š§µ /sfg/ - Spaceflight General
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:15:32 UTC No. 16629671
Orbital carrier - edition
previous >>16627306
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:18:35 UTC No. 16629673
first for sfg is dead
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:22:25 UTC No. 16629675
>>16629674
To be fair, it takes a special kind of person to actually want to go to mars. I don't blame Shatner for not wanting to go when earth at its worst is already better then mars present day.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:27:09 UTC No. 16629678
>>16629675
he shouldn't go to Mars because there will be geologists on Mars and Shatner is a recovering alcoholic and they'll be a bad influence
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:27:12 UTC No. 16629679
>>16629671
more like orbital warehouse
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:29:25 UTC No. 16629680
>>16629514
>Elon will NEVER carry you on his shoulders like this
unironically why even live, might as well kill myself now
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:33:28 UTC No. 16629681
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
>In interviews about the concept with Ars, company officials were fairly vague about specific details of what orbital carriers will be able to do. A news release published on Wednesday morning, highlighting the Strategic Funding Increase, or STRATFI grant from the United States Space Force, also lacks specifics. The Space Force would prefer to keep the vehicle's operational capabilities under wraps.
>But in general, the idea is to provide an unpressurized module in which one or more satellites can be pre-positioned in orbit.
>>16629679
sounds like it yes
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:36:00 UTC No. 16629683
>>16629680
You could have always done with with your dad when you were a kid
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:36:20 UTC No. 16629684
https://payloadspace.com/new-small-
>In 2017, 27 new small launchers (less than 1,500 kg to LEO) were founded, according to data from the NewSpace Index.
>In 2023, only four were founded.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:36:42 UTC No. 16629685
>>16629674
Shatner's account is not even run by him.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:37:22 UTC No. 16629686
>>16629684
>The decline in new launcher foundings follows a similar downward trend of new satellite constellations over the past decade.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:37:51 UTC No. 16629687
>>16629684
over, it is
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:38:32 UTC No. 16629688
>>16629686
>Path to operational: According to the NewSpace Index, of the 214 small launchers founded since 1990, only 16% have turned operational, and just 10% are active today. More names will be added to the active list in the next few years, but most have, or will, putter around in yearslong development and capital-raising tours before moving into the dormant/canceled category.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:39:56 UTC No. 16629691
>>16629684
AI is now the new fad, grampa
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 09:52:23 UTC No. 16629694
https://brycetech.com/reports/repor
https://brycetech.com/reports/repor
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:07:23 UTC No. 16629702
>>16629698
>Musk/SpaceX are a frau-ACK
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:10:58 UTC No. 16629703
>>16629702
2 more months until robotaxis launch in Austin, I wonder if that is going to change anybodys mind on Tesla and Musk
I imagine there is going to be a lot of "that was obviously going to happen and its not impressive" going on
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:13:53 UTC No. 16629706
>>16629694
>>16629698
Oh no no no no
Government bros, this is a bad look for us!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:15:23 UTC No. 16629708
>>16629703
Check out social media comments about SpaceX's 'controversial' chopstick landing idea before October 13th 2024: insane, retarded, another one of musk's stupid ideas, etc.
Now check the same comments after that day: congrats to the engineers, they did all the work, musk just stole the credit, blah blah.
It was really weird watching it happen in real time wtf haha.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:18:55 UTC No. 16629709
>>16629703
Other companies have been operating robotaxis for years, what took Tesla so long? Also, why is operating a taxi service seen to be the pathway to untold riches? Doesn't make much sense. There's only so much money to be made ferrying people back and forth from airports, and most people will never give up owning their own car in favor of taxis. The growth potential for the taxi industry is negligible and investors are spurned on by delusions of common Americans hating cars when in reality they love cars and choose this lifestyle for themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:26:10 UTC No. 16629713
>>16629709
weird strawman you have constructed here
however starting a longer discussion about robotaxis is off topic
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:28:47 UTC No. 16629714
>>16629713
It's hardly a weird strawman when the supposedly enormous growth potential of robotaxis is the justification for Tesla's enormous P/E and in turn has been the plan for funding Mars development. At least we have Starlink now.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:33:41 UTC No. 16629715
>>16629714
you are a real genius
I guess we will just have to wait and see what happens
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:38:58 UTC No. 16629718
>>16629676
>their equals
lol
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:41:00 UTC No. 16629719
>>16629698
ULA has left the cuckbox, I repeat, ULA has left the cuckbox
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:41:51 UTC No. 16629720
>>16629702
saar
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:49:55 UTC No. 16629723
>>16629719
100% mission success btw
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 10:57:55 UTC No. 16629725
>>16629715
For a man of my astronomical intellect, predicting the future is easy. Starship flies in two more weeks. Starlink and Brilliant Pebble contracts make Elon the world's first multi-trillionaire. Merely selling cars continues to be the lionshare of Tesla's revenue.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:10:09 UTC No. 16629729
>>16629726
But isn't all of that literally true?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:12:30 UTC No. 16629731
>>16629729
Nope
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:17:39 UTC No. 16629732
What is the point of Artemis? ISS makes sense when you want to have a constant rotation of humans in space. International research, whatever.
What is the point of sending a couple of people to the moon every 2 or 3 years on a prohibitively expensive orange rocket? The public wonāt give a shitāthey barely cared during Apollo
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:18:56 UTC No. 16629733
>>16629732
Wasn't Artemis Trump thing?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:19:52 UTC No. 16629734
>>16629732
>What is the point of Artemis?
jobs
next question?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:20:15 UTC No. 16629735
>>16629733
No I think itās simply a ākeep shuttle and Constellation program jobs aliveā thing, with a thin veneer of āfirst woman and first person of color on the moon!ā
Extremely shallow.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:20:28 UTC No. 16629736
>>16629726
Lmao this guy is repeating the carlos slim thing. He's doing the exact same grasping at straws thing spaceguy5 does.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:22:32 UTC No. 16629738
>>16629733
Itās taken on different forms so itās not so obvious to trace back directly - but it is a Bush thing, really
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:27:04 UTC No. 16629741
>>16629729
there isn't a single word that's true in that entire spiel
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:34:28 UTC No. 16629744
reminder that unless you have your hands on the controls you aint an astronaut. you're just cargo.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:36:59 UTC No. 16629745
>>16629729
I know you're baiting but I got nothing to do so lets go line by line and point out everything wrong.
>The Block 1 tests of Starship showed that Muskās plans to rely heavily on a bellyflop manoeuvre during reentry to slow down Starship and scrub off that kinetic energy using atmospheric resistance were a no-go.
No true
>The craft repeatedly spiralled out of control
fixed by flight 4
>control surfaces failed
Actually shown to be shockingly robust in that same test
>nd reportedly, the inside of the craft became several times hotter than an oven.
Reported by who? spaceguy5? Never heard this outside this article.
>Fixing these issues would add a tonne of weight, as the front fins would need to be massively reinforced
They just moved the fins back
>and the giant heat shield would need to be beefed up significantly.
Or they can look at bleed cooling again
>On top of that, these tests confirmed that SpaceXās engines couldnāt produce the mythical levels of thrust Musk promised
These were raptor v1 and v2's, no shit they weren't performing at peak design, they were prototype engines.
>These faults would render Starship utterly useless. Musk needed a solution. Here is my hypothesis of how he tried to solve this with Block 2.
We have moved into the realm of pure fantasy.
>Because the bellyflop manoeuvre is a no-go
It isn't
>Block 2 is designed to slow down more with its retro rockets (where the rockets are fired in the direction of travel to slow down)
Wtf, is this guy retarded? Besides no evidence this is the case and tons of evidence they're going with belly flop.
>This should make landing more viable
lmao
>This would also enable the front fins to be shrunk and the heat shield to be thinned, saving weight
He is genuinely retarded
>But this will also require more propellant, especially as the rockets have less thrust than planned
Again, not understanding raptor 2s aren't the final design.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:37:46 UTC No. 16629746
>>16629732
Niggas you all bitching about how we didnt make it to the moon in the last 50 years, and now were about to go, you dont like it. And in this case its not like NAS got a huge budget like in apollo, now we got a manned lunar program with way less money than in the shuttle era
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:37:49 UTC No. 16629747
>>16629684
>>16629686
This is just what a healthy growing industry looks like. Capital availability is necessary for the gems, but still finds its way to scams. China does this manually, like flinging a trillion dollars at "electric cars", ending up with 400 scams, and then letting that naturally dwindle down to the winners like BYD. I don't know why the US isn't more strategic about it, because just letting the investor class fumble around naturally hasn't led to great results.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:39:29 UTC No. 16629748
>>16629698
Jesus that's more than the shuttle's entire lifetime upmass
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:50:31 UTC No. 16629751
>>16629736
>For example, all major US airlines rejected Starlink as an in-flight internet provider last year
This guy is legitimately living in a fantasy land. Where did he even get this?
> Mexican telecoms magnate Carlos Slim has recently cancelled at least $7 billion in potential contracts with Starlink after Musk tried to politically slander him
So, for those who don't don't know, this 7 billion number comes from people looking at musks net worth the day after carlos slim canceled the starlink contract, seeing it went down by 7 billion and attributing that decrease entirely to him canceling the contract.
This is the level of discourse we are on.
>Musk has threatened to switch off Starlink in Ukraine
Not true
>and even tried to use it to circumnavigate the Brazilian governmentās crackdown on Twitter/X
Sounds pretty based to me.
>it has spurred the EU to invest heavily in their own alternative, Eutelsat, to not only replace Starlink in Ukraine but across much of the EU, potentially taking away billions upon billions of dollars of annual revenue from Musk
lmao if you think eutelsat has any chance of stealing customers from starlink then I have a moon rocket to sell you. 25 billion dollars plus tip.
>On top of all of this, as Starlink and SpaceX are privately owned, we donāt know how many retail customers have boycotted Starlink
This guy lives in a bubble. No ones gonna boycott starlink cause theres no replacement and there isn't going to be for years.
>As such, Starlinkās revenue is no longer set to explode and may, in fact, shrink in 2025.
if this guy wasn't such a coward I would make a bet with him that starlink will have more subscribers by the end of 2025 than 2024. It would be the easiest couple hundred bucks of my life.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:51:32 UTC No. 16629753
>>16629751
Oh and one more gem after that screenshot ends
>Especially as alternatives like Eutelsat can already provide just as good, if not better, service than Starlink despite being far smaller.
lol
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:53:10 UTC No. 16629754
>>16629753
Kek
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:59:19 UTC No. 16629758
>>16629736
This morons tendency to not cite sources is very annoying. Anyone know the article he's talking about? Googling the lines only brings up /r/enoughmuskspam with a fake link.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:59:38 UTC No. 16629759
>>16629746
Iāll take no moon program at all over Shuttle II Jobs Boogaloo. Musk is slightly in favor of simply skipping the Moon altogether and going straight to Mars, an idea which scared Bezos who needs lunar contracts to keep BO afloat.
