So I say let's build an orbital ring
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:02:13 UTC No. 16612125
>>16612107
>>16612122
chatgpt is correct. but we already have materials like carbon fiber and kevlar with breaking lengths sufficient to stretch up above the karman line. see the chart https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speci
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:02:16 UTC No. 16612126
>>16612067
hubris
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:04:02 UTC No. 16612127
>>16612124
As the payload moves up, it's V increases towards orbital and W moves towards zero.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:05:09 UTC No. 16612128
>>16612127
you don't know what you're talking about. please stop posting.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:05:44 UTC No. 16612130
>trusting ai for any calculations at all
you all just proved your retardation. cannot believe i thought this place was even slightly intelligent at all
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:08:10 UTC No. 16612131
>>16612024
>total lunar eclipse
its always in the Americas
plz share
its not like I would get clear skies also
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:08:11 UTC No. 16612132
>>16612130
Musk trusts AI
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:08:43 UTC No. 16612133
>>16612066
It's like that one image of the astronaut on the moon having a mountain dew
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:09:13 UTC No. 16612134
>>16612128
I guess he's right. The carriage needs to match speed with the ring to actually put the payload in orbit.
But it start out hanging at 1g at its most extended (heaviest)
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:09:59 UTC No. 16612135
>>16612130
I don't trust just any ai. only the best
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:10:54 UTC No. 16612136
>>16611896
The secret is what's in the payload bay and what it does in space dumbass
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:13:23 UTC No. 16612137
>>16612134
the idea with a ring like that is that you can have an inner ring spinning faster than orbital speed and an outer ring pushing off against it so that it's stationary with respect to the earth's surface, and the combined system of the two has sufficient momentum to stay in orbit. there's no need to go to orbital speed when you reach the top of the tether, so at leo altitudes you're still experiencing more than .9g.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:18:59 UTC No. 16612139
I'm back into doomer mode until we see promising results from Starship. They need to go back to the drawing board and take a long hard look at the program. You can only slap a band-aid on it so much before it all comes crashing down. If they can't fix this design issue then I lose all hope and it's back to day dreaming about Mars and reading sci-fi novels for me.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:20:13 UTC No. 16612141
>>16612139
Block 1 ship makes it to reentry every time. Musk is just being a retard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:20:48 UTC No. 16612142
>>16612139
Shut up nigger you trust AI to do calculations
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:21:00 UTC No. 16612143
>>16612141
it failed to make it to reentry the first two times it flew, just like v2 has
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:23:34 UTC No. 16612146
>>16612142
the AI did the calculation correctly so weird thing to get assmad over
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:24:25 UTC No. 16612149
>>16612137
Yeah but that's not that >>16612094
You need to go to orbital speed to escape the gravity well.
So you have a carriage that can accelerate and decelerate pushing off the orbiting ring. Or if you have an inner ring something that exchanges momentum once you're there.
There is some maximum ratio of carriage + payload mass to ring mass so you don't change the orbit too much between speed matched and stationary.
But this would just slow the ring down.
So you need propulsion anyway to put the energy back into the system.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:26:30 UTC No. 16612152
>>16612136
what could it be doing that can't be done on the ground? the thing is tiny so it can't be much, which is kinda weird considering it's usually up there for years
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:26:31 UTC No. 16612153
>>16612142
so does Elon
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:28:45 UTC No. 16612155
>>16612136
Sure can be nothing too big or heavy ...
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:31:16 UTC No. 16612156
>>16612143
so you're saying spaceX is stagnating
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:31:23 UTC No. 16612157
>>16611866
/sfg/ do you want to actually go to space? I would maybe go on a vacation to LEO or Moon but farer than that? Why would I want to be stuck in space habitats for over a year? And you won't even feel like previous colonists who had a huge new land to explore on their own freely without many rules. In space you will have to follow very strict rules and schedules, you probably can't even do an EHA without it being live streamed and being constantly told what to do, just like the EVA's of the ISS.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:31:47 UTC No. 16612158
Why doesn't elon just datamine human thought patterns from Neuralink and use it as training data for AI? Imagine how smart the AI would be if he got all the engineers as SpaceX to get one installed for free (mandatory) and trained an AI off their brain's thoughts.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:33:28 UTC No. 16612161
>>16612158
You don't need to. Observing people from the outside is enough
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:34:15 UTC No. 16612164
>>16612157
I want to build on Mars. I want to be one of the founders of the Martian colonies. Sure, you could continue living your life in sweet warm comfort, or you could go out there and devote yourself to a greater cause.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:36:18 UTC No. 16612166
>>16612157
>you won't even feel like previous colonists who had a huge new land to explore on their own freely without many rules
do you think puritans living in plymouth got to just do whatever they felt like?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:39:12 UTC No. 16612168
>>16611869
>Two ugly hags talk about saarship
Obviously these two are 11/10 in india
>>16611874
>consuuum the propaganda
It was always lame.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:40:23 UTC No. 16612172
>>16611880
Grifting retards.
Elon is a pro at that.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:40:51 UTC No. 16612173
>>16612157
I'd do a stint on a space station the size of a research vessel or oil rig. longer than a year or so and I think I'd want bigger. they don't even ask submarine crews to do that.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:42:35 UTC No. 16612174
>>16612157
No, but I believe that we should expand far and fast. We have run out of places of earth to expand into, it is now time to Manifest Destiny 2 and colonize as many planets as we can get our hands on.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:42:58 UTC No. 16612175
>>16612164
>Sure, you could continue living your life in sweet warm comfort, or you could go out there and devote yourself to a greater cause.
If you were capable of that you would already be doing it.
If you're not currently spending your life force doing very hard meaningful work every day you're not gonna do it in space either.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:43:57 UTC No. 16612177
>>16612158
>What is game theory
You really have no idea? The NSA with DARPA has been doing that for Decades.
>Mandatory chips in H1Bs brains
You're first in line, Ranjit.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:44:16 UTC No. 16612178
>>16612172
>fast internet on planes is actually le bad
dilate
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:44:58 UTC No. 16612180
>>16612178
>I'm totally not a retard and totally not getting grifted.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:45:17 UTC No. 16612181
>>16612180
KEEEEEK
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:46:31 UTC No. 16612182
>>16612174
>Manifest destiny
That was for white Europeans.
H1B and open boarders guarantee that the country will implode before it ever makes it to another planet.
If the US had stayed out of WW1/WW2 we'd already have a Mars colony.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:47:37 UTC No. 16612183
>>16612181
>Gets called a retard
>Unequivocally proves it
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:48:07 UTC No. 16612184
>>16612182
>>16612183
samefag
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:48:54 UTC No. 16612185
>>16612152
clearly someting nuclear, since i dont see solar
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:50:28 UTC No. 16612187
Earth is for humans, space is for AI's. Why build a spaceship that conforms to the many reequipments of weak flesh when you can make a superior machine to explore the cosmos on our behalf?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:51:51 UTC No. 16612190
>>16612182
do you think a good old fashioned genocide would get us to mars colonization faster?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:53:00 UTC No. 16612191
>>16612187
Life is the only self replicating machine we have.
AI is not enough. It needs to be robust too meaning every part of it needs to be replicable
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:54:06 UTC No. 16612193
>>16612184
>>16612183<--you are here
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:54:18 UTC No. 16612194
>>16612190
glowpost
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:55:00 UTC No. 16612195
>>16612187
Redundancy alone is enough reason already.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:55:06 UTC No. 16612196
>>16612182
that's some massive grass-is-greenering there. and you might even be right. but successful countries are the ones that can overcome fuckups, and they don't do that by stewing over what might have been.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 19:58:13 UTC No. 16612199
>>16612194
U rite.
still tho, shame we can't just kill racial minorities until space colonization happens on its own
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:00:20 UTC No. 16612200
>>16612190
End the Central Bank, close the boarders and end equal opportunity programs.
>>16612199
That would make problems worse, not better. What are you calling a minority anyways? Globally whites are less than 9% of the world population and are the minorities.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:01:57 UTC No. 16612202
>>16612196
>Overcome fuckups
The fuckup was not disbanding the federal standing army after the spanish american war in violation of Article 1, section 8, clause 12 of the constitution and the second fatal flaw was establishing the third central bank in 1913 and eliminating competition in currency.
These same bankers are the ones that got the US into ww1 and ww2. Hart Cellar was the death nail.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:03:19 UTC No. 16612203
>>16612200
>Globally whites are less than 9% of the world population and are the minorities.
well then maybe han chinese should start killing whites. maybe that would help them land on the moon and get their mars sample return
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:08:06 UTC No. 16612207
>>16612011
Elon started on politics and we get two lost full stacks with nothing gained and a chunk taken out of the NASA budget.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:09:17 UTC No. 16612211
>>16612210
>Maybe
Understatement of the month.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:09:21 UTC No. 16612212
>>16612195
Fuck off tripnigger
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:10:12 UTC No. 16612213
>>16612211
Understatement of the month so far.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:14:50 UTC No. 16612214
>>16612112
I can't believe I ever thought the SpaceX lander would be ready first. Oh God, is Bezos going to have their lander ready first?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:15:26 UTC No. 16612215
>>16612214
>Oh God, is Bezos going to have their lander ready first?
You say that as if it is a bad thing
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:15:53 UTC No. 16612216
>>16612202
but the standard of living in the us still more than quadrupled from 1913-1970, so if the existence of the fed ruined anything it had an extremely long lag time. even hart-cellar gets scapegoated too much for the effects of later policy decisions like the lack of immigration enforcement for illegal farm laborers in california in the 70s and 80s, and the 1990 immigration act which was larger in scope. just don't under-theorize these things and conclude that it was over long ago, when it's still not over yet.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:16:28 UTC No. 16612218
>>16612214
bezos? get something ready first? no, I don't think so.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:17:08 UTC No. 16612220
>Starship is going so poorly anons are coping with magic space elevators
This is really grim.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:21:17 UTC No. 16612226
>>16612220
Thankfully orange man and Rubio are going to destroy DOGE so Elon can get back to doing his actual job
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:23:19 UTC No. 16612229
>>16612213
only if ift-9 "launches" before april
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:23:46 UTC No. 16612231
>>16612152
seeing guys in suits taking care of the back of a space plane brings back those comfy X-15 vibes
>>16612168
dont be such a party pooper.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:23:57 UTC No. 16612232
>>16612066
> NASA paid $62 million to Intuitive Machines to get its three experiments to the moon.
No refunds.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:24:46 UTC No. 16612233
>>16612226
/sfg/ wishcasting status:
[wish]--|-------------[cast]
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:30:49 UTC No. 16612237
>>16612226
>Rubio has intelligence agency connections
>DOGE goes after the intelligence community
>Rubio goes after DOGE
>the deep state remains intact
>services are worse because "efficiency" ended up being nothing beyond cuts
>the country is worse
>Elon has burned the last of the bridges
At this point I'm just going to assume the worst possible outcome from anything else that happens in my life. It has never been so over.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:33:20 UTC No. 16612239
>>16612237
Damn, bro. Stop with this loser mindset.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:37:57 UTC No. 16612242
yeah a wasted incoming decade
so 2040's mars dreams can come back
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:44:03 UTC No. 16612245
To celebrate last night's Starship explosion, I have eaten half a chocolate cake.
I will eat the other half tomorrow.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:46:27 UTC No. 16612247
>>16612245
eat it in honor of IM-2
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 20:59:58 UTC No. 16612259
>>16612252
elevatormania is sweeping the nation
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:00:15 UTC No. 16612260
Reminder that man is the superior lifeform of the universe and every planet and star belongs to us.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:00:26 UTC No. 16612262
>We have to fix Earth's problems first, space is only for megalomaniac billionaires
but at the same time
>Nooo, you can't just slash NASA's budget by 50%, think of the science, this drumpf and elmo's fault, reeee
I swear, EDS sufferers go through the most retarded contradictions.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:01:16 UTC No. 16612263
>>16612260
sirius belongs to dogs
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:05:08 UTC No. 16612266
>>16612077
Unironically, I'm being completely serious, why don't they design a lander that's MEANT to tip over? Give me one good reason this wouldn't work.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:05:44 UTC No. 16612268
>I swear, the boogeymen in my head go through the most retarded contradictions.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:09:16 UTC No. 16612275
>>16612244
That guy is an asshole IRL.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:09:19 UTC No. 16612276
>>16612268
You're not convincing anyone, you do realize.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:09:54 UTC No. 16612277
fuck you
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:10:05 UTC No. 16612278
>>16612269
>Could fusion drives ever be practical
That's the real question
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:12:26 UTC No. 16612279
>>16612277
what's up anon
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:13:17 UTC No. 16612280
>>16612276
Correct. It's impossible to reason with elon dick suckers after all
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:13:20 UTC No. 16612281
>>16612232
plus tip
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:15:20 UTC No. 16612282
>>16612260
ayylmaos have better tech
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:21:47 UTC No. 16612287
>>16612282
oh yeah? post tech ayys have that we don't have better versions of.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:22:44 UTC No. 16612288
>>16612287
they have a google that doesn't just give you 50 reddit and quora results for anything you search for
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:24:54 UTC No. 16612289
>>16612288
we have that. we call it grok.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:28:43 UTC No. 16612291
>>16612289
ok well they also have a 4chan with no captchas and the posts are actually good
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:28:48 UTC No. 16612292
>>16612280
>Elon Dick Suckers
Call them way they are: Jeet shills.
This >>16611880 is just straight up an advertisement.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:30:14 UTC No. 16612295
>>16612291
damn... I guess the stars were never meant to be ours
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:32:15 UTC No. 16612296
>>16612294
how many centuries until starship makes orbit?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:33:29 UTC No. 16612297
>>16612296
0.0004 centuries
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:33:42 UTC No. 16612298
https://x.com/NASA_Marshall/status/
>BGM1 science operations have begun!
>Firefly Space and NASA teams have kicked off surface operations - which included deploying the Lunar PlanetVac (LPV), managed by NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. Seen here, LPV spreads lunar soil and rocks as the system initiates.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:33:47 UTC No. 16612299
>>16612294
can starship still get caught if one of the center three engines doesn't light back up during landing burn? would they leave one of the middle ring engines on so they still have 3 burning?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:42:53 UTC No. 16612301
>>16612237
Elon is an instoppable force.
Rubio is not an immovable object.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:44:33 UTC No. 16612302
>>16612285
Fuckpig
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:45:20 UTC No. 16612303
>instoppable
please go back to india, we really really REALLY don't need you here
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:46:36 UTC No. 16612306
>>16612297
omg lmao
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:46:47 UTC No. 16612307
>>16612303
projection.
pretty certain you're not american.
also you're a faggot
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:47:24 UTC No. 16612308
one metric megacentury, wow
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:49:36 UTC No. 16612310
>>16612306
aliens only gave us this shitty lemon tech in their secret treaty with eisenhower. we got hosed.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:50:07 UTC No. 16612312
>>16612301
>IESLB
and he very much is as soon as the ketamine runs out
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:50:33 UTC No. 16612313
>>16612306
>using chatbot screens for his debates
please, just go back to wherever you came from and rethink your life
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:51:23 UTC No. 16612314
>>16612313
no I wanted to use the google unit converter and it gave me a dogshit AI response that got the answer wrong by three orders of magnitude
the answer is 2 weeks btw
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:51:28 UTC No. 16612315
This general is obsessed with sucking cocks and always sucks Elon off. How can you cock suckers not see this?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:51:30 UTC No. 16612316
>>16612299
2 gimbaling raptors are enough for starship landing
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:52:10 UTC No. 16612317
>>16612288
y-you guys don't add site:reddit.com to almost everything you search? I know it's a meme to hate on reddit and all that, and yes, they are the most insufferable cunts over the internet, but sometimes when you are looking for very niche topics and want real answers and opinions, instead of bots, blogs where no one can comment, or very old forums that are already archived, it's basically the only option out there. It also helps that it's indexed and everything is more or less organized.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:52:25 UTC No. 16612318
>>16612315
what's wrong with that
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:53:33 UTC No. 16612320
>>16612315
seethe libtard
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:54:35 UTC No. 16612322
>>16612320
>seethe that we love cocks
this is the average /sfg/ goer
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:58:22 UTC No. 16612324
>>16612322
seethe even harder than you were seething before
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:59:15 UTC No. 16612325
>>16612315
>>16612322
there's nothing wrong with fellatio or those who preform it.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:59:23 UTC No. 16612326
>>16612306
>he thinks the chatbot can do math
> "0. 0004 * 100 = 40"
OH NO NO NO NO
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:59:31 UTC No. 16612327
>>16612323
this shit never works
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 21:59:46 UTC No. 16612328
>>16612315
Gluck gluck gluck
please musk i need more cummies!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:00:01 UTC No. 16612329
>>16612307
>projection.
extremely apt description of your posts, sperg.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:01:55 UTC No. 16612331
>>16612329
>no you
i accept your concession europoor
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:02:24 UTC No. 16612332
>>16612326
no, I know that the chatbot can't do math, which is why Google giving me that result when I searched 0.0004 centuries was so funny
I knew before I even searched that the answer was probably two weeks
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:08:03 UTC No. 16612335
>>16612323
Unironically why
I've been wondering since I first saw this, it just seems much more issue-prone, sure it doesn't have a manifold anymore but is vastly increased amount of pipe really worth it?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:14:24 UTC No. 16612340
>>16612322
I mean, if sucking Elon's cock gets us to Mars faster...
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:15:17 UTC No. 16612341
>>16612340
The last 2 flights clearly prove it doesnt. Youve only delayed Mars
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:15:22 UTC No. 16612342
>>16612335
They wanted to vacuum insulate the pipes for some reason.
I guess they need to be straight for that.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:18:53 UTC No. 16612346
>>16611866
* In 2025, the LM8 series of rockets are planned to perform more than 10 launches, of which LM8A are 5-6
* LM8/8A production capability: 50/year
* Hainan Commercial plans to operate on a "7 day launch 7 day recovery" schedule
https://www.ccdi.gov.cn/yaowenn/202
First LM8 launch from Wenchang commercial LC-1 on March 11
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:25:01 UTC No. 16612347
The V2 booster is gonna blow up next
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:41:19 UTC No. 16612354
>>16612066
if you're going to land sideways...