Iām beginning to despise the Moon altogether.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 11:59:43 UTC No. 16629760
>>16629748
we're entering a new age of spaceflight
we just have to not kill it in the crib
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:01:35 UTC No. 16629761
>>16629758
why are you still giving this EDS grifter the time of day?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:03:35 UTC No. 16629763
>>16629761
Stuck at a boring desk job with nothing to do but kill time.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:04:13 UTC No. 16629764
>>16629763
you could be watching Gundam instead
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:05:35 UTC No. 16629765
can someone smart post elon face turning back when everyday astronaut visited starbase with edit of s33 debris falling down in background?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:05:41 UTC No. 16629766
>>16629764
No I can't, In fact a lady here got fired recently for watching stuff at work. Reading and typing is all I can get away with.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:06:48 UTC No. 16629767
>>16629766
you just need more monitors
what sort of shit-ass job can you possibly be doing where it doesn't matter if you aren't being productive? you should quit immediately and get something more satisfying
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:09:19 UTC No. 16629769
>>16629765
it was face like this
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:15:29 UTC No. 16629776
>>16629767
>what sort of shit-ass job can you possibly be doing where it doesn't matter if you aren't being productive
Without going into specifics, I need to be here in case something goes catastrophically wrong but it doesn't happen enough to keep me busy but also it's vital enough they can't distract me by giving me something else to do.
>you should quit immediately and get something more satisfying
Working on it. I'd quit if I didn't just have to take out a car loan cause my shitbox shit itself.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:16:11 UTC No. 16629778
>>16629776
is it not automatable
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:16:26 UTC No. 16629779
>>16629776
so you monitor a factory or something
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:22:12 UTC No. 16629785
>>16629778
No. Honestly most of the issue is the boys on the floor not doing their jobs right. If it weren't for them being lazy I'd have no job. Probably be a while before gpt can deal with constant human error.
>>16629779
Not too far off.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:24:20 UTC No. 16629787
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:34:31 UTC No. 16629800
>>16629726
What? But the reentry worked decently well for Block 1, especially the last 2 times.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:36:33 UTC No. 16629801
>>16629800
worked somewhat (flap burned but kept going), then pretty well and then perfectly (from a controls perspective, the thing he is criticizing here)
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:48:41 UTC No. 16629804
>>16629748
This is the most efficient way to explain it to normalfags btw, because they only remember the shuttle
>SpaceX launched more times and more mass last year than the shuttle did over it's entire lifetime
>they did that with a company lifetime (20y) spending of less than one year of the NASA budget
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:50:13 UTC No. 16629805
>>16629804
Musk le bad. You have to explain why space itself is important. Many people think
>shuttle based
>musk, bezos, branson evil
And yes, many normies think branson is doing the same thing musk is doing
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:51:18 UTC No. 16629806
>>16629787
kek
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:54:54 UTC No. 16629810
>>16629801
The Flapsama episode was the best thing until they landed booster.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:56:00 UTC No. 16629812
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 12:59:23 UTC No. 16629814
>>16629810
Unbelievable vibes that flight. Probably won't be matched. First catch was more ass clenching, but kino in a different way
>>16629812
https://youtu.be/gzIOgOIIhcA?si=xfR
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:00:06 UTC No. 16629815
>>16629766
Use a text based browser on a terminal. You can even get around especially egregious filters by SSHing out and browsing from a remote machine, although if you get caught it looks more suspicious (unless your work involves connecting to a lot of remote servers)
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:01:16 UTC No. 16629817
>>16629009
The sun doesn't wander through the sky, but courses on its steady way each day. Therefore it is a dromet, from drometes.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:02:17 UTC No. 16629818
>>16629128
Put something like a JDAM on it to control its angle of attack and use its drag to guide it to the target.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:03:18 UTC No. 16629819
>>16629162
Space debris isn't a problem in sufficiently low orbits (already owned by America, btw)
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:35:28 UTC No. 16629840
>>16629815
Bruh the "filter" is someone checking over my shoulder every once and a while.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:38:14 UTC No. 16629841
>>16629812
I love you Flap Chan!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 13:40:59 UTC No. 16629842
>>16629744
I keep my hands on the ājoystickā during ādockingā if you catch my drift
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:11:26 UTC No. 16629854
>>16629684
There is no point in wasting money on something so small.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:19:01 UTC No. 16629857
>>16629856
(((they))) are already there
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:20:09 UTC No. 16629858
>>16629857
Why do those "space enthusiasts" rarely look normal?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:21:20 UTC No. 16629859
>>16629858
Normal people don't become space enthusiasts
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:21:31 UTC No. 16629860
>>16629840
Yeah, are they checking closely enough to notice a text based browser in a terminal window? It never happened to me
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:22:25 UTC No. 16629861
>>16629858
those 3 people look normal
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:22:50 UTC No. 16629862
>>16629759
Going to mars with the same spacecraft that blows up before make it to low orbit? Yeah sure lad
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:23:39 UTC No. 16629863
>>16629860
They're not checking close enough to notice I'm on 4chan.
Boomer probably doesn't know what it is.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:24:33 UTC No. 16629865
>>16629859
I'm glad you guys aren't normal.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:25:16 UTC No. 16629866
>>16629684
the f9 effect
in 2017 you could reasonably infer that falcon 9 launch cadence (and amortisation of fixed launch costs) would stay within a relatively linear growth pattern. And if that stayed true, you had an okay chance of competing and maybe keeping enough financial runway to develop a larger vehicle with the learnings. But Transporter-1 happened in 2021 and F9 launch cadence blew up a year later with starlink launches and from that point it was basically over. The slice of pie remaining for smallsat launchers was never going to be enough to support more than MAYBE one or two companies. Once starship is operational you'll see the same thing happen but for full sized payloads lol
>but nobody needs 100t of payload for a single launch, it's overkill
starship transporter missions in the 2030s will swallow basically everyone bar ULA, BO and maybe RKLB if they haven't gone under by then and neutron succeeds
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 14:35:41 UTC No. 16629872
>>16629674
>>16629685
based
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:00:59 UTC No. 16629882
https://x.com/SpaceflightNow/status
>This morning, Booz Allen Hamilton introduced a proposed satellite constellation called "Brilliant Swarms," a collection of at least 2,000 satellites "that communicate and coordinate in real-time, acting as both threat sensors and hit-to-kill interceptors for ballistic missiles in their boost/ascent and mid-course trajectories." Officials say it would be possible to create and deploy a constellation of up to 2,000 linked satellite interceptors at roughly the same cost as the price tag for developing and deploying our current ground-based interceptors and associated global radars. They don't state what that cost would be though. This proposal would be a part of the "Golden Dome for America," which was introduced through an executive order 59 days ago.
>Booz Allen says these satellites would weigh between 40 to 80 kg and would operate in about 20 orbital planes with roughly 100 satellites per plane.These satellites would operate in LEO at somewhere around 300 to 600 km with an operating life of 4-5 years. Booz Allen declines to disclose its business partners during the press call this morning. Says the team includes companies from "all walks of life," including the industrial base, small businesses, Silicon Valley companies and traditional space defense. "There will come a time when we will announce our team, but not today."
>For some cost comparison, Trey Obering, Sr. Executive Advisor for the National Security Sector at Booz Allen, says they could put up the constellation for more like $25 billion, which would include the research and development. That's in comparison to a GAO report from 2017 that described a ground-based defense system with a price tag of roughly $37 billion.
Where is he? Where the fuck is Brilliant Pebbles Guy? Get him in here
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:30:25 UTC No. 16629893
>>16629726
>Even Without Musk, Tesla Is Finished
>Tesla Can, And Will, Fall Further.
>This Is How Tesla Will Die
>Tesla Is Dying, And Polestar Wants To Kill It
>Tesla Is So Screwed
>Tesla's Downfall Is Imminent
>No One Is Buying Teslas
>Oh, Tesla Is Doing So Much Worse Than I Thought
>Tesla Is About To Collapse.
Wow, impressive! He predict all 9 of the last 0 tesla collapses!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:31:35 UTC No. 16629894
>>16629882
For all we know this was his real job
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:36:38 UTC No. 16629896
>>16629882
40 to 80kg seem like pretty small satellites
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:37:55 UTC No. 16629898
>>16629893
To be fair it isn't looking good. First mover advantage might see them continue as a company with a long term monopoly on charging stations, but without the right oversight the company has been indianed to all hell. Word is they've infiltrated as they sometimes do, and Tesla is falling behind in both cars and robots as a result. They could be saved by the software being more valuable than everyone but Elon expects, but I doubt it. P/E is like 10x what's reasonable in any case. Pretty sure Elon knows this, hence the $50B cash bonus
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:46:10 UTC No. 16629900
>>16629898
Then buy some shorts
You won't
Coward
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:47:18 UTC No. 16629902
>>16629898
wrong
also its not a cash bonus and its not 50b, you saying that shows how utterly clueless you are
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:52:44 UTC No. 16629905
>>16629900
Only a retard would try to time the market, doesn't mean anything about the fundamentals
>>16629902
>options
May as well be cash
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 15:58:13 UTC No. 16629909
>>16629905
no, its nowhere near cash in any strech of the imagination
you might say ice cream and diarrhea may as well be the same thing
they aren't
you are fucking retarded
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:05:58 UTC No. 16629913
>>16629748
Says more about the Shuttle DESU
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:09:46 UTC No. 16629917
>>16629909
>nonsensical analogy
Anyway given that Tesla probably isn't liquid to the tune of $50B, and selling stock would fuck up the price, options are basically the only way you can get cash without disturbing things. Am I wrong? Is there some line where he needs to hold them as stock for a while?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:24:35 UTC No. 16629923
>>16629919
The only thing SRB are good for: making pretty launch pictures
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:27:58 UTC No. 16629926
>>16629917
you aren't even wrong, you are completely clueless
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:47:52 UTC No. 16629933
>>16629926
Doesn't change the P/E, indian density, and competition. No one smart would still be in Tesla right now. It isn't a crypto that may 10x again, it's a company with underlying fundamentals. My point originally was that Elon probably doesn't care about Tesla. If he wasn't lying about all his asset building being for Mars, then Tesla has served its purpose. It kept him solvent until now where SpaceX is completely self sustainable. Starlink revenue continues to grow. There's no reason not to totally drop Tesla.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:56:40 UTC No. 16629943
>>16629933
wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 16:59:10 UTC No. 16629945
>>16629882
how does an orbital object "catch up" to a close to orbital speed MIRV
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:01:15 UTC No. 16629947
>>16629945
by going faster
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:04:25 UTC No. 16629948
>>16629703
In Austingrad? I can guess what's going to happen with all the local leftis monkeys there.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:04:36 UTC No. 16629950
>>16629943
>he has his net worth tied up in a group of indians
Could NOT be me lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:13:13 UTC No. 16629954
>new shepherd still exists and is in fact intending to launch more frequently
What is its purpose
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:14:57 UTC No. 16629955
>>16629954
Separating rich cunts from some of their money
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:30:43 UTC No. 16629960
>>16629955
It doesn't make money and will never make money
They clearly aren't "learning" anything since launch rates have never gone up...
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:43:36 UTC No. 16629962
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/19
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
>China created a new entity called the "Deep Space Exploration Laboratory" three years ago to strengthen the country's approach to exploring the Solar System. Located in eastern China, not far from Shanghai, the new laboratory represented a partnership between China's national space agency and a local public college, the University of Science and Technology of China.
>Among the planned missions are:
>2028: Tianwen-3 mission to collect samples of Martian soil and rocks and return them to Earth
>2029: Tianwen-4 mission to explore Jupiter and its moon Callisto
>2030: Development of a large, ground-based habitat to simulate long-duration human spaceflight
> 2033: Mission to Venus that will return samples of its atmosphere to Earth
>2038: Establishment of an autonomous Mars research station to study in-situ resource >2039: Mission to Triton, Neptune's largest moon, with a subsurface explorer for its ocean
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:52:32 UTC No. 16629970
>>16629962
Would China being first to recover martian sample change anything? Or would it not be enough?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:53:37 UTC No. 16629971
>>16629864
>Nah, never mind, let's just slap on some bigger SRBs. Gotta keep those jerbs in Utah!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:54:50 UTC No. 16629974
>>16629970
I don't think americans care about msr unless they're space autists. if you want the general population to care they need to see chang walking on mars. then they'll start asking why america hasn't done that.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:55:03 UTC No. 16629975
>>16629955
Yeah real Robin Hood that Jeff Bezos
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:57:13 UTC No. 16629977
>>16629970
I think it would, remember how much the americans freaked out about deepseek a few months ago just because they made a model thats almost as good as GPT? Actually being beaten at something would cause a complete meltdown in the western space industry.
I hope it happens, an actual 2nd space race would be rad.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 17:57:16 UTC No. 16629978
>>16629747
>already flinging trillions at "aid" programs
>with kickbacks finding their way to a certain political party
Yeah, I don't know why they weren't more strategic about it.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:13:08 UTC No. 16629991
>>16629987
looks like their launching from a ghetto
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:13:36 UTC No. 16629992
>>16629718
Without SpaceX, there'd probably be more demand for launches of rockets like Terran 1, Firefly Alpha and RocketLab Electron. Although, it's possible that without the SpaceX example, those companies wouldn't have secured as much investment capital.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:16:15 UTC No. 16629994
>>16629698
>China Manned Space Agency
Is CMSA a launch provider? Isn't CASC the launch provider?
>Chinarocket Co. Ltd
Aren't they a CASC subsidiary (through CALT)?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:18:23 UTC No. 16629996
starlink became available in oman and armenia, not that interesting
but what might be interesting is that it seems to be sold out around many big african cities, also around a number of US cities, Australias Brisbane, UKs London
I wonder how much more demand they could have with more satellites in these areas
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:19:24 UTC No. 16629998
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:22:38 UTC No. 16630000
>>16629962
>first time since 1960s NASA has a serious competitor in planetary exploration
Weren't the Soviets a somewhat "serious" competitor in planetary exploration even after 1970, especially with the "Venera" program?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:23:55 UTC No. 16630001
>>16629996
Even if you only sold to the richest 0.1%, you would still have more customers than in most first world countries
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:24:35 UTC No. 16630002
>>16629747
>I don't know why the US isn't more strategic about it
"Subsidy" is considered a dirty word in the US.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:26:28 UTC No. 16630004
>>16629996
I saw a few Starlink antennas on top of food trailers along the Thames last year.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:29:06 UTC No. 16630006
>>16629991
*theyāre
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:30:08 UTC No. 16630008
>>16630006
wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:30:19 UTC No. 16630009
>>16629999
>cryo
Perhaps because it is hot as fuck?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:30:51 UTC No. 16630010
>>16629747
US politics are way too susceptible to regulatory capture for that kind of dirigisme to be likely to give desirable results. I think that is certainly the case today. The US does however do dirigisme-lite such as the DoE's LPO or NASA's COTS.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:30:53 UTC No. 16630011
>>16630006
there*
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:31:59 UTC No. 16630012
>>16629987
Activate windows
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:33:25 UTC No. 16630013
>>16630006
*theyest art
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:34:05 UTC No. 16630015
So when Shotwell said they had no intentions with competing with regular ISPs and that it wasn't practical anyway, she was lying, right? Starship with V3 sats should allow them to lower prices drastically with the increase in bandwidth and they'd have no reason not to try and eat up Comcast and friends' revenue.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:34:38 UTC No. 16630016
>>16630009
it's a lot colder than the volcanoes that don't get prefixed with cryo
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:35:44 UTC No. 16630018
>>16630015
There's no way for satellite internet to be better than fiber.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:36:10 UTC No. 16630020
>>16630016
>volcanoes that don't get prefixed with cryo
Those are also hot
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:36:36 UTC No. 16630022
>>16630015
no you are not getting fiber optic bandwidth with starlink
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:37:27 UTC No. 16630024
What happened to Long March 6A? It last launched on January 23, and I haven't found any info on planned launches on NSF. It was launching regularly in the second half of last year.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:39:54 UTC No. 16630025
Won't Starlink make their own Internet at some point? They need to do it on Mars anyways
>>16630018
There is, just send more satellites
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:41:48 UTC No. 16630026
>>16630022
99% of people don't need fiber to their home
and global latency will improve with satellite routing
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:43:18 UTC No. 16630027
I predict a star will soon go supernova and be visible to the human eye. Manifesting this into existence
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:45:21 UTC No. 16630029
>>16630027
It'll be betelgeuse
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:45:56 UTC No. 16630030
>>16630025
>There is, just send more satellites
wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:46:24 UTC No. 16630031
>>16630026
dont even need starlink speeds. 3G is more than enough. im early 2000s ghetto style.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:52:36 UTC No. 16630033
https://x.com/VirginOrbitNS/status/
>A multi stage suborbital rocket thrown from the back of a C-17, then dropped from a pallet under parachute for launch. So cool:
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:52:44 UTC No. 16630034
>>16630018
>>16630022
So what? That's not required by most customers.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:53:26 UTC No. 16630035
>>16630033
air launch is the dumbest shit in the world
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:54:01 UTC No. 16630036
>>16630033
use case?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:56:04 UTC No. 16630037
>>16630034
Most people would prefer fast and stable internet, even on price there's no way for starlink to compete
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:56:59 UTC No. 16630038
>>16630033
Count your days, new shepard!!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:58:50 UTC No. 16630039
>>16630033
>So cool
That's the dumbest thing I've seen all year
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 18:59:22 UTC No. 16630040
Detailed slides on China's Neptune probe
Launch in 2033
13 or 15 year transit time
Objectives are Neptune, including deployment of an atmospheric entry probe, and Triton
<2100kg
2x 4320Wt 300We RTG
32kbps downlink @ 30 AU
All slides and summary
https://weibo.com/5658451754/PkxvGh
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:00:50 UTC No. 16630042
>>16630040
Atmospheric entry probe will deploy an aerostat
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:00:57 UTC No. 16630043
>>16630040
Activate windows
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:02:02 UTC No. 16630044
>>16630042
RTGs will have >20 years useful life
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:02:10 UTC No. 16630045
>>16630036
It's a fancy sounding rocket, but sounding rockets can get a lot higher than you'd expect while still being suborbital. You could could probably hit a satellite with this. It'd be simpler and possibly cheaper to just add a extra booster stage and launch from the ground, but I'm sure there are some tactical scenarios where this could be an attractive idea.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:02:34 UTC No. 16630046
>>16630040
>13 or 15 year transit time
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:03:09 UTC No. 16630047
>>16630046
that's not what it says
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:03:11 UTC No. 16630048
>>16630044
If it's going to take 15 years getting there it'd better have at least a 20 year lifespan
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:03:11 UTC No. 16630049
>>16630045
Even a small stage can reach the altitude of a jet in a matter of seconds. Air launch is so, so stupid
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:03:17 UTC No. 16630050
>>16630043
Wangbrow filthy wetern capitarist toor, we store
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:03:24 UTC No. 16630051
>>16630043
Why?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:09:49 UTC No. 16630055
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:10:35 UTC No. 16630057
>>16630047
That slide said the mission will last no less than 15 years, however I think this slide says the transit time will be 13 or 15 years depending on outgoing velocity. I admit I'm not good at Chinese
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:12:03 UTC No. 16630059
>>16630057
>I'm not good at Chinese
Me neither!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:13:38 UTC No. 16630061
>>16630045
probably nice to be able to launch from anywhere regardless of launch infrastructure and within seconds of arriving
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:14:05 UTC No. 16630062
>>16630055
Did it translate the atmospheric entry process diagram annotations into Georgian?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:15:11 UTC No. 16630063
>>16630043
Never
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:21:30 UTC No. 16630068
>>16630061
That's probably the angle. We don't have the deepest bench in the West for large land-based mobile missile systems, so a comparable asat system would need a lot of clean sheet development. Launching from somewhere that's not a Gaofen-mapped army missile base would also add "strategic ambiguity" or whatever the Pentagon wants to call it.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:30:50 UTC No. 16630072
>>16629452
They need to make a new one for ISS spacewalks now, would be cool
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:36:26 UTC No. 16630076
>>16630040
So will the Triton mission launch in 2033 or 2039? Or are there two Triton missions planned? There must be two missions planned, since the 2039 mission description in this slide mentions searching for life in Triton's subsurface ocean
ę¢åÆ»ęµ·å«äøå°äøęµ·ę“åÆč½ę“»ä½ēē©
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:47:36 UTC No. 16630080
>>16630049
I think the main benefits of air launch are that (1) you can use any normal airport as a launch base as long as it is near a LOX source, and (2) you can fly around bad weather, guaranteeing that the launch will happen exactly on schedule
This is mainly of interest to the military
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:49:26 UTC No. 16630083
>>16630071
finally, some decent meat
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:57:09 UTC No. 16630089
>>16629882
I AM VINDICATED
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 19:57:59 UTC No. 16630090
>>16629945
Boost Phase Interception. The interceptors crash into the missile when it's still going up, before MIRV/decoy shenanigans even come into the picture.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:04:29 UTC No. 16630094
>>16630090
Boost phase interception is delusion
You won't even have approval for strikes within 3-4 minutes, after that boost is done
Never mind that 99% of everything in orbit would not be in position, and the ballistic vehicles are going way higher than your orbital defense
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:04:44 UTC No. 16630095
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:10:38 UTC No. 16630097
>>16630094
>>You won't even have approval for strikes within 3-4 minutes, after that boost is done
No human in the loop. The pebbles detect launches and coordinate intercepts between each other.
>b-b-but we can't just start intercepting ICBMs in Chinese airspace
The hell we can't. What are they going to do about it, nuke us for the offense of intercepting their nuclear launches? They won't even start shit in the first place because they would understand the futility of even trying. The system prevents wars and never has to be used in the first place.
>Never mind that 99% of everything in orbit would not be in position
Have you missed the part where SpaceX has proven that it's economical to launch constellations of tens of thousands of satellites? Two thousand interceptors mentioned in >>16629882 is child's play, literally just a MVP.