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:43:29 UTC No. 16612355
>>16612331
oh so you're european, got it. That's disgusting. Please leave /sfg/ and never come back
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:45:03 UTC No. 16612358
>>16612268
It's you!!! I finally found the guy in my head!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:46:34 UTC No. 16612359
>>16612313
>debates
You are mentally ill
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:47:23 UTC No. 16612361
>>16612066
>intuitive
Whoops ... :)
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:55:23 UTC No. 16612368
>>16612366
that's a shame
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:55:24 UTC No. 16612369
>>16612367
HEY HEY HEY
IM GOING INSANE
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:55:37 UTC No. 16612370
>>16612359
pick the descriptor of your choice dunce, whatever makes you feel better
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 22:56:46 UTC No. 16612371
>>16612335
IT IS OK!?! TRUST THE SCIENCE!!!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:00:56 UTC No. 16612372
>>16611953
noaa faked ocean temperature data when it didn't match what they wanted to see for their climate change dogma. I didn't hear about any rolling heads over that one, meaning the slime is still there.
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:01:28 UTC No. 16612374
>>16612367
>*glitches out*
Hƶhƶhƶhƶ ... :3
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:02:17 UTC No. 16612375
>>16612367
MARCUS HOME
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:03:01 UTC No. 16612376
>>16611920
You mean space probes can actually record real-time videos instead of piss-poor slideshows at 3fps max? Can someone tell JPL?
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:03:17 UTC No. 16612377
>>16611953
>>16612372
NOAA is also in charge of forbidding anybody from putting cameras in space unless they genuflect and tithe first
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:04:23 UTC No. 16612379
>>16612376
they know
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:05:11 UTC No. 16612380
> v1 is about 50m tall, takes 1200t of propellant, is purely a prototype with theoretical payload of 40-50t in re-entering configuration.
> v2 is about 50m tall, takes 1500t of propellant (it's payload section is thus smaller), has 100t payload to orbit in re-entering configuration and it's expected to be the first operational variant. Current plans indicate HLS would be based on v2.
> v3 is about 70m tall, has 9 Raptor 3 engines rather than 6, takes 2300t of propellant, and has up to 200t payload to orbit in fully reusable configuration.
V1 Werks
V2 No Werks
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:13:06 UTC No. 16612383
>>16612376
They had to deploy the x-band antenna to get that downloaded in a reasonable time thoughbeit
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:13:28 UTC No. 16612384
>>16612185
There's an arm with fold in/out panels.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:14:51 UTC No. 16612385
>>16612379
>those missing screws
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:15:38 UTC No. 16612387
>>16611920
KINO ALERT
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:21:55 UTC No. 16612389
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:26:37 UTC No. 16612392
>>16612018
should be legal to hunt libtards
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:32:28 UTC No. 16612393
>>16612342
because the landing fluid has to hang around for a while
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:33:03 UTC No. 16612394
>>16612389
>It is a one way trip
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:34:12 UTC No. 16612395
>>16612388
>Some examples of structures that could be biologically manufactured and assembled, but that may be infeasible to produce traditionally, include tethers for a space elevator, grid-nets for orbital debris remediation, kilometer-scale interferometers for radio science, new self-assembled wings of a commercial space station for hosting additional payloads, or on-demand production of patch materials to adhere and repair micrometeorite damage.
DARPajeet just prompted AI for "sci-fi bio-tech" here, what the fuck is this crap
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:34:38 UTC No. 16612396
>>16612342
>vacuum insulate
wtf they're at 300 bar, why does 301 bar need insulation
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:38:47 UTC No. 16612399
>>16612388
DARPA's mandate is literally to create and prevent strategic surprises. Let them cook.
Anonymous at Fri, 7 Mar 2025 23:53:09 UTC No. 16612404
https://x.com/hunt_harriet/status/1
>This past week I supported lots of payload activities on console, including the LMS mast deployment! Check out the video we captured below showing the 8-foot mast above our top deck.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:07:27 UTC No. 16612417
https://x.com/Phantime23Ball/status
>The missing engines could also be the two white dots in this image (this is supported by the fact that there is a bigger and a smaller dot, I think you know which engines they are) Photo: @jf__aerospace
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:12:26 UTC No. 16612419
>>16612415
kek, reminds me of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7am
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:15:52 UTC No. 16612420
>>16612416
so the engine fell off?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:16:01 UTC No. 16612422
https://x.com/JoeTegtmeyer/status/1
>Here is a timeline comparison between Starship Flights 6, 7 & 8, from the 5:40 to 9:00 minute marks.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:18:53 UTC No. 16612426
>>16612420
Less fell off and more exploded
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:24:46 UTC No. 16612429
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:28:02 UTC No. 16612432
my gf (starship) is getting fat~~
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:33:24 UTC No. 16612433
>>16612426
>>16612420
You can see a piece of the RVac's bell missing in the engine bay camera and for a few seconds before it popped you can see S34 starting to turn like the engine was losing thrust.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:37:42 UTC No. 16612435
https://x.com/SpaceflightNow/status
>19/19 Regarding Boeing's Starliner spacecraft, Stich says they're about 70 percent closed out on the items observed during the flight and are simultaneously processing the issues connected to the helium leaks. They will also take one of the dog houses out for a test at White Sands later this year. They go through a number of additional testing. Says because of the busy ISS manifest, including SpaceX CRS-33, which will perform a station reboost, they are working to determine whether they will be able to fly the next Starliner mission later this year or next year.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:42:19 UTC No. 16612439
https://x.com/SpaceflightNow/status
>NASA and SpaceX are beginning another briefing, this time focusing on the upcoming launch of Crew-10 to the ISS. This follows the conclusion of the Flight Readiness Review.
Listen live: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq5
>Bowersox says [Crew 10] are go for launch on March 12, pending the closeout of some remaining issues. He says they have a coding issue connected to the Dragon's Draco thrusters and some issues due to "the rapid pace of operations with our partner, SpaceX." Stich says they are launching from pad 39A on March 12. Docking would be about 6 am EDT (1000 UTC). They do have backup dates available on March 13 and 14. Rollout of Falcon 9 and Dragon are planned for Saturday night and then a static fire and dry dress rehearsal on Sunday.
>Stich confirms that Dragon Endurance was originally going to fly on a commercial mission (likely Ax-4). Said because of moving this Dragon up to support Crew-10, they had to take a close look at the Draco thruster. He says there was some degradation that needed a closer look. There will be a hot fire test at SpaceX's McGreggor to help with testing. Crew-10 will be the first crewed mission to land in the Pacific Ocean. A Dragon recovery vessel is being kept on the East Coast to support the return of Crew-9.
>For Falcon 9, Stich says they are working some things on the thrust vector controls on the engines. He says it required the swapping of some actuators on engines 1, 5 and 9. He says there were also some quality inspection misses on some hardware for Falcon 9. "SpaceX did a great job of flagging this potential issue and did a scrub of all their Falcon 9 vehicles... We went through that with our vehicle and our hardware and we were able to conclude that the hardware was acceptable to go fly."
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:42:38 UTC No. 16612440
>Gerstenmaier says there was a fuel leak about 85 seconds into ascent, which sprayed onto a hot component of the engine that vaporized and created a flammable environment. But at that point in flight, there was no oxygen to interact with it, so it wasn't a problem in ascent.
>He said on landing, there was enough oxygen that came into the engine compartment and created the fire. He added that it blew out the barrel panel on the side of he rocket.
LeakX
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:44:01 UTC No. 16612441
spacex is getting sloppy. Lots of S2 issues too
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:44:21 UTC No. 16612442
>>16612439
>Weigel brings up the Northrop Grumman 22 mission and some potential impacts to that mission. NG noted that some damage occurred to the pressurized portion of the spacecraft that opens up to the ISS. They shortened the crew handover from five days to two to conserve consumables on station to compensate for the potential delay of the NG-22 launch.
>Gerstenmaier also brings up the booster fire that happened following the landing of B1086 during the Starlink 12-20 mission. He says the fire was "pretty extensive and did a lot of damage, but the damage is what we've expected, what we accounted for and all our procedures and process. We're reviewing that data." Gerstenmaier says there was a fuel leak about 85 seconds into ascent, which sprayed onto a hot component of the engine that vaporized and created a flammable environment. But at that point in flight, there was no oxygen to interact with it, so it wasn't a problem in ascent. He said on landing, there was enough oxygen that came into the engine compartment and created the fire. He added that it blew out the barrel panel on the side of he rocket.
>Gerstenmaier says there was also a small oxygen leak on the upper stage of a separate Falcon 9 on Starlink 12-9 mission on Feb. 8. He says it "froze a thrust vector control line and prevented proper attitude control. He says this prevented the upper stage from getting into the right configuration for a deorbit burn. He says the software skipped the burn and instead passivated the stage, which ended up entering over Poland.
>Regarding typical product assurance flow with this late capsule swap, Stich says they were not able to witness the installation of the thermal protection system on the heat shield. Says they went through all of the PAAs that they would for every flight to gain confidence in the vehicle.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 00:46:10 UTC No. 16612444
>>16612442
>Asked about whether the politics of the moment played into the vehicle swap, Stich talks about the busy ISS schedule and says the decision was made by other factors. Bowersox confirms that conversations regarding the vehicle swap were happening a month before the comments by President Trump and Elon Musk, but adds that "the President's interest sure added energy to the conversation and it's great to have a President who's interested in what we're doing." Asked if President Biden's White House was involved with the decision on how and when to bring Butch Wilmore and Suni Williams home, Bowersox says "there may have been some conversations that I wasn't part of... our leadership at NASA was trying to make sure that we considered everything just at a technical level and that's what we did."
>Weigel says Butch and Suni had long duration ISS training before they launched on Starliner. She says when they were assigned, "we got suit parts, space suit parts for them and I actually put them onboard many months before they launched. So we had hit pocket contingency plans to be long-duration crew members well before they launched."
>Asked if there are any studies underway to consider Musk's comment about ending the ISS early, Bowersox says they would need approval from other ISS partners. They would also want to have the US Deorbit vehicle docked with the station well in advance.
>Stich says they will fly three thrusters for a fourth time on the Crew-10 mission. Previously, the limit was two flights per thruster.
>Gerstenmaier says the challenge with the new Dragon capsule is the batteries. He says they needed to reinstall the battery, which took a lot of capsule disassembly to get the battery out. He says it's ready to go back in and they will turn their attention to that once they get through the flow of Crew-10.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:07:21 UTC No. 16612459
>>16612439
>quality inspection misses on some hardware for Falcon 9
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:18:57 UTC No. 16612465
>>16612416
OH N-
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:24:12 UTC No. 16612468
>>16612420
Yeah, that's pretty typical lately, I'd like to make that point.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:26:51 UTC No. 16612469
>>16612416
>it's was the fuel lines
>no it was the engine pressures
>umm actually it just fell off
fucking kek. spacex turning into boeing at warp speed, the ceo is even in washington just like boeing
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:27:37 UTC No. 16612472
McDonalds ice cream machine engineering team is on the case
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:29:25 UTC No. 16612474
>>16612420
>>16612468
Usually rockets are built so the engines don't fall off. They're built to very rigorous aerospace standards.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:29:27 UTC No. 16612475
>>16612471
>why aren't we
why aren't you?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:30:14 UTC No. 16612476
im going into debt buying starship patches...
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:30:16 UTC No. 16612477
>>16612475
I don't have a vacuum chamber yet
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:33:17 UTC No. 16612478
FUEL went through the engine. chance in a million!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:36:17 UTC No. 16612480
>>16612471
Mars regolith data is ITAR restricted and living organisms aren't.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:37:24 UTC No. 16612481
>>16612480
bro it's just rocks. all you need to do is throw some rocks into a vacuum chamber, simulate the solar and atmospheric conditions, then start throwing lichen in and seeing what survives
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:37:37 UTC No. 16612482
>>16612471
We have to make sure it's compatible with the Martian beetles, complicated stuff really
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:37:55 UTC No. 16612483
>>16612481
it's literally this easy in terraformery
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:38:19 UTC No. 16612484
>>16612481
it's not that easy in lichenery
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:38:55 UTC No. 16612486
>>16612481
rocks is hard
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:51:50 UTC No. 16612496
>>16612474
Well, cardboardās out.
And?
No cardboard derivatives.
Like paper?
No paper, no string, no sellotape.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:56:54 UTC No. 16612500
>>16612496
they have minimum crew requirements of course
what's the minimum crew?
well, zero I suppose
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 01:58:28 UTC No. 16612502
we warned elon about those h1-b's
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:01:30 UTC No. 16612505
>>16612420
It went outside the environment.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:06:24 UTC No. 16612507
>>16612502
shut up
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:09:21 UTC No. 16612509
>>16612477
They're not that expensive
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:13:21 UTC No. 16612511
>>16612420
Just like SpaceX
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:15:20 UTC No. 16612513
>be me, Tory Bruno, regional manager at ULA
>used to sell paper, now launch rockets
>teamās the same: Dwight, Jim, Pam, etc.
>first big project, Vulcan rocket
>say itās āworldās best rocketā in meeting
>countdown starts, feeling epic
>it explodes on the pad, classic
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:16:29 UTC No. 16612516
>be me, Tory Bruno, post-explosion
>Dwight insists itās sabotage
>āI know rockets, Tory, I grew beetsā
>Jim smirks, says itās my speechās fault
>Pam doodles the fireball on a memo
>call it an āobservationā for the press
>bosses demand a redo, crap
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:17:42 UTC No. 16612517
>be me, Tory, planning next launch
>Dwight builds a model rocket in the office
>fires it, hits Angelaās cat poster
>Jim swaps my slides with memes
>new Atlas V prepped, looks solid
>liftoffāfalls off pad, boom
>another āobservation,ā Iām sweating
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:20:08 UTC No. 16612519
>be me, Tory, facing the team
>Stanley grumbles, āIām here for paychecksā
>Kelly cries, āmy horoscope warned meā
>Dwight suggests beet-fueled rockets
>Jim says weāre cursed, grins
>ULA execs call, furious
>say weāre āredefining successā
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:20:18 UTC No. 16612520
https://x.com/spacewxwatch/status/1
>STORMS LIKELY THIS WEEKEND: We're (unofficially) calling for a 90% chance of a minor geomagnetic storm (Kp=5) in the next 72 hours due to anticipated coronal hole high speed stream effects.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:22:08 UTC No. 16612521
Current armchair rocket scientist theory is the methane downcomer starts vibrating excessively when the LOX tank is low and there's barely any liquid surrounding the downcomer. Would explain the timing and why they didn't catch the issue during the static fire (LOX tank was full).
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:33:07 UTC No. 16612534
>>16612520
nothing ever happens. 2024 YR4 broke my heart
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:35:33 UTC No. 16612537
Bussy
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:37:40 UTC No. 16612540
>>16612528
Starship orbital launch mount jumpscare
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:51:43 UTC No. 16612555
usually "we've lost an engine" is not meant literally in rocketry lmaooo
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:55:17 UTC No. 16612558
ejecting unused engines is the next step in rocketry
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:56:22 UTC No. 16612560
I don't understand this reuseable engines meme
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:57:14 UTC No. 16612562
>>16612555
Must be at the bottom of the sea as we speak, when sponge anon wakes up we should go ask him.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 02:58:10 UTC No. 16612563
>>16611984
Is this a JD Vance edit AAAHHHH IM GOING INSANE
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:07:17 UTC No. 16612566
>>16612548
>>16612527
toy rockets
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:12:33 UTC No. 16612567
>>16611869
THE SLUTS
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:16:48 UTC No. 16612568
>>16612563
it's his love child with the couch
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:17:25 UTC No. 16612569
>>16612416
Okay kek between this and IM-2, this week has been insane for afficionados of spaceflight tomfoolery
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:18:06 UTC No. 16612570
>>16612416
The best part is no part
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:19:12 UTC No. 16612571
https://x.com/exploreplanets/status
I havent stopped crying since this was posted. How can you be so heartless?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:19:57 UTC No. 16612574
>>16612569
>could've had another lunar lander operating on the moon for the first time in history
>could've had moon rovers, hoppers, drills deployed
>could've had Starship deploy dummy Starlinks, relight, and reenter again and possibly survive and SpaceX bounce back
>instead get two repeat failures of each companies last missions down to the letter
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:20:20 UTC No. 16612575
>>16612571
>I HECKIN LOVE SCIENCE
just cut all the money wasting and payments to grifters
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:20:32 UTC No. 16612576
>>16612571
SpaceX is the new NASA.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:23:23 UTC No. 16612578
>>16612575
so you admit it was never about science and knowledge for you
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:24:45 UTC No. 16612579
>>16612416
my brother
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:24:51 UTC No. 16612580
SpaceX oversees Starship using an iterative development cycle. Engineers come up with new designs, rapidly test them, and then incorporate lessons learned into the next rocket. It's not surprising to see a few rockets blow up using this spiral development cycle. But back-to-back failures, especially with so many similarities, may point to a more fundamental issue.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:25:35 UTC No. 16612581
>>16612578
thats right...