>the ballistic vehicles are going way higher than your orbital defense
The interceptors are in LEO. The interceptions occur in the upper atmosphere.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:11:27 UTC No. 16630098
>>16630071
stick it in her pooper
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:16:58 UTC No. 16630101
>>16630042
>Aerostat
based
>>16630044
Have the chinks done RTGs before?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:19:38 UTC No. 16630105
>>16630102
why don't the feds crack down on this domestic spying?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:22:20 UTC No. 16630108
>>16630095
thank you!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:23:21 UTC No. 16630109
>>16630107
how will elon derangement syndrome keep our solar panels clean?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:25:08 UTC No. 16630110
>>16630109
Look at the GIF, you tell the regolith about Elon's latest tweets and it regoairs itself out of disgust
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:27:10 UTC No. 16630113
>>16629999
Cryovolcanism is due to density, not temperature gradient. It's kind of like seeing ice cubes float to the top of water after you fill a glass, but on a planetary scale
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:30:40 UTC No. 16630117
>>16629987
Another crawler being built in the background as well?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:32:59 UTC No. 16630120
What are your odds on the next test flight failing before reentry again?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:33:39 UTC No. 16630122
>>16630120
50/50
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:35:30 UTC No. 16630124
>>16630101
China's IHP / Shensuo probes will use RTGs. They are supposed to launch in the not too distant future.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:36:38 UTC No. 16630125
>>16630107
Isn't this technology like four decades old?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:37:39 UTC No. 16630126
>>16629987
>>16630117
How come Chinese are building their crawlers so fast?
Why is ML-2 construction so slow then?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:39:07 UTC No. 16630128
>>16630125
Anons here have often wondered why it isn't done on rovers when it seems so obvious, so maybe, but it seems not in space applications. I hope that changes now.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:45:56 UTC No. 16630131
I think that we need to nationalize SpaceX, the tech is too risky to leave in the hands of a private corporation. It would also be better for SpaceX since it wouldn't need to worry about making a profit and could simply survive off of tax dollars.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:48:26 UTC No. 16630134
>>16630120
0%
they are serious now
>>16630131
>just survive off tax dollars
=
absolutely zero disruptive improvements ever at all
just operate starship as existing for the next 100 fucking years
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:49:26 UTC No. 16630136
>>16630131
we deserve better bait than this
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:51:34 UTC No. 16630138
>>16630120
100 if it's still a block 2
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:51:52 UTC No. 16630141
>>16630131
They basically don't need to worry about making a profit right now kek
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 20:55:19 UTC No. 16630143
>>16630131
True
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:00:46 UTC No. 16630147
>>16630141
I wouldn't be so sure considering how much money they are burning on starship
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:07:48 UTC No. 16630152
>>16630131
worked out so well for NASA with SLS
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:14:22 UTC No. 16630156
>>16629681
What happens when the satellites in the carrier don't get used and become outdated? Do they just throw everything away and launch a new one?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:15:21 UTC No. 16630157
>>16630156
that maximizes contractor profit, so yes.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:16:32 UTC No. 16630160
>>16630157
Oh yeah, I forgot that's how government contracts work.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:17:53 UTC No. 16630162
>>16630160
contractors write the contracts lmao
trolling tax payers epic style
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:18:17 UTC No. 16630165
why would ANY reporter be getting into group messages with whitehouse staff
nevermind on this topic or that, it should be totally banned
Never speak to a reporter
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:18:29 UTC No. 16630166
>>16630156
it's easier than trying to leave a country by abandoning your base first
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:19:44 UTC No. 16630169
>>16630156
they have a lifetime regardless I would guess just like regular satellites
I guess the point is more that the satellites in the orbital carrier don't need decay and/or don't need to use their propellants, so their lifetime should be longer inside than outside, but of course they could be obsoleted, but it seems more about deploying new ones quickly if ASAT weapons are used or something
whether this actually makes sense remains to be seen
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:19:52 UTC No. 16630170
>>16630033
Holy shit that looks so fucking goofy
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:21:18 UTC No. 16630173
>>16630165
who even gives a shit, it's completely inconsequential to spaceflight or anything else that matters
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:22:48 UTC No. 16630176
I mean during a war, deploying satellites in a few hours instead of a day or something might make a difference? and what if the rockets deploying the satellites get disrupted in some way, could mean more delays
this would be especially meaningful if the satellites are weapons platforms and not just sensing/intelligence
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:23:06 UTC No. 16630177
>>16630039
>>16630038
>>16630036
>>16630035
it's a weapons program you dips
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:24:19 UTC No. 16630178
>>16630169
Maybe it all makes sense to some glowie, but to me it just sounds like another waste of time and money.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:24:23 UTC No. 16630179
>>16630131
I was told spacex is an embarrassment and that starship and starlink are awful products? Make it make sense!
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:33:52 UTC No. 16630183
>>16630131
Ahhh, the good times when the idea of nationalizing SpaceX was only some weak bait in an Uzbek basket weaving forum, now it's become the main normie parroting point out there.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:34:14 UTC No. 16630184
>>16630176
satellite carrier is antithesis of satellite constellation. you are putting a lot of small dispersed targets inside a big easy to hit one.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:39:38 UTC No. 16630189
>>16630187
John Galt is a fictional character from Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged. He is a brilliant inventor and philosopher who plays a central role in the story. In the novel, the question "Who is John Galt?" begins as a rhetorical expression of despair and helplessness, often asked by characters in a decaying society. However, as the plot unfolds, it is revealed that John Galt is the leader of a strike composed of the worldās most creative and productive individuals. He withdraws these "minds" from a collectivist society that he believes exploits their talents without fair reward.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:40:23 UTC No. 16630191
>>16630164
That guy is obsessed with Titan like me. Based.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:40:28 UTC No. 16630192
>>16630184
they are reserves that can be put in shell/orbit that has holes
almost impossible to change orbits of already deployed satellites to a completely different orbit
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:42:11 UTC No. 16630195
>>16630189
>He withdraws these "minds" from a collectivist society that he believes exploits their talents without fair reward.
havent read the book but thats all i need to know that the book is bullshit propaganda
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:42:54 UTC No. 16630196
>>16630177
>>16630176
it still makes no sense unless you are a military program where budgets need to be spent, equipment has to be used, and a vehicle needs to be slotted into your "jurisdiction" aka you aren't a ground based icbm force
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:44:28 UTC No. 16630197
>>16630195
communism doesn't work mate
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:46:08 UTC No. 16630199
>>16630197
elon musk is working on nerve stapling
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:49:32 UTC No. 16630200
>>16630192
they will be hit first, just like planes on the ground are targeted to catch them before they take off.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:49:50 UTC No. 16630201
>>16630199
good, you need it
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:50:28 UTC No. 16630202
>>16630189
Thank you you fucking NIGGER AI FUCKSLOP LAZY NIGGER POSTER
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:51:06 UTC No. 16630203
>>16630202
you're welcome :^)
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:52:00 UTC No. 16630205
>>16630196
It's a spiced up version of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid
Probably meant to be used with long range anti-ship missiles.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:52:04 UTC No. 16630206
>>16630199
he needs to work on stapling my nipples first
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:55:32 UTC No. 16630208
>>16630107
Give me room and board and iāll literally clean miles and miles of solar panels on Mars for free.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:56:04 UTC No. 16630209
>>16630205
yea peacetime goofiness
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:56:38 UTC No. 16630210
>>16630199
how about cheap and accessible stomach stapling?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 21:57:38 UTC No. 16630212
>>16630209
Burgerlandia is facing a war with China, and isn't ready for it. That's why they're trying to come up with improvised weapon systems like dropping missiles out the back of cargo planes.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:01:15 UTC No. 16630213
>>16630212
china is not aggressive and certainly not a "threat" unless the US chooses to create a war
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:02:43 UTC No. 16630214
>>16630212
Bait
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:07:10 UTC No. 16630215
>>16630212
China is based
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:09:24 UTC No. 16630218
>>16630212
It is at war with China. A trade war.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:09:35 UTC No. 16630219
>>16630197
Neither does capitalism. Every "ism" depends on better humans than what we have to work with.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:15:34 UTC No. 16630226
>>16630213
>promising to invade Taiwan isn't aggression
bad bait
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:17:04 UTC No. 16630229
>>16630226
it's their rightful territory
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:18:32 UTC No. 16630230
>>16630229
worse bait
šļø Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:18:45 UTC No. 16630231
>>16630229
Mainland China is rightfully Taiwan's territory.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:20:05 UTC No. 16630233
>>16630219
yes it does
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:21:04 UTC No. 16630235
>>16630231
ok now the pigdog speaks. too tired of consuming shit
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:23:41 UTC No. 16630239
>>16630226
taiwan promises to invade china
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:26:40 UTC No. 16630240
>>16630239
Chicoms are building invasion ships, nobody who isn't willfully ignorant believes they aren't planning an invasion. Taiwan on the other hand is a threat to nobody, except the "dignity and face" of the CCP.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:30:32 UTC No. 16630245
>>16630240
They both claim each others territory
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:31:33 UTC No. 16630247
>>16630245
But only one of them is going to start a war over it.
šļø Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:35:55 UTC No. 16630251
>>16630240
Taiwan is a "threat" to China as long as they are ruled by anti-Beijing politicians who are willing to work with the Americans, because Taiwan is key to unobstructed access to Pacific deep waters for China's submarines, including nuclear weapons submarines.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:38:04 UTC No. 16630252
>>16630251
>because Taiwan is key to unobstructed access to Pacific deep waters for China's submarines, including nuclear weapons submarines.
Taiwan does not obstruct Chinese ships, commercial or military. The only scenario in which anti-shipping attacks might be staged from Taiwan is if China goes to war.. over Taiwan. As long as the Chinese remain civil, their shipping has and will remain completely unobstructed.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:38:09 UTC No. 16630253
>>16630240
They're planning an invasion - of course. Any good military is planning and preparing for all plausible contingencies. They're unlikely to actually attempt an invasion, unless they feel the status quo is becoming untenable and it is no longer possible to simply kick the can down the road.
šļø Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:40:02 UTC No. 16630255
>>16630247
you plan on dying to keep Taiwan "free" ?
>In 2023, the average total fertility rate in Taiwan ranged at around 0.87 children per woman over lifetime.
Is this a government worth dying for?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:41:49 UTC No. 16630257
>>16630252
To Beijing, that is only true if they can trust that Taiwan is guaranteed to be neutral or pro-Beijing, and will never aid the Americans in a hypothetical US-China conflict
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:41:59 UTC No. 16630258
>>16630253
>They're unlikely to actually attempt an invasion
You're wrong. The CCP has promised to do so, and they're spending an emormous amount of money to build the capability.
>>16630255
>>>china isn't aggressive
>>china invading taiwan doesn't count but also they aren't going to
>okay they're going to but that's actually a good thing
chicom retard
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:43:00 UTC No. 16630259
>>16630131
The USG just needs to throw more contracts at SpaceX's competitors, until there is less market concentration in the launch sector
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:45:22 UTC No. 16630262
>>16630258
>china is building a navy and basic amphib capabilities
>this is double plus ungood because the media told me so
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:45:47 UTC No. 16630263
>>16630257
>in a hypothetical US-China conflict
The hypothetical US-China conflict is avoided completely if the PRC doesn't go full-retard on Taiwan, and is started if they do. China's ships are not impeded by Taiwan and only would be if they went to war with Taiwan. The "Tawain threat to shipping" excuse is therefore bullshit.
The reason the CCP want to invade Taiwan is because Taiwan's existence is seen as failure to secure closure for the Chinese Civil War. Any other claimed cause or justification is bullshit.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:46:27 UTC No. 16630264
>>16630262
The only use for those ships is invading Taiwan. Those ships prove China's intent.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:46:52 UTC No. 16630266
>>16630259
starliner? cygnus? or dream chaser?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:47:22 UTC No. 16630267
>>16630259
Throwing money at SpaceX's competitors won't help. SpaceX is too far ahead and nearly all of their competitors are retards (Rocket Lab excepted.)
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:48:26 UTC No. 16630268
>>16630265
>crashing the pressure-fed hypergolic rocket engine
how much propellant did they have left in that thing?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:48:46 UTC No. 16630269
>>16630258
>The CCP has promised to do so
They've been saying since the 1940s that Taiwan must be liberated - at some point. They aren't promising any concrete timelines, as far as I'm aware
>they're spending an emormous amount of money to build the capability.
I think "enormous" is an exaggeration. Still, they're spending money, because they need to be prepared for the eventuality that it becomes necessary
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:49:56 UTC No. 16630270
>>16630264
or going anywhere and doing anything if you don't have direct access to a deep water port?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:52:52 UTC No. 16630272
>>16630268
If memory serves correctly, they had contact lights and shut the engine off before the LM tipped over a bit. But if Im wrong then yeah kek imagine dying because you literally landed on your pressure fed engine and your lander blew the fuck up
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:54:19 UTC No. 16630273
>>16630269
>>16630270
Mulberry Harbors, nor these modern equivalents, aren't built for shits and giggles. These have been built to support an invasion.
>>16630272
Even with the engine shut off, crashing it like that is spooky. It could have damaged the propellant feed lines or the tanks themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:55:16 UTC No. 16630274
>>16630265
NASA had the foresight to do a separate descent and ascent engine. If this was their only engine I wonder if they would have been fucked. No way you'd be able to fly this back to LLO right?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:55:35 UTC No. 16630275
>>16630266
I meant in launch. For example, the USSF could expand NSSL Lane 1 to 100 launches per year or more, and find a reason to exclude SpaceX from Lane 1. They could for example exclude all Lane 2 providers from Lane 1. That should provide guaranteed demand that will provide the guaranteed business that will incentivize smaller launch providers to dramatically scale up operations.
As for ISS spacecraft - yes, NASA should've funded more crewed spacecraft than just Starliner and Dragon. However, ISS contracts are a roundabout and inefficient way to fund launch providers. Just look at Antares - completely unsuitable for commercial operations other than Cygnus launches.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:56:37 UTC No. 16630276
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:58:48 UTC No. 16630278
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:59:05 UTC No. 16630279
>>16630265
>bonk
>>16630274
I wonder if you could. If the damage is just to the engine bell it blows itself off and you still have a mostly functional, slightly lower isp engine
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:59:09 UTC No. 16630280
>>16630277
Neato, I like it
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 22:59:53 UTC No. 16630281
>>16630274
If it was only the engine bell that got damaged, they could probably still use it (with less efficiency, particularly if part of it then fell off.) Maybe it would have insufficient propellant to get back, given that reduced efficiency. Hard to say.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:00:06 UTC No. 16630282
>>16630277
Dis mon's wut, mon?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:00:37 UTC No. 16630283
>>16630276
>>16630278
>if I post lots of Chinese propaganda promising to invade Taiwan, surely that will discredit the premise of China being a threat to Taiwan
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:01:12 UTC No. 16630284
>>16630277
I tink me gwaan study dis mons
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:03:35 UTC No. 16630286
>>16630277
>Dis Mons
Two Mountains?
is this a Two Towers joke?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:05:54 UTC No. 16630287
>>16630286
Divine comedy. Dis is a city in Hell.
I believe features on Titan are named after Tolkien lore though lol
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:08:19 UTC No. 16630289
>>16630278
Here's a large collection of old "we must liberate Taiwan" posters. Some are even so old that they are written in traditional Chinese characters
https://www.sohu.com/a/326674590_48
The anti-secession law was enacted in 2005, in which article 8 formally lays out China's policy of an invasion of Taiwan in case it declares independence or peaceful unification becomes impossible
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:10:11 UTC No. 16630291
>>16630289
>establishing that China is a threat to Taiwan
good job
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:12:03 UTC No. 16630292
>>16630263
>The hypothetical US-China conflict is avoided completely if the PRC doesn't go full-retard on Taiwan
You don't think there could be any other reason or trigger for a US-China conflict than "China going full retard on Taiwan"?
>China's ships are not impeded by Taiwan and only would be if they went to war with Taiwan
How strong guarantees does Beijing have of this though?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:14:01 UTC No. 16630294
>>16630229
it was promised to them 2000yrs ago
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:14:06 UTC No. 16630295
>>16630291
China is a indeed "threat" to Taiwan in the sense that they are interested in taking control over Taiwan and would attack under certain conditions. However, an invasion attempt is not inevitable, and there is no ticking timer for when such an invasion attempt will start.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:14:27 UTC No. 16630296
>>16630292
>China has to start a war because China is concerned about a war
Full retard. They want to invade Taiwan because Taiwan causes them to loose face. That's why they've been promising to do it for as long as they have existed: >>16630289
There is no tactical or strategic justification for it. It's purely political.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:15:15 UTC No. 16630297
>>16630295
>We don't know exactly when they'll do it, therefore they won't do it
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:16:49 UTC No. 16630300
>>16630296
I'm sure you can speak and read fluent mandarin and have spent years in the region, yes?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:16:52 UTC No. 16630301
>>16630296
>Taiwan causes them to lose face
I think they can handle that without needing to invade. They've had over 75 years to develop coping mechanisms, so I think they're pretty good at it by now
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:02 UTC No. 16630302
>>16630301
Great idea, you should try to convince them to see things your way and to stop threatening to invade Taiwan.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:04 UTC No. 16630303
>>16630297
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying they might do it, but probably won't. It depends on how international political circumstances develop.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:31 UTC No. 16630304
>>16629676
Hahaha. Cotton what an absolute piece of shit monkey aipac Ziocon puppet stooge.
Us govt nothing but professional Liars cheaters usurpers, butchers, vampires, clowns, jesters and jackals. Beyond sickening.
US govt nothing more than an international criminal terrorist mafia dressed up in a business suit
Entire us govt belongs in prison
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:40 UTC No. 16630306
china is VERY strong
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:18:45 UTC No. 16630307
>>16630299
The goat
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:19:39 UTC No. 16630309
>>16630303
>I'm saying they might do it
And that's what America is unprepared for, and why America is developing half baked retard crap like >>16630033 >>16630205
I'm glad we've managed to bring this conversation full-circle.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:19:44 UTC No. 16630310
>>16630302
Saying they reserve the right to use force, and such things, is part of the coping mechanism and part of how they maintain the status quo so they don't actually need to do anything
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:21:03 UTC No. 16630312
>>16630310
Instead of threatening Taiwan with violence, maybe the CCP should chill the fuck out and quit acting like retards.
Until then, Taiwan and America must prepare for the worst.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:23:46 UTC No. 16630316
>>16630307
>cancer dust
he lived to 82. the hazards of space flight are massively exaggerated
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:24:52 UTC No. 16630317
>>16630312
They're not acting like retards. They're doing what maintains the political status quo, lets them kick the can down the road indefinitely and avoid doing anything.
>Taiwan and America must prepare for the worst.
Well, sure they should prepare. To prepare for plausible contingencies that must be dealt with is the job of any military.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:25:53 UTC No. 16630318
>>16630317
>They're not acting like retards
Threatening people with violence is in fact acting like a retard.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:27:19 UTC No. 16630319
>>16630147
Elon says a hundred million per test, starlink revenue at ~$10 billion. Depending on internal falcon prices they could actually probably blow up 10x more Starships per year
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:29:00 UTC No. 16630321
>>16630165
Nice off topic post, have any car shitposting for us? Fuck off
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:29:48 UTC No. 16630322
>>16630318
>Threatening people with violence is in fact acting like a retard.
I think that's an excessively categorical and absolute statement to make. I think many politicians throughout the ages would disagree.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:31:40 UTC No. 16630323
>>16630284
kek
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:32:41 UTC No. 16630324
>>16630322
Spaceflight?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:33:26 UTC No. 16630325
>>16630318
Maybe they look like retards to you, but that's just because in the publications you read, their statements are taken out of their cultural and historical context and framed in a way to make them look retarded. They probably look like wise statemen to their target audiences.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:34:09 UTC No. 16630327
>>16630319
There is the money they spend per test, and then there is also the money used to support the entire Starship program (staff, land development, buildings, launch tower, etc) That money is probably not part of the per-launch cost, but none of that expense is paying for itself until Starship flies. It's not the blown up Starships which are the problem, it's the time they spend not having Starship operational.
It would be better to blow up 50 Starships in a month and then have Starship operational, than to blow up the same 50 Starships over five years before getting Starship operational, so the rest of the program can start paying for itself.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:34:27 UTC No. 16630328
>>16630325
>statesmen
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:35:12 UTC No. 16630330
>>16630326
Is this one light enough to actually lift off?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:35:15 UTC No. 16630331
>>16630325
>>16630322
>the CCP threatening Taiwan with violence is actually not retarded because the CCP has ITSELF deliberately constructed a social context in which the CCP is expected to threaten Taiwan with violence
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:38:19 UTC No. 16630334
>>16630329
Perfectly nominal
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:39:03 UTC No. 16630335
>>16630330
A big problem with the Apollo program was the contractors only ended up getting paid to build very few pieces of hardware. They have learned from this mistake, and this time they intend to get paid for building no hardware at all. This is best accomplished if their proposed hardware is critically flawed so it never gets put into action in the first place. This way they'll get paid for R&D and never actually have to produce anything. Peak contractor efficiency.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:40:02 UTC No. 16630337
āWeāll continue to work through certification toward the end of this year and then go figure out where Starliner fits best in the schedule for the International Space Station and its crew and cargo missions. It is likely to be in the timeframe of late this calendar year or early next year for the next Starliner flight." - Steve Stich, manager, NASAās Commercial Crew Program
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:42:04 UTC No. 16630339
>>16630086
14?