10 billion dollars a year in "science" is a complete and giant waste of money
With absolutely zero returns on any investment
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:26:25 UTC No. 16612584
>>16612581
you know this means defunding VASIMR you idiot
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:32:53 UTC No. 16612587
>>16612584
NTA but is VASIMR publicly funded? If so, can DOGE cut it right now; it's absolutely retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:33:13 UTC No. 16612588
>>16612584
https://vocaroo.com/1daLo1G9NiX7
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:33:24 UTC No. 16612589
>>16612584
and whats the purpose of VASIMR other than being a life long grift?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:38:51 UTC No. 16612591
>>16612589
the longer it takes, the more efficient it gets
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:41:08 UTC No. 16612593
>>16612591
Same with the physical QI cubesat test lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:50:05 UTC No. 16612596
https://x.com/NASA_Marshall/status/
>Do you know the temp of the Moon? NASA's LISTER is ready to drill into the mystery! Following Firefly Space's BGM1 Moon landing on March 2, LISTER began operations.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:51:27 UTC No. 16612597
>>16612576
no, they are new OKB-1
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:52:26 UTC No. 16612598
>>16612596
Lewd
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:52:54 UTC No. 16612599
>>16612596
WTF anon this is a blue board
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:53:24 UTC No. 16612600
>>16612596
wgat tf are they DOING?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:53:32 UTC No. 16612601
>>16612596
That looks like it feels soooo good.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 03:54:40 UTC No. 16612602
>>16612596
This mission is so fucking based
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:01:19 UTC No. 16612605
>>16612584
Good. Ion propulsion is a dead end once QI inertia sails work.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:03:14 UTC No. 16612606
>>16612605
>quantized inertia inertia
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:03:42 UTC No. 16612607
>>16612605
You people are unbelievably retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:04:52 UTC No. 16612609
>>16612596
our response intuitive machine sisters??!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:04:54 UTC No. 16612610
>>16612605
I support this post
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:06:23 UTC No. 16612613
>>16612571
I'm neither a woman or someone who believes anonymously sourced media reports.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:08:54 UTC No. 16612614
>>16612610
ha it's so funny to make stupid posts
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:09:41 UTC No. 16612615
>>16612614
Gonna cry?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:35:14 UTC No. 16612624
>>16612623
because it is hard
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:36:19 UTC No. 16612625
center of gravity is hard
having an engine turn off before it tips over your vehicle in 0.1 g's is hard
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:39:18 UTC No. 16612627
>>16612625
yeah i bet you could do it they shoud of given you the controls
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:45:50 UTC No. 16612629
>>16612627
I could land it, yes
worked in kerbal
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:46:54 UTC No. 16612630
>>16612629
now do it with a 17 minute delay
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:50:21 UTC No. 16612633
>>16612630
the moon is 17 minutes away?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:51:54 UTC No. 16612634
>>16612633
it is if you're steering the photons, yeah.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 04:59:26 UTC No. 16612639
>>16612633
What do you think? search your ksp knowlege banks
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:00:15 UTC No. 16612640
>>16612632
why do their tiles work but starships dont?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:02:14 UTC No. 16612641
>>16612640
X-37 launches inside a fairing so it's under much less strain on the way up.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:13:55 UTC No. 16612643
>>16612596
https://x.com/DrPhiltill/status/189
>I saw this yesterday morning and have been thinking about it nonstop. These explosive eruptions are not the way we expected lunar soil to behave. I have heard a couple exotic theories to explain it. Overall, the results from the mission have been phenomenal.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:14:56 UTC No. 16612645
>>16612643
the entire moon is made of gunpowder
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:17:50 UTC No. 16612647
On Earth, you have natural disasters like floods, tsunamis, blizzards, mudslides, earthquakes, storms, volcano eruptions, and heat waves that are a threat to life. We have, as a species, become prepared for them and must adapt everything about the way we live in order to survive and overcome them.
I wonder what kinds of natural disasters you would have to adapt to on Mars. It's a lot less active as a world, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous. There would have to be some kind of bunker for solar storms, and a nationwide alarm system to alert people of them. Infrastructure would have to be built to resist dust storms that enshroud the entire planet and could be a risk to life. What else is there?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:20:40 UTC No. 16612648
>>16612647
plagues of locusts
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:21:13 UTC No. 16612649
>>16612647
probably megalightning
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:25:25 UTC No. 16612650
>>16612647
Increased risk of meteorite impact due to the thin atmosphere
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:27:13 UTC No. 16612651
>>16612643
>dig into the moon for an underground base
>get blown up
many such cases (soon)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:29:44 UTC No. 16612652
>>16612645
the real great filter is that every body in the universe besides earth is made of gunpowder and all the aliens shot themselves to death as soon as they reached 60 iq
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:32:29 UTC No. 16612653
>>16612643
Wow so we should stop listening to this asshole and other "scientists" like him. Just talk out their asses all day
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 05:50:15 UTC No. 16612658
sfg es morte
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:10:51 UTC No. 16612663
>>16612658
you already said this
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:14:23 UTC No. 16612667
>>16612658
Start speaking in pidgin, creole and inuit because this shit been done before.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:18:39 UTC No. 16612669
>>16612534
YR4 could still impact the Moon.
https://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons_b
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:24:36 UTC No. 16612672
>>16612663
>>16612667
it means /sfg/ is dead
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:27:12 UTC No. 16612675
>lets spend billions of dollars on "probes" to do things that could be done by 1 guy in a week
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:28:12 UTC No. 16612677
>>16612675
how?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:33:38 UTC No. 16612679
>>16612672
We know, we're not retarded. We're just telling you to spice it up with another language.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 06:59:25 UTC No. 16612688
>>16612679
I only know spanish
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:04:24 UTC No. 16612691
>>16612382
can someone draw this as an anime girl on her butt, spreading her legs? naked
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:13:57 UTC No. 16612696
>>16612691
Best I can do
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:17:53 UTC No. 16612702
>>16612689
i'd be surprised if anyone gets a pic with those locations
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:51:32 UTC No. 16612712
>>16612711
Unironically how did he get this?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:52:37 UTC No. 16612713
>>16612712
They asked politely.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:53:45 UTC No. 16612715
>>16612712
The same way they got this maybe
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 07:59:57 UTC No. 16612716
>>16612675
You could land a pretty serious rover or lots of them with the mass budget of a manned Mars mission.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:00:57 UTC No. 16612717
>>16612711
OOPS
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:07:53 UTC No. 16612719
the problem with launchers is that everything has to go right. thats bad design because it's simple design. simple = bad. build robust.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:15:58 UTC No. 16612722
>>16612688
If that was spanish its āesta muertoā not morte you fucking gringo. You dont know spanish for shit
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:19:20 UTC No. 16612723
>>16612675
except they they literally can't at the moment
there's no feasible way to get humans to any other planet as it is
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 08:36:00 UTC No. 16612726
>>16612723
because NASA's "science" budget is triple what they spend on manned flight and their manned flight budget is entirely wasted
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:17:25 UTC No. 16612738
>>16612715
qrd? i haven't kept up after the launch
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:20:42 UTC No. 16612739
>>16612738
Image someone posted couple months ago on twitter, it's inside of cargo bay during reentry, possibly from flight 4 or 5.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:24:23 UTC No. 16612740
>>16612739
oh, i thought it was from the latest one. did spacex confirm what happened?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:25:10 UTC No. 16612741
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:32:22 UTC No. 16612742
>>16612388
Sounds cool, I hope this goes somewhere. But you never know with DARPA.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 09:41:12 UTC No. 16612745
>>16612715
lewd (and hawt)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:57:05 UTC No. 16612773
>>16612712
By having friends in appropriate places.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 10:59:59 UTC No. 16612776
>>16612712
>>16612715
>>16612773
Having friends with ITAR clearance. (I Talk About Rockets)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:02:57 UTC No. 16612778
An interesting analysis from the comment section under Hullo's latest video
>The methane downcomers when fully submerged in LOX is dampening the vibrations and preventing serious damage, however, once the LOX level becomes low enough as the flight goes on, the methane downcomers start to vibrate since not enough LOX is surrounding them to absorb the destructive vibrations. This causes the methane downcomer to rupture, starting a leak and pumping the attic full of flammable gas. Not only that, the Raptor engines NEED methane for regenerative cooling of the engine bells, if not enough methane is feeding the engine, it loses thrust AND the engine bell starts to overheat, causing burnthrough that we seen in the RVac in the video, the lack of thrust also causes Starship to pitch into the side of the failing RVac engine (we see a small pitchover prior to failure). Now the attic and its vents/nitrogen purge is overwhelmed by a massive methane leak that then ignites, knocking out all 3 SL Raptors + the already failing RVac. And you end up with S34
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:05:03 UTC No. 16612780
And for my next trick, I shall make this RVac disappear!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:09:07 UTC No. 16612783
>>16612778
sounds plausible.
raptor 3 will fix this.. ....right?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:09:48 UTC No. 16612785
>>16612783
Replacing the plumbing engineer will fix it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:10:32 UTC No. 16612787
>>16612783
It will only introduce other problems, it also doesn't explain why raptors became less reliable
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:11:33 UTC No. 16612788
>>16612783
Doesnāt explain how things got WORSE
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:11:51 UTC No. 16612790
>>16612787
EDSer sabotage, unironically. They've probably got rogue employees going around smacking shit ""accidentally"" with wrenches
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:14:17 UTC No. 16612793
>>16612790
you are fucking insane dude.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:17:47 UTC No. 16612795
>>16612793
>it's TOOTTALLY INSAAANNE to think that a few of SpaceX's thousands of employees might be redditors indoctrinated into earnestly believing that Elon Musk is literally a nazi and therefore undermining him in plausibly deniable ways is not merely morally justified, but is in fact their moral obligation
Yeah I hope you're right. Really.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:18:54 UTC No. 16612796
>>16612385
Don't you mean "weight saving structure"?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:19:24 UTC No. 16612797
/sfg/ - Schizo Frenzy General
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:21:16 UTC No. 16612799
>>16612795
You realize they have an internal system that tracks basically everything that gets done on anything. If someone was doing that they would get caught immediately.
>grr I hate Elon so much I am going to work for him and sabotage him and then immediately get fired that'll show him!
you are fucking insane dude.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:23:47 UTC No. 16612800
>>16612799
>>grr I hate Elon so much I am going to work for him
More likely is people who already worked at SpaceX and subsequently became radicalized.
>processes, controls, monitoring, etc
There are many ways these can be subverted by people acting deliberately.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:45:34 UTC No. 16612809
It's worse than you think
>same root cause failure
>harmonics becoming more violent as the lox tank empties eventually causing a big leak of methane
>no amount of purge gas in the attic can stop combustion from happening after a leak starts
>leak is bad enough that the regenerative cooling flow to the nozzles is interrupted causing the burn through seen on video
>Not QA failure, not a defect, this is a design flaw and may well take 2+ months to resolve.
>It remains to be seen whether S35 and S36 will be retrofitted or scrapped entirely at this stage
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:51:29 UTC No. 16612812
>>16612809
just skip ahead to starship 3
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:56:35 UTC No. 16612815
>>16612809
Maybe they could have used xAI Colossus for end to end simulation and anticipate this instead of delivering spicy memes on xitter.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:58:11 UTC No. 16612816
>>16612809
They hoped band aid fix would be enough
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 11:59:55 UTC No. 16612817
reminder falcon 1 failed three times before they got it working
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:00:01 UTC No. 16612818
>>16612800
most deluded poster award
>More likely is people who already worked at SpaceX and subsequently became radicalized.
lol what is this childish babble. People don't just suddenly turn full jihad mode after getting infected with the woke mind virus, especially not people smart enough to work with rockets and ESPECIALLY not people smart enough to work at SpaceX
>There are many ways these can be subverted by people acting deliberately.
yeah bro I'm sure they sent fucking james bond to infiltrate and fuck up the engine design and also kill everyone who could point out the flaws without anyone noticing. Or, hear me out, SpaceX is just experiencing the kind of human error that's been present in every space program and rocket design since the advent of the field. Do you think NG's booster was also sabotaged when it failed to land? Or Vulcan's observation? Take your meds already dumb nigger or stop posting /x/ tier fantasies.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:04:21 UTC No. 16612819
>>16612818
>People don't just suddenly turn full jihad mode after getting infected with the woke mind virus
I've seen it done too many times to believe this.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:05:09 UTC No. 16612820
https://x.com/JoeTegtmeyer/status/1
>Here is a timeline comparison between Starship Flights 6, 7 & 8, from the 5:40 to 9:00 minute marks. Some interesting observations:
>Flight 6 with Version 1 of the Starship had overall more performance (velocities & altitude changes at the same minute mark as compared to Flights 7 & 8 that debuted the Version 2 Starships.
>This is likely explained by a lighter (smaller) ship, less propellant mass & possibly engines performing better (e.g. no leaking propellant). This difference grows throughout the flight, becoming more than 5,000 Km/h at the 8:00 minute mark!
>Flight 7 vs Flight 8 performed generally the same up to the 7:44 minute mark, but Flight 7 carried more speed but gained less altitude throughout the ascent phase to this point.
>At the 7:39 minute mark, Flight 7 lost the first sea level engine.
>At 7:44 minute mark, Flight 8 engine camera shows active fire in the engine compartment & one RVAC nozzle with burn through.
>At the 8:04 minute mark, Flight 8 loses the first RVAC.
>Flight 8 lost the first RVAC at the 8:04 minute mark & all three sea level Raptors 3 seconds later.
>Flight 7 lost telemetry at the 8:26 minute mark, still over 5,000 Km/h short of desired velocity.
>Flight 6 shut down engines at the final desired velocity at the 8:28 minute mark. Flights 7 & 8 were planned to burn to the 8:44 minute mark.
>On Flight 8, when we heard the FTS was safed, that call appears to have been based on time (8:44 minute mark) not on telemetry ā¦ not sure if it was actually safed or if the FTS was still active and eventually terminated the flight.
jfc, it's the exact same issue as last flight, isn't it?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:06:22 UTC No. 16612821
>>16612819
no, sperg, you haven't seen shit. You made it up in your mind with the help of echo chambers that you frequent, yes, but reality is not subject to your madness.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:07:53 UTC No. 16612823
>>16612821
>nooo you never go outside you don't actually know any people you only use the internet
I am sensing a degree of projection here.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:10:21 UTC No. 16612825
>>16612823
most likely from yourself.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:10:41 UTC No. 16612826
>>16612820
Can V2 actually carry any cargo?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:12:23 UTC No. 16612827
>>16612809
nothingburger
They will be ready to fly in 2 months
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:13:17 UTC No. 16612828
>>16612827
four to six weeks
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:13:41 UTC No. 16612829
>>16612828
That's Elon time
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:14:15 UTC No. 16612830
>>16612829
Trust the Plan. E.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:15:04 UTC No. 16612831
>>16612826
well they have the few starlink simulators. that's already several orders of magnitude better than the banana that was on flight 6. If I had to bet, I'd say no and they're waiting for the new raptors before that is possible
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:16:08 UTC No. 16612833
>>16612831
Clear is FAT
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:16:15 UTC No. 16612834
>>16612830
I'm still trusting the 2024 mars landing plan! That's how dedicated I am to you, E.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:17:56 UTC No. 16612835
>>16612818
Sounds like something a saboteur would say
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:18:24 UTC No. 16612836
>>16612832
>actually using his power instead of some lame and gay "take the high road" shit
I love this
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:18:24 UTC No. 16612837
>>16612832
Not like FAA was ever a problem.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:21:00 UTC No. 16612838
>>16612835
>t. ULA sniper trying to pin the blame on an innocent online racist
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:23:00 UTC No. 16612840
/Sabotaged Flights General/
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:25:25 UTC No. 16612841
>>16612832
the democrats will eventually come back into power. whether its 2 years from now or 20. spacex WILL pay dearly because of elon. nationalization will be on the table, along with decades in federal prison for any employee who was "just following orders". mars colony? gone.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:28:19 UTC No. 16612842
>>16612841
>nationalization will be on the table
No
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:31:00 UTC No. 16612843
>>16612172
>>16612292
I absolutely adore the unrelenting seethe that Elon generates from redditors that formerly adored him as the heckin' Tony Stark savior of mankind
keep it coming
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:32:45 UTC No. 16612845
>>16612843
Such personality flips aren't real anon, real people don't ever get radicalized. You only think so because you use the internet.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:34:30 UTC No. 16612846
>>16612832
For once, I'm on FAA's side. The same issue 2 test launches in a row is quite upsetting to me. I want SpaceX to do a proper investigation, which they didn't manage to do for flight 8.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:37:19 UTC No. 16612849
>>16612846
SpaceX doesn't need government bureaucrats from the department of whining about people having fun with airplanes to tell them how to run a rocket program. Get real.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:40:32 UTC No. 16612851
>>16612841
We will just have to make Mars before then. The true great filter
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:51:27 UTC No. 16612858
>>16612846
Youāre retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 12:56:34 UTC No. 16612862
>>16612858
Thanks for the laugh.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:03:18 UTC No. 16612864
>>16612722
I'm calling ICE right now
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:10:38 UTC No. 16612873
>>16612711
Wait a sea level raptor is also missing lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:12:46 UTC No. 16612875
>>16612872
Almost as if itās a paved lot on the sandy gulf coast beach [math]\unicode{x1F92F}[/math]
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:13:04 UTC No. 16612876
>>16612849
if that's true why can't they fix the same problem that keeps blowing up their rockets?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:13:24 UTC No. 16612877
ELAN FIX THE BLOODY ROGGET BASTARD
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:14:16 UTC No. 16612878
>>16612876
Starships have been blowing up since the hop campaign. Itās an iterative design program and they thought they fixed an issue but turned out they didnāt. Donāt act too surprised
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:14:23 UTC No. 16612879
>>16612872
>has become
Was it ever flat to begin with? Graders only make things relatively flat, not absolute laser flat.
>>16612876
Let them cook.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:19:43 UTC No. 16612883
Yeah the upper stage sucks rn
But how hilarious is it that SpaceX immediately perfected catching a giant ass booster with a tower first try when they half-expected it to fail, while Bezosā rocket that was supposed to work right out of the box couldnāt land on a solid surface
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:22:06 UTC No. 16612885
>>16612883
whataboutism deflection and coping
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:22:43 UTC No. 16612886
>>16612883
To be fair to lil' Jeff, getting to orbit on the organization's first try is a pretty good accomplishment. At least, if you ignore the part where it took them a quarter of a century.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:23:53 UTC No. 16612889
>>16612883
SpaceX has shitloads of experience with boosters, 2nd stages not so much.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:26:07 UTC No. 16612891
>>16612889
1) so does BO with new glenn
2) SpaceX have launched more second stages than anybody else in the last 20 years
3) Go check with your doctor for severe mental retardation
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:27:08 UTC No. 16612893
>>16612891
*new shepard, I meant
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:29:10 UTC No. 16612894
>>16612886
Gradatim Gradociter!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:29:12 UTC No. 16612895
>>16612883
honestly it's pretty insane if you think about it - if elon is willing to make an expendable upper stage it's game over for the entire space industry
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:30:03 UTC No. 16612896
>>16612891
Current 2nd stages going on Falcon are barely similar to Starship. Just like for BO doing booster landing from orbital mission is entirely different thing.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:31:14 UTC No. 16612897
>>16612846
you should see how many rockets the army blew up trying to get mercury-redstone off the ground. "the right stuff' has a pretty nice sequence of it.