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:43:47 UTC No. 16630340
>>16630337
More like
>It is likely to be in the timeframe of late this century
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:46:07 UTC No. 16630341
>>16630337
Boeing is really in the doghouse now.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:46:11 UTC No. 16630342
>>16630337
Eventually Boeing is going to pull the plug themselves.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:48:21 UTC No. 16630343
>>16630335
if the NASA contractors sets a mission timeline of 3 launches a decade, you have to price accordingly
When they proceed to not launch at all this decade, you still need to get paid
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:49:18 UTC No. 16630345
>>16630330
Will always laugh at the GAO ruling
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:49:25 UTC No. 16630346
https://x.com/USSF_SSC/status/19053
>SpaceForceās Space Systems Command awarded NSSL Phase 3 Lane 1 FY25 On-Ramp contracts to Rocket Lab USA, Inc. & Stoke Space. This is the 2nd set of awards in Lane 1 of the USSFās dual-lane acquisition strategy; Blue Origin, SpaceX & ULA were awarded in FY24.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:50:29 UTC No. 16630347
>>16630346
https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1905
>Neutron has been selected to compete for the nationās top priority national security missions under the U.S. Space Forceās $5.6b NSSL program. Supporting assured access to space for the nationās most important missions has always been the goal with Neutron, and weāre incredibly proud to be selected to provide that opportunity for the U.S. Space Force.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:51:34 UTC No. 16630349
>>16630346
>>16630347
I have no faith in neutron
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:51:39 UTC No. 16630350
https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1905
>Weāre delivering Neutron to the pad at an unprecedented development pace as one of the worldās most frequent and reliable launch providers, with 63 Electron launches to date and one of only two U.S. launch providers to have launched multiple payloads to orbit so far in 2025. Neutronās debut launch is scheduled to take place in the second half of 2025, and will be the first rocket to support the NSSL program from Wallops Island, Virginia.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:53:22 UTC No. 16630351
>>16630350
>Neutronās debut launch is scheduled to take place in the second half of 2025
[X] to doubt
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:53:55 UTC No. 16630354
>>16630343
What it boils down to is both NASA and the contractors have only weak incentives to actually carry out the mission, but they have strong incentives to keep the mission in indefinite R&D limbo. Actually carrying out the mission comes with the risk of failure, and even if they succeed they risk the money stopping when everybody else gets bored of Moon antics and defunds the program (Apollo's fate.) Staying in R&D limbo keeps the money flowing and reduces the risk of program cancellation, by keeping the public in a state of blue balls.
Their only real problem is the prospect of China doing it first and then Congress going apeshit at NASA and cancelling everything, but they're probably betting on Congress having the exact opposite reaction and actually giving NASA and NASA's contractors EVEN MORE money should this failure occur.
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:54:12 UTC No. 16630355
>>16630350
invoking berger's law
Anonymous at Thu, 27 Mar 2025 23:54:39 UTC No. 16630357
>>16630347
>>16630346
Excellent news.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:02:43 UTC No. 16630361
>>16630350
https://x.com/heospace/status/19053
>New from orbit! We captured this image of the Chinese Space Station using a Black Sky satellite. This NEI mission was captured from a distance of 83 km, with a resolution of 0.17 m/px.
>>16630355
That was my thought. H2 2025 sounds a lot like "pencil it in for December." Last we heard about the Archimedes was when they sent a new test unit to Stennis back in January. If they want to launch this year they need to have those test done by today and start production of the flight engines tomorrow.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:02:44 UTC No. 16630362
>>16630346
Neutron gets uglier with each iteration.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:06:02 UTC No. 16630365
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:09:56 UTC No. 16630369
>>16630365
This was peak, shame they changed it
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:10:09 UTC No. 16630370
>>16630345
K-12, lel
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:13:18 UTC No. 16630372
Literally what is even the best-case-scenario for Neutron? I don't see a business model where RL makes a lot of money and can self-fund a heavy or super heavy lift rocket.
Beck went all-in on this notion that the future is some sort of "constellation launcher," but that's obv not the case. And surviving on NASA and DoD contracts in perpetuity is not how you growāsee ULA. Vulcan-Centaur with SMART reuse is about as ambitious as they can afford. ULA couldn't do something like Starship
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:16:15 UTC No. 16630375
>>16630372
The "Anybody but SpaceX" market has great growth potential and Rocket Lab will be well positioned to exploit this.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:17:52 UTC No. 16630378
>>16629758
Hard to cite sources when it came to him in a dream.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:17:53 UTC No. 16630379
>>16630375
I agree completely. That market, however, will be gobbled up by New Glenn and Vulcan. Neutron is going to be competing with smaller launchers
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:19:03 UTC No. 16630380
>>16630375
outside of Kuiper there isn't much of that market Rocket Lab has access to
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:19:56 UTC No. 16630383
>>16630379
New Glenn and Vulcan are too large for most satellites, they're built for GEO but that's a shrinking market because small sats in LEO are cheaper and are becoming more effective.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:22:34 UTC No. 16630385
>>16630383
Wrong. Neutron is ngmi. They have the benefit of going in to this with a sort of first-mover advantage, i.e. they can ride the wave of Electron and being arguably second-place after SpaceX right now. But Neutron is a shitty design that isn't going to carry its weight after long.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:24:15 UTC No. 16630387
>>16630027
Please let it be our sun. It will remove the earther problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:26:29 UTC No. 16630389
>>16630385
Rocket Lab aren't dummies. They wouldn't be pursing Neutron if they hadn't done the math and verified the feasibility of their plan.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:28:55 UTC No. 16630390
>>16630372
It can't compete with Starship, but Starships are looking like they're going to be designed around specialized cargo for a long time before they start thinking about generic commercial flights. SpaceX is going to be focused on Starlink-3s and bulk propellant delivery for a good long while yet. Neutron won't be super successful competing against Falcon, but it'll be good enough that it should force the price of a Falcon launch down a few million dollars.
Rocket Lab will be fine. Most of their business is in other parts of the industry anyway, and marketing Neutron as part of a complete package where they sell the launch, the satellite bus and the surface-to-orbit communications will give them a nice edge to work with. ...At least until SpaceX starts selling payload slots on their new, bigger Starlinks.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:31:27 UTC No. 16630391
>>16630346
I'm stoked for Stoke!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:39:04 UTC No. 16630394
>>16630389
?
It's not like beck or anyone working there is using their own money
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:42:01 UTC No. 16630396
>>16630394
They're a serious company, not some sort of investor scam.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:47:25 UTC No. 16630399
>>16630327
Didn't Elon say starbase is three milly day? That's still only a billy a year, my point stands
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:52:42 UTC No. 16630402
>>16630372
>"constellation launcher," but that's obv not the case
What if they get chosen for part of Golden Dome? Sure it's DoD but it'll also be a shitload of sats even if SpaceX launches most of them.
Also what else can they even do if they don't want to leave launch entirely? They don't have SpaceX amounts of money or VC interest, so the only way to even have a chance at making bigger rockets is steps like this. They probably should've tried to make it less autistic to be more efficient but at least that makes it interesting.
I don't think Neutron is going to be amazing and I doubt they'll make enough money to go even bigger especially with ULA and BO, but I also don't see many other ways for them to go.
>>16630399
It keeps growing so I wouldn't be surprised if that has gone up since then.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 00:52:53 UTC No. 16630403
>>16630396
and lots of serious startups lose money hand over fist forever
They can maybe compete with F9 as it exists today, or maybe 2 years ago, and thats their financial plan
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:01:35 UTC No. 16630406
>Error: Duplicate file exists. here.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:02:45 UTC No. 16630407
>>16630316
didnt he only have like 3 space missions total
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:03:48 UTC No. 16630408
>>16630107
Imagine if Insight had this tech
It would still be operating right now
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:06:29 UTC No. 16630411
>>16630407
I recently discovered that deke slayton had one (1) flight, despite me being familiar with his name since I was a child and assuming he was some sort of super astronaut who flew a lot
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:18:18 UTC No. 16630416
>>16630411
Apollo-Soyuz was certainly a memorable one though.
>normies literally don't remember it
sad
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:27:17 UTC No. 16630424
>>16630422
Kino ass mission
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:32:59 UTC No. 16630428
>>16630419
I mean fuck, modern NASA knew they wanted to go from block 1 to block 2 for SLS. Why didnāt they just build the bigger tower first, and put block 1 SLS on a milk stool.
Instead they spend billions and billions on a tower thatās going to be used once or twice. Insane
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:44:36 UTC No. 16630437
>>16630076
>please activate Windows
oh bugmen...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:50:02 UTC No. 16630439
>>16630428
Same thing bugs me about Starship's infrastructure.
>Build High Bay
>Not big enough for next version
>Build Mega Bay
>Not big enough for next version
>Build Giga
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 01:59:58 UTC No. 16630447
>>16630439
they should build a bay that builds itself like a tower crane does.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:02:04 UTC No. 16630449
>>16630439
They get a pass because the design is basically always in flux and they donāt seem to mind upgrading as they go instead of committing to overkill with skyscraper-sized VABs. Remember when they were originally doing barnyard engineering in tents that were catching on fire during the hop campaign? Lol.
Meanwhile NASA has known the estimated for SLS for like 15 years at this point, and are requesting a tower from scratch because the one they spent a decade building already is 2 feet too short
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:12:58 UTC No. 16630460
>>16630372
The exact same thing that's happening with Electron today. It's hard to get a ride on Falcon 9, so people go to Electron. The same thing will happen with Starship most likely. A large portion of SpaceX launches are self serving starlink launches, and then Mars or Lunar missions in the future, which means 3rd parties have to wait in line to get on a rideshare, or God forbid a dedicated launch. The companies that can't get on board F9 go to Electron, and in the future the companies that can't get on Starship will get on Neutron, or maybe with Stoke if they're succesful. There are new space startups like every week at this point, and SpaceX cannot serve all of them. Alternative launch providers will always have a place, in the same way that alternative airliners will always have a place next to boing and airbus.
>And surviving on NASA and DoD contracts in perpetuity is not how you grow
That's not even what RL is doing now. Most of their missions on Electron are not with NASA, but with private companies. Why make a post like this if you don't even know what you're talking about?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:19:47 UTC No. 16630468
>>16630439
Why don't you put the whole world in a bay
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:33:23 UTC No. 16630472
>>16630468
that would be evil
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 02:49:39 UTC No. 16630485
>>16630468
Well yeah that's what we're going to do when the colonies are self-sustaining and it's time to give Earth a timeout.
Throw a rock at the central business district and trade infrastructure of every city with more than a million people, Kessler the satellites, and refill the orbits with lunar regolith periodically so they can't leave for a century.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:22:25 UTC No. 16630503
>>16630449
why is it a cost plus contract that's run into insane overruns
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:29:55 UTC No. 16630504
>>16630460
> Alternative launch providers will always have a place
RocketLab is not profitable even if it was just running electron, Neutron needs a LOT of launches to be profitable and self-sustaining, not just 10-15 snowflake launches a year for people in a hurry
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:35:53 UTC No. 16630509
>>16630504
RL is not profitable because of development costs. Space Systems is already profitable, they just sink that money back into Neutron dev money. Most launch companies do not profit atm, SpaceX is really the only one that does.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:39:55 UTC No. 16630510
>>16630000
>the Soviets
sorry but Russia has been cancelled, sweaty
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:47:57 UTC No. 16630512
>>16630509
ah i see their finances are public
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 03:53:13 UTC No. 16630514
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:19:46 UTC No. 16630522
>>16630300
no but he does get passive income from his defense stocks so that makes him an expert in "we need to be prepared to go to war with the world at any moment" rhetoric
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:28:06 UTC No. 16630525
>>16629698
get rid of the cope zoom
šļø Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:31:36 UTC No. 16630527
>>16629962
Venus sample return mission planning.