šļø Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:33:09 UTC No. 16612898
>thousands of teslas were quietly ordered in canada, enabling the theft of more than $42 million worth of tax refunds from the canadian government
>it is unknown who ordered the cars, or if the cars were even paid for at all
canadian special forces on their way to nab elon rn
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:33:50 UTC No. 16612899
>>16612883
its beautiful really. i think we're just so used to everything form spacex just working that a couple failures are just showing how spoiled we've become lol. i just hope things wont get worse due to deliberate actions by subversive EDS retards embedded in the company somehow.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:33:57 UTC No. 16612900
>>16612891
>Go check with your doctor for severe mental retardation
>proceeds to be mentally retarded
damn, you're the projection anon, aren't you?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:34:22 UTC No. 16612901
>>16612872
embarrassing
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:36:45 UTC No. 16612904
>>16612898
If the cars were paid for, then how is this "theft" of tax refunds?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:36:47 UTC No. 16612905
>>16612903
easier than you think, harder than you want.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:40:01 UTC No. 16612907
>>16612903
Nah do a kerolox upper stage with clustered Merlins
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:42:49 UTC No. 16612909
>>16612903
What, putting cool liveries on rockets?
Itās impossible. Graphic design is dead.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:47:44 UTC No. 16612911
>>16612907
>clustered Merlins
Use a cluster of F9 uppers
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:48:53 UTC No. 16612912
>>16612911
It triggers me that this (and some other parts) are oriented in the opposite direction that everyone uses them.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:49:40 UTC No. 16612914
>At the first trial, 16 members confessed to being members of a Trotskyite-Kamenevite-Zinovievite-L
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:49:45 UTC No. 16612915
>>16612911
Lol that would actually be fun. Just slap a bunch of F9 second stages together like a frankenstein saturn I and that becomes the second starship stage. Itās that easy in rocketry
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:52:09 UTC No. 16612916
>>16612914
>refusing to install a water deluge system at the pad
wasn't that musk himself?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:53:52 UTC No. 16612918
>>16612916
not anymore
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:57:22 UTC No. 16612919
>>16612809
if its harmonics on the long methane pipes then they could just connect it to the sides of the LOX tank with some wires or something to dampen the vibrations as quick temporary fix and then work on a more permanent fix in the backround
and still keep launching
that is probably why they will try in 4-6 weeks again
they tried some temporary fix after 7, didn't work, they will try some new temp fix all the while more permanent things are being worked on in the backround
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:57:46 UTC No. 16612920
>>16612916
it was the saboteurs fault
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:58:04 UTC No. 16612922
>>16612916
Not having a water deluge system was a good idea because it was hilarious to see EDSers piss and shit themselves trying to say that a bit of concrete being scattered around was the worst environmental disaster since Chernobyl.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:58:55 UTC No. 16612923
>>16612919
this, just install some cryo-rated bungee cords.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 13:59:56 UTC No. 16612924
>>16612899
SpaceX employs lots of leftoids and trannies.
It's only a matter of time
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:02:34 UTC No. 16612928
>>16612924
well sucks that the leftoids and trannies have been gaining productive employment at a real company while you've been posting on 4chan
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:08:58 UTC No. 16612932
>>16612924
they might have been activated by some toxic memes while looking at reddit. once the suggestion that musk is a nazi throwing roman salutes gets a grip on them there's no knowi9ng what could happen
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:20:45 UTC No. 16612940
>early march
>already peak summer temperatures
nobody is going to want to live on a planet with an atmosphere after the earth becomes venus 2. shits just too risky.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:21:58 UTC No. 16612941
>>16612886
And ignore the part where they hired half of the space industry to accomplish that
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:28:28 UTC No. 16612944
>>16612841
What is it with phone posters and ESLs having the most deranged takes here? Is someone paying you people to shitpost per post?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:30:25 UTC No. 16612947
>>16612944
congrats anon! here's your "fell for the bait" award. Your parents will be so proud.
šļø Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:52:54 UTC No. 16612963
editing parameterized blueprints is a genuine pain in the ass. is there a mod that fixes this interface for this crap yet?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:58:49 UTC No. 16612968
>>16612965
itās only been posted 8 times already
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 14:59:11 UTC No. 16612970
>>16612965
maybe they forgot to install it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:07:52 UTC No. 16612975
>>16612809
>harmonics becoming more violent as the lox tank empties eventually causing a big leak of methane
I have been saying for months now that the vibration issues will continue being a problem until Starship is downsized.
But does Elon listen? No, because everything needs to be bigger basic physics be damned.
Make the chassis a little thicker, more reinforcement, and just a bit smaller. Approximately the same mass, but different distribution and less overall exposed surface area.
Suddenly less vibration problems.
Anyways, haven't posted to this general in a few weeks, just came back to LMAO at you dorks.
Epic back to back fails, space is fake and gay.
>>16612919
>something to dampen the vibrations
Harmonic absorbers?
You mean like the fuckhuge pendulums they use in skyscrapers to offset the natural sway.
well, they're heavy and you'd need to reduce the overall mass to compensate for that feature
pretty sure you can use gyroscopes to do something similar, because of precession
gyro-mass dampers
this isn't particularly advanced stuff, IDK why it hasn't been implemented yet unless these engineers just aren't aware of that application
>>16612923
the problem there is that they have way too much give, and will just distend if too much force is encountered
potentially, the back and forth cycles will just grow in frequency and exacerbate the problem
you should be trying to reduce overall harmonics, not trying to cope with them using bungees
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:09:36 UTC No. 16612978
>>16612965
So they firgot to put on the engine?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:09:44 UTC No. 16612979
>>16612975
>smaller
GET HIM OUT
GET THIS GUY OUTTA HERE
OUT
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:10:56 UTC No. 16612980
>>16612975
You're right, they should also increase the size of the flaps, maybe turn them into wings.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:11:01 UTC No. 16612981
>>16612978
the engine is there. they were just testing out a cloaking device on it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:11:53 UTC No. 16612982
>>16612975
>JuSt MaKe It SmAlLeR aNd HeAvIeR aT tHe SaMe TiMe
This is advanced bait/retardation.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:20:10 UTC No. 16612985
>>16612975
If they add even more mass to the starship it won't be able to leave launch pad
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:21:30 UTC No. 16612987
RTLS hot stage ring
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:22:53 UTC No. 16612992
>>16612987
Just catch it with a giant bouncy castle
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:23:29 UTC No. 16612994
>>16612992
Aaahhhh Iām pickle rick!!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:25:18 UTC No. 16612995
>>16612982
total exposed surface area doesn't have to increase proportionally to overall mass
example, you have have a floppy piece of sheet metal next to a half inch thick plate of armor, cut to the exact same dimensions other than depth
both will be exposed to the exact same stressors because they have the same amount of exposed surface area, but the floppy sheet will react (vibrate in this case) more violently than the half inch thick plate because it isn't as reinforced
by the same token, increasing the total surface area of either will increase the violence of their reaction
as Starship increases both in mass and in it's dimensions, it's saturation also increases, meaning the vibrations have more room to propagate and grow and eventually this has material effect on it's frame
so if you need to mitigate vibrations without relying on any changes other than to the chassis, you need less internal and external surface area exposed and stronger reinforcement
what am I missing here
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:26:11 UTC No. 16612996
Why don't they make test tube chicken eggs?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:34:53 UTC No. 16613002
>>16612995
>what am I missing here
The only reason they're trying something as silly as separate straight pipe fittings for the RVACs is to move propellants with as little weight as possible. A larger diameter has to be thicker to have the same overall stiffness, but the volume of the tube itself increases faster than the dry mass does. I don't entirely know why they thought separate tubes were a good idea, but since the inlet is north of the sump, they probably thought they could reduce the residuals mass enough to make the tradeoff worthwhile. Obviously the solution has to work and it absolutely did not work here, but the solution can't be very heavy because all of the dry mass built into the ship comes straight out of the payload capacity of the vehicle. Residual propellant mass is equivalent to dry mass here as well. The previous solution was a single heavy feed line with branching pipes for the vacuum engines, and this is probably the best available solution for the operating conditions of the vehicle.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:43:52 UTC No. 16613005
>"space is hard" mocked relentlessly on /sfg/
APOLOGIZE
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:44:19 UTC No. 16613007
>>16613005
space is easy.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:45:40 UTC No. 16613009
>>16613005
space is soft
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:47:56 UTC No. 16613012
>>16613005
My cock is hard
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:54:40 UTC No. 16613016
Guys itās an iterative program, lessons like this need to be learned. Enough talking about starshipās failures of the past. We need to look forward to the failures that will happen in the future
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 15:57:34 UTC No. 16613020
>elon himself said the flight was a failure
>responding to a basedcuck saying DONT CALL IT A FAILURE GUYS
Lmaooo
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:02:16 UTC No. 16613022
>>16613002
>larger diameter has to be thicker to have the same overall stiffness, but the volume of the tube itself increases faster than the dry mass does
Got it.
That's kind of like the entire reason why Musk is pushing the Starship frame itself further, because internal volume grows faster than surface area. And he want's to maximize that volume.
But the increased surface area is where these structural problems start creeping in. Because volume isn't the only thing affected by the surface area, overall integrity is affected as well. To my mind, I would accept a smaller habitable space if it meant there were less of a problem with harmonics getting out of control.
Still, those damping systems I mentioned earlier could be a solution.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:04:25 UTC No. 16613023
>>16613020
It's not a failure though, we got the data
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:11:05 UTC No. 16613027
>>16613002
SS v2 has a nominal 100 tons of payload to trade. That's the entire rational of big and dumb. Trade off up mass for cost and reliability. Just keep it simple as possible.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:11:48 UTC No. 16613028
1337 engine on V4 18mĆ Starship will fix it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:11:58 UTC No. 16613029
>>16613027
>SS v2 has a nominal 100 tons of payload to trade
lol lmao
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:12:30 UTC No. 16613030
>>16613005
myspace is easy
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:12:35 UTC No. 16613031
>>16613027
This helps, but it can only be taken so far; Starship V1 fell dramatically short of its payload targets, so extra performance and mass savings needed to be found.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:15:50 UTC No. 16613035
>>16613031
How about just make super heavy more powerful? That solves the hot stage ring problem and gives the upper stage more throwing power.
Or is it not that easy because SH needs to RTLS so itās limited by how powerful they can make it?
Either way, a down-range oil rig platform would solve this
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:16:09 UTC No. 16613036
my posts are nominally good
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:16:59 UTC No. 16613038
>>16613009
>>16613012
Wisdom.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:19:39 UTC No. 16613042
>>16613031
So the payload is 20 tons instead of 100. Launch it 5 times. If you're reusable, your just out the fuel and some extra inspection time. That covers your Starlink launches and paying customers while the B Team works on the larger ship.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:19:42 UTC No. 16613043
>>16613035
The RTLS burn uses up a fair bit of the booster's capacity. It may be wiser to go up to 12 meters to get the extra packing space below the vehicle for more engines and 50% greater fuel capacity per unit height over the 9 meter vehicle.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:20:59 UTC No. 16613044
>>16613035
The upgrade to v3 engines does that.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:21:03 UTC No. 16613045
>>16613016
kek
I was giving them the benefit of the doubt for the first 7 flights. Now I know its fucked.
This data shit is such cope lol.
The "ICE IN THE TANKS" and "FIRE SUPRESSION" schizos are right and have been right the entire time. Ice caused the booster to fail 3 relights despite insanely heavy filters in the tanks. Meanwhile ships engines light themselves on fire when tons of carbon monoxide arent sprayed on them
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:22:17 UTC No. 16613047
>>16613045
Carbon monoxide is flammable and burns blue. Carbon dioxide is inert.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:23:01 UTC No. 16613048
>>16613023
What was the tonnage to orbit of that data?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:29:46 UTC No. 16613051
>>16613023
Probably bait but Flight 8 really was an unqualified failure of Starship V2 and its engineering.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:38:33 UTC No. 16613054
Why can't you just put the cad model of Starship in a computer and reproduce the vibrations?
>inb4 it's too computationally intensive
Elon has 200k H100 GPUs. Just say you're bad at software
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:39:36 UTC No. 16613056
>>16613051
This is the real bait
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:47:13 UTC No. 16613059
https://x.com/kerballistic07/status
>ULA has updated their website, and now show Kuiper-Atlas I as their next launch! Theyāve also posted some new photos to their Flickr showing the Atlas V is in LVOS and is currently being stacked!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:48:14 UTC No. 16613061
>>16613059
Uh oh Starlink sisters, it might be over for us
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:55:04 UTC No. 16613065
the best part is no
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:55:04 UTC No. 16613066
>>16613054
its not that easy in rocket-modelry
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 16:55:50 UTC No. 16613067
>>16613065
remove the engines
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:01:36 UTC No. 16613072
it's over
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:05:38 UTC No. 16613075
By the time Artemis 3 actually happens, kids currently in elementary school will be grown and have children of their own
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:20:20 UTC No. 16613085
>Rubio roasting Elon for being a fucking retard
Lmaooo
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:20:30 UTC No. 16613086
>>16613075
how could they pull Apollo 8 off like they did but now pretty much a similar mission is still years down the road (before more delays)?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:31:12 UTC No. 16613092
I don't want to be interested in space anymore, last Starship flight demoralized me and made me realize that rapid reusability is still far away, and that means spamming the Solar System with probes and humans probably won't happen in this century. I wish I could just stop being interested in it and getting woken up when it's the right time.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:33:36 UTC No. 16613095
>>16613059
What the hell is Flickr?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:39:53 UTC No. 16613098
>>16613096
>starship v6
>2032
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:40:52 UTC No. 16613099
>>16613085
source?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:45:58 UTC No. 16613103
>>16613098
>starship v6
>2032
>first orbital starship
>20 ton payload capacity to LEO
>32 refuelling flights needed to reach the moon
>Artemis 3 is planned 2033, after a delay from 2032, after a delay from 2031, after a delay from...
>Mars mission in 2034
EDS will say this is doomposting
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:54:03 UTC No. 16613105
>>16613095
>ULA
https://www.flickr.com/photos/ulala
>NASA HQ photos
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasah
>Johnson Space Center
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasa2
>Goddard Spaceflight Center
https://www.flickr.com/photos/gsfc/
>Kennedy Space Center
https://www.flickr.com/photos/nasak
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:57:15 UTC No. 16613108
>>16612596
Fuck yeah, actual drilling and not whatever the fuck they tried on InSight
>>16613081
>Philae's landing was 10 years ago
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:58:59 UTC No. 16613110
>>16613108
>whatever the fuck they tried on InSight
overcomplicated overengineered german autism drilling machine designed for specific regolith conditions that were not a match to the conditions the probe actually found itself in lol
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 17:59:59 UTC No. 16613112
>>16613110
"""""drilling""""" in major quotes here
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:00:07 UTC No. 16613113
>>16613111
>IFT 7
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:01:28 UTC No. 16613114
>>16612975
>Harmonic absorbers?
>You mean like the fuckhuge pendulums they use in skyscrapers to offset the natural sway.
no retard, there are many ways to dampen them or change the resonance frequency which this connecting to the sides would do
right now if the long downcomer is connected only at the top and bottom then there are a number of frequencies with respect to its length
if you change the length of the "freely vibrating" downcomer, you also change the resonance frequencies and you also restrict the amplitudes most likely
it would just add mass
think of a stringed instruments, there are standing waves when you flick one of the strings, if you change the freely vibrating length by gripping a spot on a guitars string, you also change the frequencies it vibrates with (you can hear it)
same thing here, the engines create some vibrations. some of which happen to be on the resonant frequency of the downcomer (probably), which vibrates and gets amplified due to resonance and then the amplitude on these vibrations gets large enough to loosen the seals on the lower end of the downcomer, causing leaks
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:07:36 UTC No. 16613115
>>16613111
>>16613113
incoming truthnuke:
flight 7 and 8 were targets for brilliant pebbles/ golden dome
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:15:47 UTC No. 16613122
>>16613081
How can comets produce so much gas for so long? I feel like they should've expended all of their water billions of years ago, do they just look like they produce more gas than they do because of the vacuum? Or have they only very recently been ejected from the oort cloud or something?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:18:03 UTC No. 16613124
>>16613122
you try eat chilli burrito and go cosmic, Ā”pendejo!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:20:08 UTC No. 16613126
>>16613122
They're not outgassing that much compared to their total mass, and they only do it for a few weeks or months out of an orbit that takes decades or centuries to complete. Even with that there are a whole class of "dead" comets that have expended all of their volatile mass, and there are others that have only recently been knocked down into the inner solar system.
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:21:15 UTC No. 16613127
>>16613115
So, birdstrike.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:23:22 UTC No. 16613129
>>16613121
I wonder what both stages will look like after 100 flights
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:24:25 UTC No. 16613130
>>16613129
gotchu bro
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:26:04 UTC No. 16613131
>>16612985
strap on a couple of SRBs and it would be able to, just don't launch on really cold days
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:27:54 UTC No. 16613132
>>16613126
Interesting, thanks anon
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:39:39 UTC No. 16613139
>>16613027
maybe this 3 pronged downcomer being complex as shit is (and not working as a result) is the reason that engineer got fired
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 18:42:20 UTC No. 16613140
>>16613054
they probably did but the simulation was clearly wrong
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:01:47 UTC No. 16613147
>>16613144
Holy shit the cope is insane
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:02:06 UTC No. 16613148
>>16613144
>actually, the optimal test failure rate is whatever will enable us to cope
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:10:53 UTC No. 16613152
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:13:02 UTC No. 16613153
>>16613144
Test failure rate is 0% for V2
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:15:36 UTC No. 16613155
>>16613144
no it's 80%
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:17:34 UTC No. 16613157
>still hasn't been posted
/sfg/ really is retarded
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:22:02 UTC No. 16613160
>>16613157
we've already seen it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:22:54 UTC No. 16613161
>>16613096
awwww dont worry little guy we like baby shuttles too! so cuuute!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:26:55 UTC No. 16613167
>>16613096
>Space Force will not be buying more OTVs but they learned a lot
b-bros?!
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:32:19 UTC No. 16613169
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aoj
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:49:10 UTC No. 16613180
>>16613169
Now we are coping with popsci mush?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 19:57:29 UTC No. 16613187
>>16613065
*rapes you*
Your anus doesn't feel pain anymore because I deleted it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:04:46 UTC No. 16613195
can anyone post fuel line downcomer for superheavy booster? is it just one big ass methan pipe for 33 engines?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:08:01 UTC No. 16613201
>>16613195
This is secret information they don't want to hand over to adversaries.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:09:20 UTC No. 16613203
>>16613195
https://ringwatchers.com/article/bo
I didn't see a full render of the whole downcomer though
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:09:59 UTC No. 16613204
>>16613169
Unfortunate that there's no technology on the horizon that offers extremely long burn times, very high specific impulse, and high thrust. Right now you only get to pick two.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:12:27 UTC No. 16613207
>>16613204
magnetic soaring
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:13:17 UTC No. 16613209
>>16613204
And long burn time and high thrust are currently mutually exclusive.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:44:19 UTC No. 16613235
le rapid unscheduled disassembly xD
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:46:45 UTC No. 16613237
>>16613235
ebin :D
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:46:50 UTC No. 16613238
>>16613235
Suicide is not funny
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:50:08 UTC No. 16613243
>>16613059
Did they give up on Vulcan Centaur?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 20:54:05 UTC No. 16613247
>>16613243
Still waiting on DoD certification
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:00:16 UTC No. 16613251
>>16613243
The SRB issue is still in processing. Tory said they had a solution, but it might be a solution that needs them to ditch their existing stock of GEM-63XLs and fabricate new ones. I guess they're switching over to An Atlas V/Kuiper launch because running an Atlas launch campaign would take less time than waiting for all of Vulcan's outstanding issues to clear.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:22:54 UTC No. 16613260
>>16613259
Ly a man
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:28:58 UTC No. 16613264
>>16613203
>>16613205
thanks, why wont they use the same set up for ship?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:30:14 UTC No. 16613265
>>16613144
If you arent blowing up you arent innovating enough. Me personally I would rather blow up than not
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:30:17 UTC No. 16613266
>>16613260
who the hell is Ly?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:32:38 UTC No. 16613270
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:37:51 UTC No. 16613274
when ship was welded by mexicans it looked like a michelin tyre dude and didnt explode
when they used robots to weld up v2 its too perfectly dildo shaped and vibrates
?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:39:27 UTC No. 16613277
How can we fix V2?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:40:47 UTC No. 16613281
>>16612658
kek, it wasn't me this time, I was sleeping like a log, sfg died with me
>>16612667
Belter Creole rocks
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:41:38 UTC No. 16613282
>>16613277
9 raptor3 engines
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:42:12 UTC No. 16613283
>>16613282
How about vibrations?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:42:28 UTC No. 16613284
>>16613277
skip it and go to V3
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:43:47 UTC No. 16613285
>>16613277
By putting a leash on Elon and tying him to Megabay.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:46:34 UTC No. 16613288
>>16613264
they did for v1, the booster is still v1
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:49:46 UTC No. 16613291
>>16613277
i zort eet voz ok yah?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:49:47 UTC No. 16613292
>>16613144
>Elon's philosophy seems to be the same for everything: blow it up, waste billions, and call it innovation.
come again? this chris jackson guy is a moron
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:50:00 UTC No. 16613293
>>16612722
you have to go back
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:51:46 UTC No. 16613295
>>16613283
injector plate with baffles to stabilize the combustion process, reducing oscillatory pressure waves.
gas-filled accumulators in the fuel lines, to act as shock absorbers and break the feedback loop
and making 5:20 long static fire with it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:52:01 UTC No. 16613296
>>16613144
https://x.com/jamesncantrell/status
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 21:55:38 UTC No. 16613298
>>16612722
*"EstĆ” muerto". Don't forget the acute accent, my dear amigo. Even natives forget to use it all the time, drives me insane lol.
t. anon from the land of Milei and chainsaws.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:02:12 UTC No. 16613302
>>16613300
Elon is a detriment to Mars.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:03:22 UTC No. 16613303
ŠŠ· ŠæepŠ²ŃŃ
pyŠŗ: ŠæoŠ“poŠ±Š½ocŃŠø aŠ²apŠøŠø Starship S34.
BŃepaŃŠ½ŠøŠ¹ ŠæocŃ Š² ŠŗaŠ½aŠ»e Šæpo ŠæpeŠ“Š²apŠøŃeŠ»ŃŠ½Ńe ŠæpŠøŃŠøŠ½Ń aŠ²apŠøŠø Flight 8 ŠæoŠŗa ŃŃo ŠæoŠ“ŃŠ²epŠ¶Š“aeŃcŃ. Š§Ńo eŃŃ yŠ“aŠ»ocŃ yŠ·Š½aŃŃ:
- ŠaŠ½Š½Ńe yŠŗaŠ·ŃŠ²aŃŃ, ŃŃo ŠæoŠ²ŃopŠøŠ»acŃ ŠæpoŠ±Š»eŠ¼a, ŠŗaŠŗ Š½a S33 Š²o Š²peŠ¼Ń Flight 7.
- CŠ½oŠ²a Š³apŠ¼oŠ½ŠøŃecŠŗŠøe ŠŗoŠ»eŠ±aŠ½ŠøŃ Š² paŠ·Š²oŠ“Šŗe ŃoŠæŠ»ŠøŠ²Š½ŃŃ
Š¼aŠ³ŠøcŃpaŠ»eŠ¹ c Š²aŠŗyyŠ¼Š½oŠ¹ ŠøŠ·oŠ»ŃŃŠøeŠ¹ Š“Š»Ń RVac (oŠ“Š½o ŠøŠ· Š½oŠ²oŠ²Š²eŠ“eŠ½ŠøŠ¹ V2 Šø paŠ·Š²oŠ“Šŗe Š“Š»Ń S34).
- ŠŃa aŠ²apŠøŃ Š±ŃŠ»a Š±oŠ»ee paŠ·pyŃŠøŃeŠ»ŃŠ½oŠ¹, ŃeŠ¼ Š²o Š²peŠ¼Ń Flight 7, ŠøcŠæpaŠ²Š»eŠ½ŠøŃ Šæo paŠ·Š²oŠ“Šŗe Š“Š»Ń S34 Š½e cpaŠ±oŃaŠ»Šø ŠøŠ»Šø oŠŗaŠ·aŠ»ŠøcŃ ŃyŃŃ Š»Šø Š½e Ń
yŠ¶e.
- ŠpyŠ³oŠ¹ ŠøcŃoŃŠ½ŠøŠŗ cŠ»ŠøŠ» ŠŗaŠ“p ŠøŠ· Š“Š²ŠøŠ³aŃeŠ»ŃŠ½oŠ³o oŃceŠŗa ŠæocŠ»e paŠ·pŃŠ²a THA Šø coŠæŠ»a RVac, Šø oŠ“Š½oŠ³o ŃeŠ½ŃpaŠ»ŃŠ½oŠ³o Š“Š²ŠøŠ³aŃeŠ»Ń Raptor.
- ŠpoŠ±Š»eŠ¼Ń c ŠæpopŃŠ²oŠ¼ Š¼aŠ³ŠøcŃpaŠ»eŠ¹ Š“Š»Ń Š¼eŃaŠ½a Š² Š±aŠŗe Š“Š»Ń ŠŗŠøcŠ»opoŠ“a ŠæpoŃŠ²Š»ŃŃŃcŃ ŃoŠ»ŃŠŗo Šæo Š¼epe oŠæycŃoŃeŠ½ŠøŃ Š±aŠŗa.
- B Š·aŠæpaŠ²Š»eŠ½Š½oŠ¼ cocŃoŃŠ½ŠøŠø Š¶ŠøŠ“ŠŗŠøŠ¹ ŠŗŠøcŠ»opoŠ“ Š³acŠøŃ ŠŗoŠ»eŠ±aŠ½ŠøŃ pacŠæpeŠ“eŠ»ŃŠ½Š½ŃŃ
Š¼aŠ³ŠøcŃpaŠ»eŠ¹, ŠæpŠø ŠæycŃoŠ¼ Š±aŠŗe oŠ½Šø ycŠøŠ»ŠøŠ²aŃŃcŃ.
- ŠapŠ¼oŠ½ŠøŠŗa ŠæpŠøŠ²oŠ“ŠøŃ Šŗ ŠæpopŃŠ²y Š¼aŠ³ŠøcŃpaŠ»eŠ¹ Š² Š½ŠøŠ¶Š½eŠ¹ ŃacŃŠø, Š³Š“e Š½aŃ
oŠ“ŠøŃcŃ ocŠ½oŠ²Š½aŃ paŠ·Š²oŠ“Šŗa ŠæoŠ“ RVac.
- ŠpoŃeŃŠŗŠø ŃaŠŗŠ¶e ŠæpŠøŠ²eŠ»Šø Šŗ Š½apyŃeŠ½ŠøŃ paŠ±oŃŃ Š“Š²ŠøŠ³aŃeŠ»eŠ¹ Šø peŠ³eŠ½epaŃŠøŠ²Š½oŠ³o oŃ
Š»aŠ¶Š“eŠ½ŠøŃ, ŃŃo Šø ŠæpŠøŠ²eŠ»o Šŗ ŠæoŠ“pŃŠ²y Š²o Š²peŠ¼Ń ŠæoŠ¶apa Š² oŃceŠŗe.
- OŠ±Š½oŠ²Š»ŃŠ½Š½aŃ cŠøcŃeŠ¼a ŠæoŠ“aŠ²Š»eŠ½ŠøŃ aŠ·oŃoŠ¼ Šø ŠæpoŠ“yŠ²a oŃceŠŗa Š½ŠøŠŗaŠŗ Š±Ń Š½e cŠæpaŠ²ŠøŠ»acŃ c ŃaŠŗŠøŠ¼ oŠ±ŃŃŠ¼oŠ¼ yŃeŃŠŗŠø.
ŠŠ½ŃopŠ¼aŃŠøŃ Š½ŠøŠ¶e Š¼oŠ¶eŃ ŠæoŠ¼eŠ½ŃŃŃcŃ, Š½o ŠæoŠŗa ŃŃo:
- ŠopŃŃee paŠ·Š“eŠ»eŠ½Šøe ŃoŠ¶e ycyŠ³yŠ±Š»ŃeŃ cŠøŃyaŃŠøŃ Š² oŃceŠŗe.
- He cŠ²ŃŠ·aŠ½o c ŠæŠ»aŠ¼eŠ½eŠ¼ oŃ Super Heavy Š²o Š²peŠ¼Ń paŠ·Š²opoŃa ycŠŗopŠøŃeŠ»Ń.
- ŠŃo ŃyŠ½Š“aŠ¼eŠ½ŃaŠ»ŃŠ½ŃŠ¹ ŠæpocŃŃŃ Š² ŠŗoŠ½cŃpyŠŗŃŠøŠø Starship V2 Šø Š“Š²ŠøŠ³aŃeŠ»ŃŠ½oŠ¹ ceŠŗŃŠøŠø.
- ToŠæŠ»ŠøŠ²Š½Ńe Š¼aŠ³ŠøcŃpaŠ»Šø, paŠ·Š²oŠ“Šŗy ŠæoŠ“ Š“Š²ŠøŠ³aŃeŠ»Šø Šø cŠøŠ»oŠ²oŠ¹ yŠ·eŠ» Š±yŠ“yŃ cpoŃŠ½o ŠæepeŠ“eŠ»ŃŠ²aŃŃ.
- ŠoŠŗa ŃŃo Š½eŠæoŠ½ŃŃŠ½a cyŠ“ŃŠ±a S35 Šø S36. ŠŠøŠ±o Š“opaŠ±oŃŠŗa, Š»ŠøŠ±o Š² yŃŠøŠ»Ń.
- Šo cŠ»eŠ“yŃŃŠøŠ¼ ŠŗopaŠ±Š»ŃŠ¼ Š² ŠæpoŠøŠ·Š²oŠ“cŃŠ²e Š¼oŠ³yŃ ŠæocŃaŠ²ŠøŃŃ Š½a ŠæayŠ·y ŃacŃŃ ŠæpoŃeccoŠ² Š“o peŃeŠ½ŠøŃ Šæo ŠŗoŠ½cŃpyŠŗŃŠøŠø.
- ŠoŠ¼aŠ½Š“y ŃopoŠæŠøŠ»Šø c ŃŠøŠŗcaŠ¼Šø Š½a S34, oŃcŃŠ“a Šø Š½epŠ²Š½ŃŠ¹ cŃapŃ. ŠpŃ cŠæeŃŠøŠ»Šø.
- Ha ŠøcŠæpaŠ²Š»eŠ½ŠøŃ ŠæoŠ½aŠ“oŠ±ŠøŃcŃ cŠøŠ»ŃŠ½o Š±oŠ»ŃŃe Š²peŠ¼eŠ½Šø, ŃeŠ¼ 4-6 Š½eŠ“eŠ»Ń.
- HyŠ¶Š½Ń ŠŗoŠ¼ŠæŠ»eŠŗcŠ½Ńe Š½aŠ·eŠ¼Š½Ńe ŠøcŠæŃŃaŠ½ŠøŃ c Š“Š»ŠøŃeŠ»ŃŠ½ŃŠ¼Šø oŠ³Š½eŠ²ŃŠ¼Šø ŃecŃaŠ¼Šø.
concerning
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:04:18 UTC No. 16613304
The Starship S34 crash was likely caused by repeated harmonic oscillation issues in vacuum-insulated fuel lines, leading to structural failures, leaks, engine malfunctions, and an explosion, with further design overhauls now urgently needed.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:05:11 UTC No. 16613306
>>16613300
Why are those faggots hiding the source? It was a Russian telegram channel "starbasepost"
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:08:04 UTC No. 16613307
>>16613306
Hello zigger
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:08:15 UTC No. 16613308
>>16613296
>this is what success looks like
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:10:06 UTC No. 16613309
>>16613308
The road to success is paved with failure. It's not a success, but they'll get there. Demoralization agents can go away, now.
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:10:43 UTC No. 16613310
>>16613300
So I get this right ... (likely hot) methane bled into the oxygen tank to a point where the mixture became ignitable. "Harmonic oscillations" sounds like bullshit for "lol we designed the pipes incorrectly" or simply shitty welding jobs (which might not be picked up on in static pressure testing of the welds / piping). Tl;dr ... engine is shit and now kaputt?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:12:26 UTC No. 16613311
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:14:05 UTC No. 16613314
changing ship methane tank downcomer cone and fuel pipe into this shit was a disaster
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:14:28 UTC No. 16613315
>>16613300
>Data indicated that the problem like on S33 during Flight 7 has repeated
AHAHHAHAHAHAHAH, fucking told you retards.
>The fate of S35 and S36 is still unclear.
yeah no shit, they'd both explode if they were to go up now. Don't expect any launches until summer. My uneducated guess is end of June/start of July
>The team was rushed with fixes
great, because that's always a good idea when you're dealing with extremely precise, extremely fragile objects.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:15:07 UTC No. 16613317
>>16613311
Based
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:16:08 UTC No. 16613319
>>16613315
>great, because that's always a good idea when you're dealing with extremely precise, extremely fragile objects.
Literally the opposite of what Starship is. It's cheap, it's robust, and it happens to have a badly designed aft end to replace.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:22:10 UTC No. 16613322
>>16613300
It is unironically good that SpaceX knows the cause and it is a relatively straightforward issue to resolve.
RIP S35 and S36, maybe SpaceX will jump straight to the 9 engine ship.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:23:26 UTC No. 16613325
>>16613319
it's a rocket and all rockets are fragile. Yes, it's cheap and let's hope it stays that way. No, it's not robust, not yet at the very least, robust rockets don't explode BEFORE reaching orbit
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:24:27 UTC No. 16613326
>>16613322
>It is unironically good that SpaceX knows the cause and it is a relatively straightforward issue to resolve.
hey I'm getting deja vu...
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:25:46 UTC No. 16613327
BORN TO VIBRATE
RAPTOR IS A FUCK
Kill Em All 2025
I am elon man
410,757,864,530 DEAD DOWNCOMERS
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:27:53 UTC No. 16613329
>>16613326
Yeah the EDS crowd really thought ice in the tanks was the end of Starship.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:28:05 UTC No. 16613330
>>16613310
harmonic oscillations has a very specific meaning, you just don't seem to understand even after multiple explanations
again, nothing to do with the engines
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:29:25 UTC No. 16613331
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:29:30 UTC No. 16613332
>>16613300
just add more damping, a more thorough design update can be done in parallel
the tiles need to be tested
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:30:30 UTC No. 16613333
hls when
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:31:18 UTC No. 16613335
>>16613300
>this all repeated because Elon rushed flight 8 before flight 7 issues could be fully characterized and cleared up
but I was specifically told that SpaceX works best when Elon is breathing down everybody's necks and micromanaging them
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:31:43 UTC No. 16613336
when is the next light show bois
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:33:06 UTC No. 16613338
>>16613336
I guesstimate 4-6 months to re-engineer and re-qualify the ship and resolve the issues in a satisfactory manner for return to flight.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:33:09 UTC No. 16613339
>>16613331
Header tanks remain a terrible cope and NEED to go.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:33:48 UTC No. 16613340
>>16613338
2 months
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:34:17 UTC No. 16613341
>>16613337
That would make the intake pipes start sucking gas instead of liquid sooner.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:35:03 UTC No. 16613342
>>16613300
Sounds plausible, though a bit pessimistic especially in regards to S35 and S36.