It seems to be 2 launches, one with an orbiter, the other with the atmospheric sampler+launcher and separate balloons. (Don't take the illustrations too seriously)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 04:36:04 UTC No. 16630531
>>16629962
Venus atmospheric sample return planning.
It looks to be 2 launches, one with Orbiter & Earth Return Vehicle, the other with an atmospheric sampling vehicle+ascent vehicle and a longer term balloon exploration vehicle.
Extremely ambitious as 1st Venus mission.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 05:55:42 UTC No. 16630582
aaaaand it's dead
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:03:32 UTC No. 16630586
>spacex will not catch the next booster
the program is falling apart
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:05:00 UTC No. 16630587
>>16630586
source?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:05:12 UTC No. 16630588
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:06:54 UTC No. 16630591
>>16630587
SpaceX is reportedly planning NOT to catch Booster 14-1 on Starship Flight 9.
The booster will perform a water landing in the Gulf of America.
https://x.com/spacesudoer/status/19
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:07:59 UTC No. 16630593
>>16630591
How fucked is the booster
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:08:19 UTC No. 16630595
>>16630591
Did they run out of room in the rocket garden?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:08:48 UTC No. 16630596
>>16630591
it's over, i'm gonna kill myself
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:12:59 UTC No. 16630598
>>16630591
>spacesudoer
>reportedly
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:13:10 UTC No. 16630599
Rapid reusability (lol)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:16:40 UTC No. 16630601
>>16630599
better than the rest of the world combined...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:16:50 UTC No. 16630602
>>16630598
This
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:22:27 UTC No. 16630604
SpaceX is very scared of destroying tower
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:38:15 UTC No. 16630613
>>16630591
Eh it's a solved problem and no need to risk the tower and OLM. Probably best to ensure you can keep flying and solve starship right now.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:39:23 UTC No. 16630615
>>16630131
I threw this bait up before I went to work, why did it get so many (you)'s?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:46:47 UTC No. 16630621
>>16630613
holy fucking cope, you must be kidding
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 06:55:02 UTC No. 16630626
>>16630621
Flying a reused booster is more risky, makes sense to be a bit more conservative
Like with a block upgrade
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:18:42 UTC No. 16630646
>>16630503
Because no one has ever built a launch tower like it before. Plus it supports a manned mission so it has to have all the quick escape shit too.
(Also they had this hilarious fantasy that they could just widen the hole in the original launcher they had built for Ares I and boy what a colossal fucking stupid idea that was). Anytime you hear "never been done before" is where cost plus is supposed to make sense (because the final cost cannot accurately be estimated) but it was a vehicle just ripe for abuse
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:40:12 UTC No. 16630656
>>16629681
That Serria Nevada capsule and Cygnus play right into this.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 07:42:05 UTC No. 16630657
>>16629688
Cool chart really shows the need to get big quick.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:29:46 UTC No. 16630688
>>16630546
rate this one, just painted it
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:58:55 UTC No. 16630710
>>16630531
>Venus Atmosphere Sampling Probe
more like Venus Atmosphere Stealing Probe
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 08:59:57 UTC No. 16630711
>>16630546
this doesn't work with methane because methane freezes at liquid oxygen temperatures
it works great with propane however
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:00:57 UTC No. 16630713
>>16630688
only works with propane
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:01:55 UTC No. 16630714
>>16630713
>>16630711
explain to me why methane downcommer doesnt freeze in current design, if its surrounded by colder lox
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:02:50 UTC No. 16630715
SFG IS ALIVE
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:10:27 UTC No. 16630718
>>16630714
I believe the current lines are double-wall vacuum insulated.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:30:46 UTC No. 16630724
>>16629856
Scrubbed
bad weather and Europeans don't work on the sabbath days
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:48:55 UTC No. 16630735
>>16629882
That would be me.
I've always said that
1. Brilliant Pebbles was never cancelled
2. SpaceX was founded primarily for this purpose
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:53:56 UTC No. 16630738
https://www.defenseone.com/technolo
>āI'm told that the Air Force is considering canceling solicitations for this transport layer on SDA's Tranche 2 and 3, and instead using Starshield,ā Sen. Kevin Cramer said during a Senate Armed Services committee hearing Thursday to consider the nominations of several Defense Department nominees, including Troy Meink for Air Force secretary.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 09:55:54 UTC No. 16630739
>>16630738
mite b good
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:09:57 UTC No. 16630765
>>16630764
Btw donāt ever do this if you go to Titan. You canāt float if you fall in those methane lakes. Youāre sinking straight to the bottom and never coming out
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:31:23 UTC No. 16630773
https://x.com/thevegit0/status/1905
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:42:46 UTC No. 16630778
>>16630765
Thanks mate I was about to have a dip in Ligeia Mare until I read your post you basically saved my life
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:46:08 UTC No. 16630780
>>16630621
kek I remember a few threads back some sperg babbling about how they should fly the malfunctioning block 2 just so they could catch the booster. I wonder what he's up to now...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:47:12 UTC No. 16630781
>>16630773
concerning
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:53:55 UTC No. 16630785
>>16630780
either that or refly a booster, both make sense even if block 2 keeps blowing up
you think waiting for 6-12 months is a better idea?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:57:23 UTC No. 16630787
>>16630765
>Youāre sinking straight to the bottom and never coming out
Thanks for the tips friendo
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:08:27 UTC No. 16630795
>>16630468
Omegabay
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:12:22 UTC No. 16630800
SpaceX reportedly has a secret backdoor for Chinese investment
>Elon Muskās aerospace giant SpaceX allows investors from China to buy stakes in the company as long as the funds are routed through the Cayman Islands or other offshore secrecy hubs, according to previously unreported court records.
>āThe primary mechanism is that those investors would come through intermediate entities that they would create or others would create,ā Kahlon said. āTypically they would set up BVI structures or Cayman structures or Hong Kong structures and various other ones,ā he added, using the acronym for the British Virgin Islands. Offshore vehicles are often used to keep investors anonymous.
>The rare picture of SpaceXās approach recently emerged in an under-the-radar corporate dispute in Delaware. Both SpaceXās chief financial officer and Iqbaljit Kahlon, a major investor, were forced to testify in the case.
>The legal dispute centers on an aborted 2021 deal, when SpaceX executives grew angry after news broke that a Chinese firm was going to buy $50 million of the companyās stock. SpaceX then had the purchase canceled.
>The new materials do not contain allegations that the Chinese investments in SpaceX would violate the law or were directed by the Chinese government. The company did not respond to detailed questions from ProPublica.
>The Delaware court records reveal SpaceX insidersā intense preoccupation with secrecy when it comes to China and detail a network of independent middlemen peddling SpaceX shares to eager Chinese investors.
https://www.propublica.org/article/
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:13:44 UTC No. 16630803
>>16630800
>The Financial Times recently reported that Chinese investors had managed to acquire small amounts of SpaceX stock and that they were turning to offshore vehicles to do so. The deals were structured to limit the information investors receive, the outlet said. The Delaware records reveal additional, previously unreported Chinese investments in SpaceX but do not say how much they were worth. The few Chinese investments in SpaceX where a dollar figure is publicly known total well under $100 million.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:15:12 UTC No. 16630805
>>16630785
>doing this extremely retarded and wasteful thing makes sense
>oh you don't think so?
>that means you believe that doing this other extremely retarded and wasteful thing is a better idea!
sometimes I envy the silly world in which idiots live.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:17:40 UTC No. 16630807
>>16630800
Muskās impartial passion with china and a free market relationship with them is weird. He needs to learn to hate the red state.
Sorry if this is a pseudointellectual thought but Iām surprised his tesla/china relationship isnāt already seen as a red flag by the DoD. Musk isnāt dumb enough to jeopardize all of SX with fishy china deals, at least I donāt think he is esp with other people like shotwell who have oversight on this, but I also wouldnāt put it past him to do something dumb like let China invest in a super shady way bc he only cares about the end-goal of growing a company as fast as possible no matter the means
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:18:30 UTC No. 16630809
>>16630805
so what do you suggest and what would that entail? go on
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:19:04 UTC No. 16630810
>>16630803
>On a recent Wednesday afternoon, hundreds of Chinese investors tuned in to a webinar to hear a representative from Homaer Financial, an asset manager in eastern China, pitch an opportunity to invest in SpaceX for as little as $200,000 per person.
>The Homaer official said she expected SpaceXās valuation to almost triple to $1.1tn within three years, thanks in part to ācomprehensiveā support from the US government and military that continued placing procurement orders to the space technology company even āin times of distressā.
>āI have more faith in Musk than in most Chinese start-up entrepreneurs, who are struggling to cope with an increasingly state-dominated economy,ā said an investor who bought shares in SpaceX through Homaer last year.
>A person close to Homaer said the firm asked its US partners if they accepted Chinese money. Typically, the terms also require the US partner to liquidate the investment in extreme scenarios such as a military conflict between the two countries.
>āRisks do exist because we are not sure how bad US-China relations will become in the next few years,ā the person said.
The uncertainty has not stopped wealthy Chinese from taking the deals. While Beijingās stringent capital controls have limited Muskās China investors to those with foreign bank accounts, some wealth managers have found options to overcome the barrier.
>āChina is facing an oversupply of capital and a shortage of high-quality projects,ā a New York investment manager seeking to raise capital from China for such investments said. āThat is where we fit in.ā
https://archive ph/43eSR
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:20:11 UTC No. 16630811
from $400 billion valuation to >>16630793 to $1.1 trillion by 2028 >>16630810
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:41:57 UTC No. 16630821
>>16630738
What? Aren't starshields codeveloped?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:43:13 UTC No. 16630823
>>16630765
If you won't float, can't you just walk out?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:44:34 UTC No. 16630824
>>16630821
shhhh south african man BAD
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:52:15 UTC No. 16630825
https://www.wired.com/story/elon-mu
>More than any other company, SpaceX has significant representation in DOGE, with 16 of the 80 listed DOGE operatives having worked there in some capacity. SpaceX employees have appeared at the Federal Aviation Administration, which could present a worrisome conflict of interest, and have also appeared at SSA, OPM, and the Department of Energy.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 12:53:42 UTC No. 16630826
>>16630825
the dems really shouldnt have went full lawfare against elon. real leopards ate my face moment.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:02:45 UTC No. 16630835
>The Independent published what it described as an exclusive report Monday describing a lawsuit filed against the CEO of RocketStar, a New York-based company that says its mission is "improving upon the engines that power us to the stars." Christopher Craddock is accused of plundering investor funds to underwrite pricey jaunts to Europe, jewelry for his wife, child support payments, and, according to the companyās largest investor, "airline tickets for international call girls to join him for clandestine weekends in Miami," The Independent reports. Craddock established RocketStar in 2014 after financial regulators barred him from working on Wall Street over a raft of alleged violations.