There's still testing that can be done with hotstaging and booster reuse that the two could focus on even if they're unable to actually complete a burn to orbit.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:35:33 UTC No. 16613343
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:35:53 UTC No. 16613344
>>16613331
explain to me why there needs to be a long ass pipe from nose to ass, why cant it have tank on bottom like booster?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:36:03 UTC No. 16613345
>>16613340
2 weeks x10
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:36:44 UTC No. 16613346
>>16613342
What you say is true on a certain hyper-rational level but you're neglecting the demoralizing effect of blowing up another starship in the same way, even if everybody is told up front that it's going to explode so don't even hope for anything else.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:36:52 UTC No. 16613347
>>16613343
>>16613345
Elon's sperg timeline is 1 month, 2 months gives them time to actually fix it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:37:10 UTC No. 16613348
>>16613340
>>16613345
Elon's initial X-posted estimate is four to six weeks.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:37:18 UTC No. 16613349
25 flights this year btw
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:37:41 UTC No. 16613350
>>16613347
he should take the required time to fix it instead of rushing it again.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:38:35 UTC No. 16613352
>>16613347
>>16613348
okay so I'll make sure to order some pizza for the fireworks of IFT-9
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:38:35 UTC No. 16613353
>>16613344
not sure but I think its for better control during the bellyflip manuever
would be more difficult (or impossible, not sure) due to the weight of the engines
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:38:56 UTC No. 16613355
>>16613350
Yeah and he should stop fucking e-girls but here we are
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:39:28 UTC No. 16613356
>>16613346
https://youtu.be/5dUCpAfRxnI
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:39:50 UTC No. 16613357
>>16613350
>he should
umm sweaty, dind't you hear?? it's actually good that the roggits are exploding! ummm we're like learning and stuff. YEAh! go mars go MIGA
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:40:05 UTC No. 16613358
>>16613330
Yeah to me it does sound like a technobabble excuse for we either donĀ“t wanna admit the mistake or have no fucking clue what the mistake might be. Still considering if there was any engineering flaw just for the sake of it.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:40:13 UTC No. 16613359
>>16612266
>rocket meant not to tip over
>tips over
>rocket meant to tip over
>tips over the wrong way
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:41:55 UTC No. 16613360
>>16613359
I'm sure they can engineer it to always tip over in one direction. Just cut off two of the landing legs. It's that easy in tippery.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:42:34 UTC No. 16613361
this is why you yanks have to get rid of your tipping culture. It's cancer.
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:43:19 UTC No. 16613362
>>16613331
One to the right does look funny to me. Like it could shake loose.
>>16613339
They are sure handy retard chambers still.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:43:40 UTC No. 16613364
>>16613335
I was told that Elon doesn't even care about space
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:44:03 UTC No. 16613365
I for one await Eager's analysis. As a rocketlab investor and autist without EDS, I trust him to be impartial in a way others cannot be.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:45:13 UTC No. 16613366
>>16613359
>become ungovernable
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:48:33 UTC No. 16613368
>>16613359
why don't they use some long extending legs, like really long, just to make fucking sure.
also why don't they have some extra nozzles all around the body that can jump it up and give it some time to rotate so it comes back down the right way? this is pure retardation at this point, hoping to make it with those short and narrow legs.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:49:43 UTC No. 16613371
>>16613368
>long extendy legs
the longer you make them, the more likely they are to simply break off
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:49:58 UTC No. 16613372
>>16613335
think about it, do you honestly expect him to micro spaceX on top of Tesla ON TOP of doge shit? I have a feeling that he tried, and this is the result. No matter how great he is, Elon has limits. In trying to focus on everything, he'll complete nothing.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:50:08 UTC No. 16613373
>Build wide legs
>Place wide legs on the upper part of the craft you want to land
>Impossible to tip over
It's literally that easy. Why the fuck is no one doing it? A bit extra weight can't possibly be less worth it than risking the entire mission because you don't know how to land
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:50:43 UTC No. 16613374
>>16613331
What is the point of those thin lines to RVacs?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:51:05 UTC No. 16613375
>>16613371
make'em thicc, telescopic, they can retract afterwards. don't care. what's the total cost of two lost projects? compared to r&d to make fucking sure? get other people on the job. this is retarded as fuck
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:51:43 UTC No. 16613377
>>16613371
just add more legs on top of the legs so when the legs break you still have legs
>>16613373
it's not that easy in probe leg-ry
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:51:46 UTC No. 16613378
>>16613335
I was told Elon doesnt do anything, he just buys the rockets
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:52:34 UTC No. 16613379
>>16613371
They're landing boosters now, that's not an excuse
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:52:35 UTC No. 16613380
>>16613372
The word "expect" has multiple meanings.
>do you honestly [anticipate that he will] micro spaceX on top of Tesla ON TOP of doge shit?
No.
>do you honestly [want him to] micro spaceX on top of Tesla ON TOP of doge shit?
I want him to delegate or drop the Tesla and doge crap and focus on SpaceX. I don't anticipate that he will, but that's what I want him to do.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:53:46 UTC No. 16613381
>>16613374
retards, booster obviosly doesnt have 20 pipes in it
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:54:31 UTC No. 16613383
>>16613379
SpaceX lands (or catches) boosters, not intuitive machines. If we're talking about a SpaceX lander, then obviously just land it upright on some legs. But we'r talking about Intuitive Machines, so they should drop the legs idea and focus on making a lander that's MEANT to tip over.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:54:57 UTC No. 16613384
>>16613298
How is Milei doing btw? My grandmother is back home there but I dont think she tracks politics and my mother doesnt talk much about it because she lives in America now.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:55:53 UTC No. 16613385
>>16613383
>making a lander that's MEANT to tip over.
it fails tipping over, what do
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:55:58 UTC No. 16613386
>>16613380
>I want him to delegate or drop the Tesla and doge crap and focus on SpaceX.
yeah me too, but it could be argued that doge would have better long term effects. Provided it doesn't turn out to be a simple political game to get headlines and public support, as is increasingly appearing to be the case...
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:56:41 UTC No. 16613387
>>16613381
Was it designed by the genius who left SpaceX in February this year?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:56:55 UTC No. 16613388
/sfg/ - Spanish Fluency General
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 22:57:55 UTC No. 16613389
>>16613386
Even if doge is being done in earnest, the chance of it succeeding in having a lasting meaningful change is basically zero. Democrats will be back in control of the federal government sooner or later and they'll waste no time in undoing any progress doge can make.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:02:18 UTC No. 16613390
>>16613384
he's a fraudster and traitor. South America must be cursed with its leaders
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:04:52 UTC No. 16613391
>>16613390
Is this the original argentine anon? If so is this because of that scamcoin debacle someone mentioned?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:07:16 UTC No. 16613395
>>16613365
he is a rocketlab investor?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:07:50 UTC No. 16613396
>>16613391
>>16613390
I dont think this is the original anon. Notice he didnt capitalize his H at the start of the sentence like the original did, and he also refers to South America as a whole instead of just Argentina.
TLDR this anons english is somehow worse than the argies yet pretends to be him
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:08:16 UTC No. 16613398
>>16613395
He is, he has disclosed this in a few videos.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:08:22 UTC No. 16613399
>>16613391
no I'm not him. just answering the question though
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:09:36 UTC No. 16613401
>>16613372
but he isn't focusing on "everything"
he is focusing one thing at a time, but rotating this from day to day
so serially focusing on one thing at a time over multiple different things, the total time dedicated to a certain task taking more or less days depending on what happens to be especially pressing
he doesn't abandon anything, just lessens the time he uses
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:10:59 UTC No. 16613403
>>16613399
Dont fucking reply to my post if Im only addressing one person you stupid nigglet. You werent invited to the discussion, you have no roots in Argentina I dont want to hear your worthless opinion, I want it from the person living there.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:12:18 UTC No. 16613404
>>16613403
yes this is the original argentine anon
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:17:43 UTC No. 16613410
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:18:14 UTC No. 16613413
>>16613403
you can't trust South American opinions
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:18:20 UTC No. 16613414
>>16613402
>cancer research
Sadly wasted funding these days. Would rather give my blood to a child with cancer under the current conditions. More useful.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:19:51 UTC No. 16613420
>>16613387
sabotage
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:20:06 UTC No. 16613422
>>16613401
Context switching burns energy. He's wasting his potential by switching contexts so frequently.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:20:40 UTC No. 16613424
>>16613408
the engines point in different directions briefly shortly before shutdown
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:21:15 UTC No. 16613426
>>16613423
certified kino
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:21:41 UTC No. 16613428
>>16613422
he has done that for since he started SpaceX and probably even earlier
seems to have worked fine
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:24:30 UTC No. 16613433
>>16613428
He's getting older, and at the same time taking on new interests (X, doge)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:29:55 UTC No. 16613436
>>16613384
Nta but I'm Argentine too so I'll answer. Country didn't blow up, and so far it's stable. Not good, but stable. Haven't paid attention since inflation stopped being as much of an issue (like most people did) but as far as I know nothing much can change as long as he doesn't have a Congress majority, and there's Congress elections this year, so we'll see. Still, I really, really don't miss having my money be worth half as much every other week, so I'm thankful for that, at least
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:34:45 UTC No. 16613438
>>16613401
okay, retard, I'll break it down real nice and simple here for you. Before doge, Elon spent his week between SpaceX and Tesla + some other minutia. After doge, Elon is spending his week between SpaceX, Tesla, some other minutia AND doge. It doesn't matter how you try to sugarcoat it, this is a clear case of dividing his attention and doing it too much. Do you understand now?
also
>he is focusing one thing at a time, but rotating this from day to day
are you his personal dicksucker? How do you know Elon's daily schedule?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:35:18 UTC No. 16613440
>>16613277
delete the extra ring for now? idk
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:35:46 UTC No. 16613441
>>16613436
What percentage of argies are on 4cuck? I see a whole fuckin lot of you everywhere on here not gonna lie.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:39:10 UTC No. 16613443
>>16613433
His greatest priority should be setting up a system that doesn't require an Elon. SpaceX seems to just fall apart immediately
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:39:44 UTC No. 16613444
>>16613443
Grok?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:40:05 UTC No. 16613445
>>16613441
There's always one or two in every thread or general and a good chunk of them are mentally ill
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:41:57 UTC No. 16613447
>>16613443
SpaceX seems good at routine operations without him, but for innovation it needs him.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:43:02 UTC No. 16613448
>>16613438
before doge there was xAI, before that there was twitter, before that neuralink and boring company
I know about the serial thing because it has come up in interviews
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:44:29 UTC No. 16613450
>>16613447
>SpaceX seems good at routine operations
not with the recent f9 failure/near miss
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:45:18 UTC No. 16613451
>>16613450
out of how many F9 launches without Elon's micro? I think they're doing well.
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:47:55 UTC No. 16613453
>>16613444
You heard me, bitch ... :)
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:50:35 UTC No. 16613455
when did /sfg/ get a tripfaggot?
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:51:16 UTC No. 16613456
>>16613344
They want some weight up in the nose to get the balance right during the bellyflop
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:52:04 UTC No. 16613457
>>16613453
who heard who is the question
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:54:21 UTC No. 16613459
>>16613455
after the last flight, to no one's surprise. Xe'll get bored in a week or two
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:57:39 UTC No. 16613462
>>16613448
yeah and none of these things were followed by two starship RUDs.
Anonymous at Sat, 8 Mar 2025 23:58:52 UTC No. 16613463
>>16613462
you are making retarded conclusions
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:00:18 UTC No. 16613464
>>16613384
Well, it's kind of complicated to say in just a few words. I'm not an expert on economics as Milei literally is lol, but as far as I can see things are much, much better than before. First and foremost, our economy has stabilized quite a lot, going now through single-digit monthly inflation, which you First Worlders might think is a lot, yet it's actually an improvement of an order of magnitude (or even two) compared to how things were during the previous presidency. Also, plenty of foreign investments and companies are starting to arrive here, forcing our local industries to adapt and reduce prices to compete. Less taxes, although still a lot compared to the global average, and more, say, room to breathe when dealing with them and any financial obligations, as you don't have to declare every small and trivial thing to our revenue service anymore at the level we used to. Hell, he even shut down AFIP some months ago, which is basically our IRS lmao. I like him, and just like I have hope in Elon and the Mars dream, I have hope things can get better here someday, although it might take decades.
>>16613391
That's not me jaja, had to wait for this fucking long-ass timer to post.
>>16613436
ĀæOtro argentino en esefgee? El mundo es muy pequeƱo, boludo, y eso que somos solo como 10 personas en este general jaja...
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:01:36 UTC No. 16613465
https://x.com/INiallAnderson/status
>A couple people have requested clarification, from the information we currently have this is the likely footprint the Starbase Gigabay will have:
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:02:11 UTC No. 16613466
>>16613463
>Elon has his primary focus on SpaceX
>starship is advancing, tests are successful and give good data, each design improves upon the last
>Elon switches his primary focus to DOGE
>starship immediately floundering, tests are horrible failures and give little useful data, no improvement in design.
>T-THERES NO CORRELATION
I'm sorry anon, but you suffer from EDS. And I have a feeling that IFT-9 will prove me right.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:02:42 UTC No. 16613467
>>16613465
https://x.com/INiallAnderson/status
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:04:34 UTC No. 16613470
>>16613467
OHMYGOD spacex is going bankrup!!1!!1!11!
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:05:10 UTC No. 16613471
Superheavy should be doing suicide burns. F9 suicide burn is way way more impressive.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:05:43 UTC No. 16613472
>>16613466
I've seen this kind of retarded whining basically non-stop, the cause just changes
this time it happens to be DOGE
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:07:58 UTC No. 16613475
>>16613467
>just like the render
what render? anyone has it?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:08:53 UTC No. 16613476
Just welded the methane line to side of tank, like they did to the header tank, problem solved.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:10:35 UTC No. 16613479
>>16613476
What else did you do anon
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:11:21 UTC No. 16613480
>>16613479
Getting fired.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:17:32 UTC No. 16613488
just delete the downcomer, best part is no part
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:18:27 UTC No. 16613490
>>16613479
Just shake hands with Elon, he said everything will be fine, also flight 9 in two weeks.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:18:44 UTC No. 16613491
Everything was going good when that bullheaded old man refused to sell his tiny piece of land in the middle of starbase to SpaceX. Then he settled, and it had been bad luck ever sinceā¦
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:21:14 UTC No. 16613494
>>16613488
if we started with the methalox mixed we could even save the weight of the bulkhead
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:23:53 UTC No. 16613496
>>16613494
Literally this. methalox monoprop.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:26:09 UTC No. 16613499
>>16613494
>>16613495
-1 turbopump per engine as well
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:27:10 UTC No. 16613501
>>16613456
i never seen bellyflop fail, thats cope resulting in 2 50m long pipes
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:27:12 UTC No. 16613502
>>16613472
>STOP NOTICING
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:27:14 UTC No. 16613503
>>16613495
>>16613499
Worst case scenario is the ship explodes, which it already does, so if you think about it there are a lot of upsides and literally no downsides.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:30:17 UTC No. 16613505
>>16613495
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/13559
>Tom has some great stories about experimenting with premixed O2/CH4 before SpaceX. That is not recommended haha.
>https://x.com/lrocket/status/13683
>(Not my idea)! We tried to run it as a monopropellant and found it only detonated. So we kept lowering the mixture ratio and found that at below about 1.8 O/F it would not ignite and above that it would detonate. End of (someone elses) SBIR
>First frame of blowing up the "Mox Box"
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:35:37 UTC No. 16613507
>>16613505
>monopropellant and found it only detonated
RDE Raptor easy as
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:40:43 UTC No. 16613513
>>16613505
>Big tank of 1.8 premix
>Tiny LOX tank, right above engines
>Maybe not even that and just an air intake
>Mix it to detonate
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:42:53 UTC No. 16613514
>>16613505
so make it into a pulsed detonation engine.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:45:53 UTC No. 16613517
Love how every dumb idea was already theorized and seriously considered in spaceflight
>Just set nukes off as you move forward LOL
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:48:09 UTC No. 16613518
>>16613517
I was just going to say: make Starship a pulsed orion ship. Superheavy can still use raptors and get it away from the surface
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:48:50 UTC No. 16613519
>>16612275
It depressed me to see who Bill Nye really is. I loved his show as a kid, and now he's your average neoliberal faggot mouthpiece on top of being a huge prick.
Are there any good kids science shows these days? Or do I have to hunt down old episodes of Popular Mechanics for Kids and Beakman's World for my son?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 00:59:21 UTC No. 16613523
>>16613467
>>16613465
doing this in a city would require months or years of paper work and hundreds of thousands worth of down payment to the local government
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:01:43 UTC No. 16613525
>>16613520
Iām going to commission a twitter drawfag to give me a sad CONTOUR rocket girl (none of you know about this NASA mission because you are all fakecels)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:02:26 UTC No. 16613526
>>16613517
thats how space travel works in the expanse and nobody has a problem with it
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:02:59 UTC No. 16613527
>>16613501
And every bellyflop that's been done was with a ship that had header tanks.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:06:49 UTC No. 16613528
>>16612883
Believe it or not anon, the 2nd stage getting to orbit is really all that matters with a rocket. And no it's not that amazing that they have perfected the landing system, they've done it literally hundreds of times with Falcon. Stop coping.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:11:32 UTC No. 16613530
>>16613528
Youāre reading between the lines like a woman. I was simply pointing out the humor in the fact that an iterative program with expected failures got its landing right the first time, whereas the by-the-books program lost its booster when it was supposed to land first try. The subverted expectations, if you will.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:21:54 UTC No. 16613532
>>16613530
And I am calling you a retard, I didn't need to read between the lines to figure that out.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:22:24 UTC No. 16613533
>>16613532
Apparently you didnāt read, period.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:27:43 UTC No. 16613535
>>16613533
There's nothing between the lines desu makes sense
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:33:10 UTC No. 16613542
>>16613528
getting to orbit is easy
reuse is hard and what matters
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:37:07 UTC No. 16613546
>>16613542
So then why can't they get to orbit if it's so easy?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:39:07 UTC No. 16613547
>>16613546
why would getting to orbit be a milestone that matters? They are aiming for landing the 2nd stage
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:39:56 UTC No. 16613549
>>16613546
NTA but obviously spacex know how to get to orbit in general. And specifically, with starship, they were clearly on-track to get there with block 1. But they pivoted to block 2 and now have a plumbing issue of some sort that should have been solved but wasnāt. But youāre blowing it out of proportion if you think this is some sort of permanent road block.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:43:32 UTC No. 16613551
>>16613547
>why would getting to orbit be a milestone that matter?
you are so hopelessly lost.
>>16613549
I never said it's a permanent road block, but it IS a road block and it shouldn't be happening. You can try however you like to make this seem like a non-issue, but it is an issue. Do I think it will halt their progress forever? No, but it is a problem that shouldn't be happening, and indicates internal problems that need to be fixed if they want Starship to be a serious launch vehicle. Not being able to demonstrate orbital capabilities by launch 8 is a pathetic display in this industry, I don't care how many boosters they catch, anyone with a brain knew they were never going to struggle catching the booster given their track record with falcon.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:45:07 UTC No. 16613554
>>16613438
>>16613448
>>16613401
Don't forget all the twitter in between, resulting in some probably sleep deprivation
https://www.yahoo.com/news/see-elon
He appears to have had insomnia already the past week, not good
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:46:18 UTC No. 16613555
>>16613551
>Not being able to demonstrate orbital capabilities by launch 8 is a pathetic display in this industry
Okay buddy
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:51:28 UTC No. 16613559
>>16613300
Mars fever
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:53:38 UTC No. 16613560
>>16613546
>why can't they get to orbit
Anon when you put this little effort into bait it just makes you look like an idiot.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:53:40 UTC No. 16613561
>>16613300
>fixes will take much longer than 4-6 weeks
knew it, elon just posted that guess to sate his ego
I'm out, there's nothing interesting happening but routine ISS shit in the next 2-3 months for spaceflight, until ispace crashes into the moon again, godamnit
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 01:54:38 UTC No. 16613564
https://x.com/ISROSpaceflight/statu
>Data from Chandrayaan-3 has just narrowed down the search for water ice on the Moon!
>Using the data collected by ISRO's Vikram Lander, researchers have found that water ice may be more widespread on the Moon than previously though. Vikram was equipped with a surface drill (called ChaSTE) to provide temperature measurements at various depths upto 10 cm below the Lunar surface. ChaSTE found that a sun-facing slope inclined at 6Ā° recorded a peak temp. of 82Ā°C during Lunar day, and went down to -168Ā°C as they neared the Lunar night. However, just 1 meter away, a flat region of the surface recorded a significantly lower peak temp. of 59Ā°C. With the help of this data, researchers were able to derive a model, according to which, slopes inclined at >14Ā° facing away from the Sun near the Moon's poles would be cool enough to harbor water ice only a few centimeters below the surface! Observations like these are greatly beneficial for the mission planning and design of future missions - such as the ISRO-JAXA LuPEx mission, for which, water prospecting and analysis are going to be one of the key objectives!
We might not need to go to the south pole after all.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:02:32 UTC No. 16613567
>tesla cars, dealerships, and charging stations are being destroyed around the country
>protests are taking place at spacex headquarters
how long until they try and burn spacex stuff to the ground?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:04:18 UTC No. 16613569
>>16613567
2 weeks
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:04:51 UTC No. 16613570
>>16613360
It's a long way to tippery-ary.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:05:25 UTC No. 16613572
>>16613460
YO! SHES LOST SOME WEIGHT! good for her :)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:07:11 UTC No. 16613574
so its 2025, 9 years after the interplanetary stransport system was unvailed, and its weak and tiny sucessor has not yet made it to orbit once and keeps blowing up.
When you take a step back, is spacex actually any betteror faster tha jpl?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:07:49 UTC No. 16613575
>>16613574
How drunk are you?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:08:54 UTC No. 16613577
>>16613572
Firefly is putting smashing successes under their belt and healing the workforce around the industry. She converted to christianity and lost weight. Sheetz also left his gay little CNBC job and is now a relationship manager with them. They have the mandate of heaven
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:10:01 UTC No. 16613578
>>16613561
Anything that uses the phrase "fundamental miscalculation" should be regarded with a lot of skepticism. You could apply the same criticism to the forward flap design on V1, but changing those didn't harm or slow the program in any noticeable way. It also makes a big deal out of scraping entire vehicles shortly after we watched the 34th ship used on the 8th test flight. The predictions about it "taking way more than 4-6 weeks" sounds exactly like copeposting you get from from NASA and ULA employees every time their disbelief over SpaceX's progress gets to be too much, and the certainty that "comprehensive ground testing" is needed pretty much confirms it.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:18:12 UTC No. 16613583
>>16613578
You actually believe SpaceX will launch Starship again before mid of April and it will succeed without RUD?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:29:07 UTC No. 16613588
>>16613583
Mid April is possible, late April is more likely. I'd like them to get to reentry again but it took them 3 flights with V1 to get through that point. Right now I'd say that it's 50-50 on making it or finding a new way to blow up the ship. The important point is that all of the doom wordage about "fundamental miscalculation" "fate unclear" and "pause in production" should be ignored because it doesn't map to any of other design changes that SpaceX has made or how their hardware production rate has been affected by previous incidents.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:30:38 UTC No. 16613589
>>16613588
theyāre not gonna fly for another three months
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:32:17 UTC No. 16613591
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:32:54 UTC No. 16613592
>>16613590
Battle scars from DEW defenses on chinese sats.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:32:58 UTC No. 16613593
>>16613590
No surprise, i'm sure they rebuild the fucking thing between launches
what a giant waste of money
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:33:06 UTC No. 16613594
>>16613590
reusability is a meme
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:37:30 UTC No. 16613595
>>16613589
You can keep jerking yourself off like that, but we both know that's not the case
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:41:56 UTC No. 16613597
>>16613560
>>16613555
So why can't they get to orbit?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:44:16 UTC No. 16613599
>>16613424
The flight computer overcompensating to kill all horizontal velocity/rotation right at the end
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:45:18 UTC No. 16613600
>>16613597
Because the upper stage blew up twice in a row now
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:48:09 UTC No. 16613601
>>16613495
I worked on MoX at NASA ask me anything
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 02:59:16 UTC No. 16613606
>>16613424
that's a thing it does for style points
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:01:50 UTC No. 16613610
>>16613601
where did you work at
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:02:34 UTC No. 16613612
>>16613601
anything?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:07:08 UTC No. 16613617
>>16613612
anything
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:09:16 UTC No. 16613619
>>16613617
anything?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:09:26 UTC No. 16613620
>>16613619
anything!
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:09:40 UTC No. 16613621
>>16613601
Based on what we know now, why would we even try MOX?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:10:36 UTC No. 16613622
>>16613621
We wouldn't. It does has niche uses like mining (pipe it into a crack in the ground)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:19:04 UTC No. 16613627
China has had 10 launches this year so far. By this time last year, they had also had only 10 launches. Is 2025 shaping up to be another disappointing year for Chinese spaceflight?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:21:36 UTC No. 16613628
>>16613627
2025 is shaping up to be a disappointing year for Earth spaceflight
>>16613625
Starship will be scrapped and converted to farm equipment soon enough
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:25:06 UTC No. 16613630
https://x.com/AusSpaceAgency/status
>The Elders ensured the capsule was recovered in a manner that was environmentally conscious and considerate of the deep and continuing connection First Nations people have with the land.
It sounds cool when they put it that way
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:27:15 UTC No. 16613632
>>16613630
we need more space priests
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:28:28 UTC No. 16613634
>>16613630
We must consult the tribe for permission to launch and land (iām talking about the jews)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:29:52 UTC No. 16613635
>>16613630
Australians fell off hard. Used to be a hardy bunch. Now theyāre just virtue signaling pansies
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:37:07 UTC No. 16613642
>>16613630
ask how much they paid the injuns
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:42:01 UTC No. 16613645
>>16613630
>muh land cunt, its like sacred or some shit
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 03:43:32 UTC No. 16613646
>>16613630
>It sounds cool when they put it that way
No it doesn't, they are allowing archaic religion to have dominance over science.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 04:02:36 UTC No. 16613658
>>16613630
No it doesn't, I get that shit all the fucking time. Every corpo announcement here starts with some fuckin shit about "elders past, present, and emerging"
Fuck them
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 04:05:26 UTC No. 16613663
>>16613658
Decadent self-hating leftist ruled "society"
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 05:08:11 UTC No. 16613699
>>16613630
Sounds unbelievably pathetic Aussie anon
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 06:12:10 UTC No. 16613717
License for 25 starship launches in 2025 btw
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 06:14:42 UTC No. 16613718
MUG sugar free root beer is the worst sugar free root beer of all
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 06:42:33 UTC No. 16613723
once reuse happens, launch rates will scale up fast
(copeium lol)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 06:47:19 UTC No. 16613728
>>16613723
Is that before or after OLM becomes reusable?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 06:51:33 UTC No. 16613731
>>16613728
reusable launch infrastructure is a meme
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:07:46 UTC No. 16613738
>>16612965
The goose is loose
I repeat
The goose is loose
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:15:47 UTC No. 16613742
>>16613402
When is he supposed to become the head of NASA/get rejected?
šļø Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:20:40 UTC No. 16613743
i poop shit and fuck wit
the niggers and i have entered an uneasy alliance
haha jk UCK YOU
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:27:50 UTC No. 16613748
>>16613741
Wait hold on, that's not how it went down.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:32:20 UTC No. 16613750
TDG !!YByxW7AXs7/ at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:32:57 UTC No. 16613751
>>16613457
Heh. Certainly would not insult a toaster. ;)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:34:52 UTC No. 16613754
>>16613630
This guy cucked to cavemen (literal hunter gatherers) that spend all day huffing gasoline and raping kids. At least they invented a stick!
It doesn't sound so great anymore.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:36:04 UTC No. 16613755
>>16613718
For me it's Oliet Bangs
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:39:45 UTC No. 16613757
>>16613755
same. oliet bangs>>a&w>>>mug
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:41:15 UTC No. 16613759
>>16612974
Banana vibration dampers.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 07:49:13 UTC No. 16613762
>>16613759
>diapers
you have my attention
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:01:50 UTC No. 16613769
>>16613527
they could be on bottom of the ship like on booster, saves 100m of pipes
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:03:09 UTC No. 16613770
>>16613527
the bellyflops that failed didnt have landing fuel tanks at all, nose tanks are dumb af
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:51:08 UTC No. 16613789
>>16613742
Still have to wait a bit longer. Could be late this month or until April.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:54:01 UTC No. 16613792
No flight for a minimum of 8 months while they rework the entire design, sorry goys
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:55:40 UTC No. 16613793
its just a small leak, better venting and an extra clamp or too will do it
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 08:57:29 UTC No. 16613795
>>16613793
The exact thinking that got us to Flight 8. Fuck off.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:10:14 UTC No. 16613799
>>16613795
Just add more, if they actually need to rework everyrhing for new ships then what does it matter if you blow up the already built ships instead of scrapping them?
Better to launch than not if it doesnt affect the work on the fix negatively and with a non-hostuke FAA, it shouldnt
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:12:03 UTC No. 16613801
>>16613799
What's the point if they can't test anything relevant ?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:17:42 UTC No. 16613803
>>16613801
They are testing operational reliability of the booster and the launch mount in the very least, tweaking them
And maybe a temp fix actually works on the ship and they get to test the tiles
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:22:23 UTC No. 16613805
>>16613803
They know the launch mount is fucked and all the drastic changes will come with 2nd tower
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:24:29 UTC No. 16613806
>>16613805
Knowing how and why it is fucked in an exact manner matters
Knowing what angle is the best for landing and how it affdcts the tower matters
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:25:28 UTC No. 16613808
>>16613795
rockets are all right at the edge of blowing up anyways
build and launch and get cadence up, succeed or fail
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:37:04 UTC No. 16613812
https://x.com/FloSpacenerd/status/1
>Here is a comparison of the boosterās alignment during its approach to the launch tower between flights 5, 7, and 8:
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:41:08 UTC No. 16613814
>>16613812
huh, looks safer, but it looks like they are wasting more fuel
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 09:46:21 UTC No. 16613818
>>16613344
Did you see the fuel sensors when it blew its engines and started tumbling last launch?
Yeah, that's why it needs header tanks.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:20:54 UTC No. 16613833
>>16613823
the debris might significantly raise the GDP of those countries
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:22:00 UTC No. 16613834
>>16613645
It didn't have any petrol to drink, so they didn't care.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:33:40 UTC No. 16613838
>>16613801
Launching rockets is cool
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:33:40 UTC No. 16613839
>>16613525
haha I know about it now
no longer a fakecel >:)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:44:18 UTC No. 16613843
>>16613706
ship feet... uooooh....
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:47:31 UTC No. 16613847
>>16613806
and why do you think they don't have this information already? Booster is basically a finished product now, there's not much to learn or at least we have no idea if there is. Ship is what matters and there's nothing to learn if it just explodes the same way as previous two times
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 10:50:02 UTC No. 16613849
>>16613806
The problem is that they already have a new design for chopsticks and OLM ready, they can't exactly test them if they are still building it.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:07:07 UTC No. 16613855
>>16613706
pic needs to be updated
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:18:10 UTC No. 16613858
>>16613847
it is in no way finished
they don't have it becaus perfecting the operations requires iteration and practice
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:19:11 UTC No. 16613859
>>16613849
so what?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:26:17 UTC No. 16613864
>>16613858
>it is in no way finished
it is at the very bare minimum finished enough to be operational. Wasting a full starship mission to tinker with a few secondary variables is beyond retarded, especially when you consider that there are maybe a dozen (possibly even more) missions worth of testing before Ship is completed.
>they don't have it becaus perfecting the operations requires iteration and practice
and they have already done this enough times to reliably land the booster with no damage. Unless you have actual proof of some authority figure saying otherwise, sit the fuck down.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:26:27 UTC No. 16613865
lads, we remove the flaps and side heatshield
we put heatshield on nose and make it reenter nose 1st just like avatar in eve online
ez
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:27:28 UTC No. 16613866
pic related >>16613865
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 11:30:02 UTC No. 16613868
>>16613865
>how to make a kinetic kill vehicle
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:08:51 UTC No. 16613878
>>16613738
will nobody think of the space rats in all this?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:22:31 UTC No. 16613888
>>16613741
Desu Rocket Boy was in the wrong imo. There's a time and place for everything, but sperging out about your dream job is perfectly acceptable on an anonymous public forum. And NASA isn't a sanctimonus institution that requires to be treated with reverence.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:29:07 UTC No. 16613891
>>16613864
In anons defense they haven't actually reflown a booster yet, and we don't know how reusable these engines are atm. I still think he's being retarded though.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:36:44 UTC No. 16613896
>>16613864
What is the point of not flying?
Flying is beneficial, not flying does not necessarily mean that there would be more engineers looking at the downcomer on starship
You are suggesting they just do norjin for 6 months while starship v2.5 is desgines and built?
You could use the same logic to not gly anything before Raptor 3 and coild have used the same logic to not launch with Raptor 1 because Raptor 2 is coming
What spacex is doing (hardware rich dwvelopmwnt)works better than the alternative (doing it almost strictly on paper with some rare groundtesting)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:42:56 UTC No. 16613897
Whose to say there won't be another problem after 6 month redesign?
The salaries for staff still have to be paid, test launch or no launch
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 12:56:41 UTC No. 16613907
>>16613891
>we don't know how reusable these engines are atm
an engine was reused on one of the flights, but I guess a single sample is not enough to verify that. I wonder why they haven't reused more engines by now....
>>16613896
anon, what the fuck are you smoking. I thought you were ESL at first but now I think you may just have brain damage.
>What is the point of not flying?
the point is not wasting a booster, millions of $ and a guaranteed-to-explode ship for a tiny amount of data that will be acquired anyways on the next proper flight after Ship's problem is fixed
>You are suggesting they just do norjin for 6 months while starship v2.5 is desgines and built?
where's the 6 month figure coming from? And sure, if it means the next flight isn't another fucking RUD. Stopping, reassessing and fixing problems is the practically correct thing to do when you start spinning wheels in place.
>You could use the same logic to not gly anything before Raptor 3 and coild have used the same logic to not launch with Raptor 1 because Raptor 2 is coming
Wrong. All the previous tests brought something useful. I'd argue even IFT-7 is a """success""" because it showed a very clear design flaw. This flight, however, is an embarrassing failure because the flaw wasn't fixed even though it was established. The engines are iterative design, you couldn't have R3 without testing the ground with R2.
>>16613897
>Whose to say there won't be another problem after 6 month redesign
maybe there will be. But there is a certain, undeniable, mission critical problem right now and it won't magically fix itself by throwing more of the same rockets at it.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:22:42 UTC No. 16613916
>>16613906
I was also recommended that channel
not great not terrible
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:27:41 UTC No. 16613922
>>16613920
Same reason we get "enhanced colour" Neptune and their Mt McKinley article is still titled Denali
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:28:24 UTC No. 16613924
>>16613920
this isnāt a better photo, zooming in even slightly reveals pixels and N64-tier vaseline smearing
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:34:01 UTC No. 16613927
>>16611866
>Starship blew up
>Ariane successfully launched
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:34:50 UTC No. 16613928
the stars belong to mars, stay on your prison world earthers
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 13:58:35 UTC No. 16613932
>>16612584
VASIMR is stupid and bad
>>16613283
simply use more engines
>>16613525
nobody has ever done a LEM gijinka so can you get one of those for me as well
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 14:05:36 UTC No. 16613934
>>16613630
what it means is that the Elders extorted some bribes
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 14:28:31 UTC No. 16613944
>>16613922
your dad is titled my bitch. He doesnt complain.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 14:31:52 UTC No. 16613946
>>16613907
but you aren't wasting them? you catch and reuse the boosters
I just think you don't really understand the development method SpaceX uses
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 14:54:25 UTC No. 16613965
Did the ULA sale ever go through? Last I heard it was going to some hedgefund or something
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 14:59:22 UTC No. 16613968
Why are they called "Blocks"? They're clearly round
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 15:16:36 UTC No. 16613976
>>16613946
>you catch and reuse the boosters
when has that happened? Also, funny how you're conveniently ignoring Ship and the fuel.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 15:21:59 UTC No. 16613979
What a bad week in spaceflight.
For me, the worst thing was when the border patrol blimp drone crashed near Starbase. This directly impacts taxpayers, and more criminally insane rapists are freely entering my country to get free health care.
What pissed you off the most this week?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 15:24:21 UTC No. 16613980
>>16613979
>What pissed you off the most this week?
the fact that europe is more successful than us
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 16:21:08 UTC No. 16614011
>>16613979
That female that made weird nose noises in the IM-2 stream.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 16:34:40 UTC No. 16614017
>>16613979
the fact that america is imploding itself and without them the world is fucked
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 16:38:02 UTC No. 16614019
>starshit explodes AGAIN
>america fucks over ukraine AGAIN
genuinely think we might have to invade america soon, you guys are too fucking retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:03:28 UTC No. 16614037
>>16612817
redditors don't like talking about that.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:05:23 UTC No. 16614039
>>16613823
>No, you can't just break the spacecraft into small pieces spread out over a large area so that it's too diffuse to harm anything! You have to crash the complete 100 ton vehicle into a populated area!
Might as well aim for Cuba
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:09:01 UTC No. 16614043
>>16613979
when elon's response to repeated scrubs was to retweet the statue account "inevitable west" (outed as an indian crypto scammer) and then less than 12 hours after 8 exploded the same way as 7 he was replying to charlie kirk about trans surgery
this nigger needs to drop the sycophants and get his ass back into the office
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:12:10 UTC No. 16614046
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:24:14 UTC No. 16614055
>>16613495
clear no!!!
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:28:48 UTC No. 16614057
>>16613718
"sugar free" products are worse for you than their normal counterparts
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:32:29 UTC No. 16614059
>>16614019
(you)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:39:58 UTC No. 16614063
>>16614057
Quite literally impossible even if sweeteners where equivalent to sugar due to how little is actually used.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:43:12 UTC No. 16614070
>>16613976
if you were going to scrap them anyway then the ships are gone and not reusable
the boosters haven't been reused yet because they are being inspected, but they aren't wasted, getting back engines that have been used already give them information that they wouldn't get otherwise and waiting until the ship design is different and less likely to blow up (won't know this until you try again anyway and it might still blow up), you are just losing time
development can and should happen in parallel in cases where its possible
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:48:16 UTC No. 16614075
I haven't followed Starship since flight 6, I am sure there was flight 7, 8 and 9 with flight 8 and 9 catching the ship with success, just like Elon Musk said so.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:48:18 UTC No. 16614076
>>16614074
Imagine if this failed
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:52:48 UTC No. 16614078
>>16614076
I think Elon Musk would get totally crazy from all the (valid) hate he will get and slow down for SpaceX
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 17:54:08 UTC No. 16614080
>>16614075
Yes, that's what happened
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:23:52 UTC No. 16614099
>>16614019
>need America to do something because you're too weak to do it
>fantasize about invading America to force us to do it, because it's still more realistic than your own shithole country accomplishing anything
holy fucking shit, I'm glad I'm not a foreigner
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:37:42 UTC No. 16614108
>add horizontal struts inside Starship
>cover all struts and vertical stringers in a layer of neoprene
>lower RVac pressure slightly so it is less prone to overheating and leaking
>remove the mass of the added nitrogen suppression system because apparently even in the presence of a failure there is jack shit it could actually do to fix that degree of problem anyway
Either way SpaceX needs to redesign the next ship so there is no fucking way it will be ready in 4-6 weeks unless Musk wants to see it violently explode again
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:39:34 UTC No. 16614113
>>16614110
again...
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:43:43 UTC No. 16614118
>>16614108
Could be an honest to god engine RUD with no discernable fault.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:48:21 UTC No. 16614123
>>16614118
Maybe if it didn't happen 2 times around the same time
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:51:53 UTC No. 16614127
>>16614118
Like >>16614123 said it happens very consistently at the same time. The RVacs fucking hate running low on fuel
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:55:01 UTC No. 16614130
>>16614110
Insider at L2 says vibrations at launch and booster catch is causing liquefaction of the sand like during an earthquake. The duration is short so tower movement is minimal but they expect it to get worse with more flights.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:56:39 UTC No. 16614132
>>16614130
Considering where it's built I would be not surprised.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:57:34 UTC No. 16614134
>>16614130
I think it was a joke anon. The camera has some sort of fisheye effect going on and it is clear the tower is straight and not bendy according to the top right cams
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:57:46 UTC No. 16614135
>>16614130
tower 2 fixes this
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 18:57:47 UTC No. 16614136
>>16614123
>>16614127
Maybe I'm slightly biased by the fact we got a shot of missing engines.
I don't believe a catastrophic failure internally would allow that ship to survive as long as it did.
I'm shocked the exploding engine didn't immediately destroy the aft section.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:03:35 UTC No. 16614146
>>16614136
Well the only reason it is as catastrophic as it is is because RVacs can't gimble, so when one is destroyed the asymmetric thrust is borderline impossible to correct. You might be able to use the sea levelsā¦if they aren't obliterated by the engine fragmentation which they usually are
The aft section is a few millimeters of stainless steel with endless reinforcement stringers inside. Even if you pop a hole in it it won't give many fucks because it is not a balloon. Think of WW2 bombers like the flying fortress when their wings get shot into. It doesn't really do much unless something critical is hit. Starship is built tough, it even survived an FTS detonation in flight while spinning end over end one time
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:10:37 UTC No. 16614150
>>16614057
Who gives a fuck, they taste good
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:11:57 UTC No. 16614153
>I was called a naysayer when I said starship launches would be at best monthly early on
>I was called a naysayer when I said starship development wasn't going to be smooth
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:13:01 UTC No. 16614155
>>16614153
Youāre not prophetic, faggot. Itās an iterative program
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:15:15 UTC No. 16614157
>>16614152
those purple tubes donāt look very rapidly reusable.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:15:50 UTC No. 16614158
>>16614155
I have hope for starship, I just don't think it will be flying people regularly next year like some faggots here insist
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:17:28 UTC No. 16614161
>>16614158
Yeah, that I agree with. But iām pretty sure most people here think that as well lol
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:18:27 UTC No. 16614164
>>16614158
Could fly people regularly next year if we didn't have someone at the top of SpaceX leadership going
>HURRDURR NEXT FIREWORK WILL BE READY IN JUST TWENTY-FOUR HOURS WE WILL GET IT NEXT TIME, SPACE IS HARD XDDD
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:19:29 UTC No. 16614166
>>16614161
Then why do I get shut down every time I tried suggesting that Starship development will be rough and ambitions won't all be fulfilled?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:21:00 UTC No. 16614170
>ITS was 8 years ago
>Starship still can't reach orbit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:21:48 UTC No. 16614171
>>16614166
Because youāre a faggot doomer, next question
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:23:43 UTC No. 16614175
>>16614166
>theyāll never figure these welds out
>theyāll never land during this hop campaign
>theyāll never surpass 300 bar
>thatās a fake engine, this v3 is surely fake
>theyāll never catch the booster with the tower
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:27:59 UTC No. 16614179
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:28:20 UTC No. 16614181
>>16614175
You have to admit it is kind of retarded how long it is taking Starship to get to orbit and to reentry safely (especially since they have done it before no issue). I don't think anybody is saying SpaceX won't achieve these things, just that it is annoying how much they stumble and get delayed by stupid rudimentary shit their competitors seem to have figured out on their first try
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:28:33 UTC No. 16614182
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:28:59 UTC No. 16614183
>>16614175
never said any of these
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:29:04 UTC No. 16614184
>>16614177
Whatever incident bowled it over onto its side probably also flung away its moons
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:29:24 UTC No. 16614186
>>16614181
Because getting to orbit is the easy part. They're need to be able to re-enter safely and in a controlled manner before getting to orbit, which is the thing they are working on now.
Idiot.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:29:29 UTC No. 16614187
>>16614181
(you)
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:29:39 UTC No. 16614188
>>16614177
Neptune stole its good shit
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:31:38 UTC No. 16614189
>>16614186
>the reason we can't get to orbit is because it is easy
Holy cope.
>re-enter safely
That doesn't have anything to do with anything. They have done that in the past and have actually regressed in progress. They can't even get to the reentry part anymore, block 2 is completely fucked
>>16614187
Not an argument
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:36:27 UTC No. 16614195
>>16614186
too bad they aren't even getting into space anymore
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:44:59 UTC No. 16614205
>>16614198
Whats about FTS? Was it ok that it didn't triggered FTS earlier? Did it triggered FTS at all?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:45:54 UTC No. 16614206
>>16614205
Too far along in the mission to activate FTS anon
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 19:53:56 UTC No. 16614213
>>16614203
>Elon read Catch-22
holy based.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:04:37 UTC No. 16614218
>>16614189
Just keep jerking, man. You'll win that prize eventually.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:08:38 UTC No. 16614221
>>16614198
this isnt gonna work. airplanes can still fly after losing engines. spacex needs to remedy this asap.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:20:21 UTC No. 16614226
>>16614195
Ship has gotten to space on every flight except the first.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:25:14 UTC No. 16614228
Watched some IFT-1 footage and remembered how there was a lot of doom posting about Raptors being fundamentally unreliable.
Now it's "well ofc they can return the booster every time but can they reuse it?"
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:31:16 UTC No. 16614232
>>16614228
>there was progress made in two years
excellent observation.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:31:55 UTC No. 16614233
>>16614057
>he fell for the big sugar propaganda
enjoy your diabetus
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:33:09 UTC No. 16614234
>>16614232
Yeah the goalposts have moved a lot in two years, now it is "why can't they go into orbit" when it is SpaceX deliberately not circularizing their orbit.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:34:47 UTC No. 16614235
>>16614233
>he fell for "artificial sweeteners are a safe alternative"
Both are bad for you anon.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:34:54 UTC No. 16614236
>>16614234
Disingenuous post. They made it to reentry multiple times. Now they blow up in suborbit. That's backwards not forwards
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:37:08 UTC No. 16614238
>>16614235
There is actually zero evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad for you. You must be a tourist here on /sci/
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:39:55 UTC No. 16614240
Oh me? I just drink water.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:41:47 UTC No. 16614244
>>16614240
*flouridated estrogen
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:42:05 UTC No. 16614245
>>16614236
>"Disingenuous post"
>while making a disingenuous post
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:43:06 UTC No. 16614246
>>16614244
and just a smidge of plastic
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:44:18 UTC No. 16614247
>>16614245
Saying they need to make it to orbit isn't "shifting the goalposts." They literally can't do it anymore. They failed
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:45:54 UTC No. 16614249
>>16614177
I found the not for ants version. thanks to bing image search of all things. had to resize it to get it to even post
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:46:11 UTC No. 16614250
>>16614166
saying that people won't be flying on it next year is a far cry from saying ambitions won't all be fulfilled (which is a definitive statement with no end date)
the former is basically obvious, the latter is a completely retarded statement
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:47:38 UTC No. 16614251
>>16614238
>Le trust the experts post
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:47:55 UTC No. 16614252
>>16614181
getting to orbit is trivial, re-entering safely in a manner where the tiles don't get damaged and need refurbishment is unprecedented
putting these things next to each other and implying they are somehow equivalent is retarded
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:50:29 UTC No. 16614255
>>16614252
>getting to orbit is trivial
Not for SpaceX apparently
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:51:29 UTC No. 16614257
>>16614255
they do it every other day with Falcon 9
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:52:24 UTC No. 16614259
>>16614257
Falcon 9 is not Starship
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:52:25 UTC No. 16614260
>>16614257
that makes it even more embarrassing that they're stuttering with starship
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:55:32 UTC No. 16614262
>>16614251
On the contrary, the "experts" are the ones publishing flimsy academic papers hounding sucralose and aspartame. Unfortunately for them, no correlation to poor health has been proven, and no finding replicated.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:56:11 UTC No. 16614263
>>16614205
RVac grenaded a second or two after SpaceX called out "FTS Safed". My understanding is that once the FTS is safed, it still takes a little bit of time to re-enable it. Which is why the time between catastrophic loss of control and final detonation was a decent chunk of time. That and as the ship is spinning out of control, getting consistent data TO the ship is much harder than getting data FROM the ship.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 20:56:25 UTC No. 16614264
>>16614255
Previous Starship flights were purposefully held back from going orbital. Their main focus is the reuse aspect of the ship, which is the tiles and engines. Yes, it is trivial.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:00:43 UTC No. 16614266
>>16614228
>Raptors being fundamentally unreliable.
They still are, for some reason more so than before.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:02:15 UTC No. 16614268
>>16614264
If it was trivial they wouldn't be still doing relight tests.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:08:40 UTC No. 16614270
>>16614264
>their main focus is reuse
Their main focus is exploding and spinning a trillion times as it burns up in the atmosphere before it even gets a chance to test the tiles or "reuse" part
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:11:23 UTC No. 16614272
>>16614268
>relight test
NTA, but that has nothing to do with the ability to get to orbit in the first place.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:11:39 UTC No. 16614273
>>16614270
>spinning a trillion times
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:12:32 UTC No. 16614274
>>16614273
Yes, exactly like that. The Kraken leaks into real life as well
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:15:10 UTC No. 16614276
Oh so apparently one of IM-2ās landing legs didnāt deploy. NGMI
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:17:16 UTC No. 16614279
starship is the Full Self Driving of rockets.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:17:55 UTC No. 16614280
>>16614279
in what sense, that it likes crashing?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:19:13 UTC No. 16614281
>>16614276
Wut? I thought they were permanently fixed in place from the beginning.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:24:11 UTC No. 16614287
>>16614280
kek, i was thinking because it will never happen, but that works too
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:24:43 UTC No. 16614290
https://x.com/Cosmic_Penguin/status
>..and that turns out to be yet another top secret Chinese thingy heading to GTO. This LM-3B successfully launched TJSW-15 at 17:17 UTC:
>The "TJSW" series is the mixed bin of topmost secret Chinese satellites found around the geostationary belt - some known to be eavesdroppers, others missile warning and still others inspection ones - all disguised as "communications testing" satellites.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:33:31 UTC No. 16614298
if i could drimk a gallon of elon cum,even if it wouldnt help get us to mars, i would instantly do it without thinking
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:43:51 UTC No. 16614303
>>16614298
wouldn't we all...
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 21:50:47 UTC No. 16614309
6 months since ANY american company reached orbit. we're reaching levels of over the likes of which even god has never seen.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:01:31 UTC No. 16614318
>>16614281
they are kept retracted during coast phase. less drag that way.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:07:58 UTC No. 16614325
name 1(ONE) SpaceX rocket that made it to orbit today
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:09:06 UTC No. 16614326
>>16614318
>drag
>in space
w-what
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:14:02 UTC No. 16614329
>>16614325
Did you launch any rockets into orbit today?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:16:04 UTC No. 16614331
>>16614329
>your food tastes like shit? WELL LETS SEE YOU BECOME A PROFESIONAL CHEF.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:18:05 UTC No. 16614333
>>16614331
Who are you quoting?
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:20:30 UTC No. 16614338
>>16614309
Did you forget Falcon 9 exists, hell even the New Glenn upper stage reached orbit
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:21:46 UTC No. 16614340
>>16614338
>fell for the bait award
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:27:29 UTC No. 16614345
>>16614249
crazy what passes for a ānon-planetā these days. 2 of those are bigger than mercury.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:29:33 UTC No. 16614348
>>16614345
There is fundamentally no difference between a "planet", a "moon", and a "dwarf planet".
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:31:30 UTC No. 16614351
>>16614350
dragonfly is getting canceled my dude
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:37:47 UTC No. 16614357
>>16614350
>he hasn't heard about the science budget
I'm so sorry little frog...
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:40:01 UTC No. 16614358
>>16614350
elon said he's cancelling it for a manned mission from the starship
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:45:20 UTC No. 16614361
>>16614340
>merely pretending
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 22:47:16 UTC No. 16614365
>>16614361
it's okay to admit you make retard mistakes sometimes, anon.
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 23:24:22 UTC No. 16614387
/sfg/ has fallen
billions must migrate to the discord
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 23:26:50 UTC No. 16614391
oh, is it new thread time
Anonymous at Sun, 9 Mar 2025 23:29:10 UTC No. 16614393
against my better judgement I have made a new thread
>>16614392
>>16614392
>>16614392
staging
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 02:29:10 UTC No. 16614519
>>16614130
Run the cryogenics pipe through the ground
Turn it into permafrost
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 04:21:57 UTC No. 16614576
>>16612110
>almost killed people several times
thats one way to say it never caused a fatality
>>16612110
>the capsule is tiny
yeah and it actually goes to orbit
>>16612110
>it doesn't use methalox
yeah but it reaches orbit
>>16612110
>It's not reusable
yeah but it reaches orbit
>>16612110
>the engines are garbage tier technology
and they work better than any shitX ones
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 04:32:01 UTC No. 16614583
>>16614576
The Apollo capsule killed 3 astronauts. This is an objective fact.
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 04:42:47 UTC No. 16614586
>>16614583
another objective fact is that von braun and his team didn't design the capsule, they designed the rocket it was to ride on top of, the saturn v. the capsule was designed and built by North American Aviation (NAA), which later became part of North American Rockwell
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 04:55:39 UTC No. 16614589
>>16614586
Thank goodness his team included some talented American engineers to make sure the rocket worked properly.
>One notable challenge in the construction of the F-1 was regenerative cooling of the thrust chamber. Chemical engineer Dennis "Dan" Brevik was faced with the task of ensuring the preliminary combustion chamber tube bundle and manifold design produced by Al Bokstellar would run cool. In essence, Brevik's job was to "make sure it doesnāt melt." Through Brevik's calculations of the hydrodynamic and thermodynamic characteristics of the F-1, he and his team were able to fix an issue known as āstarvationā. This is when an imbalance of static pressure leads to 'hot spots' in the manifolds. The material used for the F-1 thrust chamber tube bundle, reinforcing bands and manifold was Inconel-X750, a refractory nickel based alloy capable of withstanding high temperatures.[4]
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 05:55:54 UTC No. 16614603
>>16614586
>Rockwell
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 07:55:00 UTC No. 16614659
>>16614586
You mean they were made by BOEING
Anonymous at Mon, 10 Mar 2025 08:41:04 UTC No. 16614671
>>16614589
cope