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
how the fuck do these people get investor money
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:07:56 UTC No. 16630843
>>16630835
has the company done anything since 2014?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:18:55 UTC No. 16630849
>>16630835
Rock(et) Star behaviour.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:30:40 UTC No. 16630854
>>16630826
dems went to war with a man who always wins. really just absurd and hilarious. there is no way there would be a second trump admin if they hadn't turned up the heat on elon
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:33:55 UTC No. 16630855
>>16630846
Excuse me but HOW the fuck do you do anything solar out to Neptune??
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:37:12 UTC No. 16630856
>>16630825
>>16630826
At this point I donāt even care if itās a conflict of interest. Patriots in control now.
Best interest of the country >>>>> any conflict of interest. I literally wouldnāt care if Musk killed artemis and burnt down SLS and Blue Origin with it.
Bezos needs to learn to adapt to survive. Focus on Mars, not just the Moon. SpaceX needs a competitor, sure. Itāll ensure SS is as cheap as possible if he has a true rival. But if bezos cant even survive with DOGE making good cuts to fat, is BO even a worthy competitor in the first place?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:41:35 UTC No. 16630858
>>16630855
It will be not beyond Jupiter for some years, so it can gather enough solar energy to accelerate. And then when the Triton Hopper lands, it is using radioactive decay to power it, which is basically solar energy because it is generating gamma rays, which is like light but a different wavelength. Solar keeps winning.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:54:48 UTC No. 16630861
>>16630002
Donāt ever look into how agriculture works in the US
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:55:48 UTC No. 16630862
>>16630006
their their, no need to be upset
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 13:59:19 UTC No. 16630864
>>16630131
die fag (this post is on topic)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:07:53 UTC No. 16630869
>>16630295
The primary reasons that China won't invade Taiwan are:
1) it would be expensive and destroy much of the economic value of Taiwan
2) war is inherently internally destabilizing within mainland China
3) the population of Taiwan are claimed as citizens by the PRC. Forcibly integrating them and reeducating them is problematic
4) integrating the Taiwanese risks further political and economic disruption within China. They have a relatively high standard of living and would be important members of Chinese society
tl;dr massive economic, societal and political instability--the biggest fears of the leaders of the PRC
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:21:08 UTC No. 16630879
Clear is space
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/0
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:21:39 UTC No. 16630881
>>16630879
in*
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:22:01 UTC No. 16630882
>>16630856
I think that is what might just happen, give moon contracts to Blue Origin and mars contracts to SpaceX, Bezos has done some appeasment or whatever (such as changing the editorial policy of WSJ)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:23:15 UTC No. 16630885
>>16630882
*big contracts
or I mean there is already a commercial moon programme, it could be expanded
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:29:23 UTC No. 16630890
>>16630888
>Nova is Stokeās medium-lift, 100% reusable two-stage rocket. Its fully reusable upper-stage vehicle is designed to provide on-demand access to any orbit at any time, which will enable dynamic space operations that include capture, reposition, long-dwell, and return-of-assets operations.
the upper stage is basically a integrated space-tug
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:44:57 UTC No. 16630898
>>16630869
The primary reasons that Russia won't invade Ukraine are:
1) it would be expensive and destroy much of the economic value of Ukraine
2) war is inherently internally destabilizing within mainland Russia
3) the population of Ukraine are claimed as citizens by Russia. Forcibly integrating them and reeducating them is problematic
4) integrating the Ukrainians risks further political and economic disruption within Russia. They have a relatively high standard of living and would be important members of Russian society
tl;dr massive economic, societal and political instability--the biggest fears of the leaders of Russia
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:49:49 UTC No. 16630901
>>16630898
All that happened though
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:50:25 UTC No. 16630903
>>16630898
4 is completely wrong in the case of ukraine but yes that anon is retarded.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 14:54:58 UTC No. 16630906
>>16630879
Ria <3
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:05:55 UTC No. 16630909
>>16630888
Is stoke gonna turn into just another relativity and fall through? Or do they have a solid chance at making it?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:09:13 UTC No. 16630913
>>16630909
they seem to be making rapid progress but the technology is unproven
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:09:53 UTC No. 16630914
Maybe partial gravity is actually really good for people.
Maybe martians and lunatics will live to 150 with excellent joint and heart health because gravity isnāt trying to murder them 24/7.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:15:25 UTC No. 16630916
>>16630879
>The ISS is getting Clear merch before us
Our girl just keeps winning bros
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:18:05 UTC No. 16630919
>>16630914
100% oxygen environments will neuter any potential benfits of low gravity.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:18:49 UTC No. 16630921
>>16630807
Never underestimate the power of backchannels
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:23:36 UTC No. 16630927
>>16630914
i fully expect that martian gravity will be the sweet spot for human flourishing.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:33:25 UTC No. 16630935
https://x.com/ISROSpaceflight/statu
>ISRO has apparently successfully completed the first ever hot-fire test of the 2,000 kN thrust SCE-200 engine! SCE-200 is ISRO's first LOX-Kerosene engine, and will power the SC120 stage which will replace the L110 core stage of the LVM3 rocket, as part of the LVM3 Upgradation Program.
>(Image for representation purposes only)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:45:02 UTC No. 16630942
https://x.com/spacewxwatch/status/1
>X-class flare and large scale eruption from the east limb of the Sun occurring now; a significantly wide and bright CME, possibly a partial halo, is expected.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:54:45 UTC No. 16630947
>>16630942
lol, absolute nothingburger
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:55:25 UTC No. 16630949
>>16630807
China is the future, they turned from an agrarian shithole to the #1 power in the world in a lifetime
Of course they cratered birth rates while doing it, so its not all good
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 15:57:31 UTC No. 16630951
>>16630942
Just once I'd like the entire electrical infrastructure of the sun-facing side of Earth to get fried back to the pre-industrial age. Is that so much to ask?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:00:42 UTC No. 16630954
>>16630935
It will be flying within a decade, surely
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:09:51 UTC No. 16630964
>>16630951
>It's just the Pacific Ocean side and absolutely nothing happens
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:26:43 UTC No. 16630976
>>16630964
>every major chip manufacturer gets fried
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:26:43 UTC No. 16630977
>>16630954
Currently it's sitting at NET 2028, with a planned dual launch to get all of Chandrayaan-4's hardware to the Moon. We'll see how that goes. The SCE-200 was originally supposed to have been flying by 2020.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:41:02 UTC No. 16630989
It's genuinely frustrating how difficult it is for the average person to grasp the urgency of space exploration and interplanetary colonization. Most peopleāespecially those with sub-130 IQsāstruggle to think beyond short-term timelines. Theyāre stuck in the present, unable to comprehend just how limited our time is on this planet and how critical it is that we act now to secure humanity's future beyond Earth.
Instead of channeling energy into advancing toward the stars, society is consumed by climate hysteriaāa movement often rooted not in reason, but in misanthropy. These ideologues seem to value the preservation of "nature" more than the survival and flourishing of human lifeāthe most complex, beautiful, and self-aware form of life in the known universe.
The cold reality is that the climate will change, borders will shift, and the civilizations we know today will collapse. Time doesnāt stop. It marches on with or without us. And while many waste time fighting these inevitable forces, the truly forward-thinking among us recognize that the only way to outpace entropy is to evolve, adapt, and expand outward.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:41:39 UTC No. 16630990
>>16630989
Thereās a deeper sickness, too: a cultural decay born from radical individualism and expressionismāconcepts that have eroded the tribal unity and shared transcendence that once drove civilizations to greatness. This disintegration makes people comfortable with stagnation, even death, as long as it happens quietly and conveniently here on Earth.
But thatās not the path of our ancestors. We left the warmth of Africa, crossed deserts, braved ice ages, and adapted to every environment this planet threw at us. Why stop now? Why die on the same rock we were born on without ever daring to reach for the stars?
One day, walking outside in a pressurized suit might be the norm. Living on alien worlds might be a necessity. And if that future scares youāif the idea of enduring hardship in the name of survival repulses youāthen maybe youāve forgotten what it means to be human in the first place.
To those of you who still think in terms of centuries and star systems: youāre not alone. Itās just exhausting seeing the rest of the world so lost.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:47:15 UTC No. 16630995
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:50:03 UTC No. 16631000
>>16630990
All these stars belong to Man, but only when he can get there.
>>16630995
homosexual (derogatory)
šļø Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:51:08 UTC No. 16631001
>>16630861
There are indeed many subsidy programs in the US. The EV tax credit, the state carbon credits, the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment program, the DoE Loan Programs Office, etc, are other examples of various types of subsidies. However, I still think it is fair to say that subsidy is considered a dirty word and I don't think any US politician wants to present to the public a long-term national industrial strategy that's oriented around the government providing ginormous subsidies for private businesses
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:52:17 UTC No. 16631003
>>16630990
Bro we have vastly more immediate problems than "humanity might go extinct in a few billion years"
This is easily the weakest and dumbest appeal for space exploration (which is why it works).
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:53:20 UTC No. 16631005
>>16631003
>humanity might go extinct in a few billion years
It'll only be a few hundred if we don't get off this rock
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 16:57:07 UTC No. 16631006
>>16630989
We need to go to space today because we can. There is no guarantee that that tomorrow we will still be able to. Normies donāt grasp this.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:01:35 UTC No. 16631012
>>16629759
Does Bezos really need lunar contracts do keep BO afloat? Is it not more accurate to say that Bezos needs lunar contracts to keep his lunar ambitions afloat?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:05:21 UTC No. 16631014
>>16630976
Not really
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:10:13 UTC No. 16631019
>>16630976
Anon, I...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:14:33 UTC No. 16631022
>>16630468
On it
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:15:59 UTC No. 16631023
>>16631022
kek, one day Elon will listen to your idea
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:20:04 UTC No. 16631025
>>16630919
Then just don't do that lol
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:21:05 UTC No. 16631026
>>16630989
>ā
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:22:27 UTC No. 16631027
I haven't heard a single peep about the Boeing Starliner for over a year, are they actually going to do anything with that or have they thrown in the tower after that whole astronaut debacle?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:24:07 UTC No. 16631030
>>16631027
maybe next year
space is hard
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:26:06 UTC No. 16631033
>>16631027
NASA is mulling over requiring another unmanned proving flight before they'll consider putting people back on it. That's a third unmanned demo, for those keeping score.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:29:26 UTC No. 16631035
>>16631022
Ok it is on Mars, what now?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:32:26 UTC No. 16631039
>>16631035
the sides are going to be connected to the ground so its sealed and pressurized
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:40:12 UTC No. 16631045
https://ground.news/article/putin-e
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:42:30 UTC No. 16631048
>>16631023
He has a track record of following autistic passions of others once the virtues are explained, so I imagine he would.
>>16631035
Would love an AI that can take the perspective and elevation of a normal POV image in a city and add a realistic plastic sky. I'm curious to know what life would actually feel like in a city sized tent.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:45:05 UTC No. 16631050
>>16631039
Well, it still looks like AI slope.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:46:08 UTC No. 16631053
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:48:47 UTC No. 16631057
>>16631045
This is a hilarious dig at the greens fucking over US nuclear power for decades
WHERE IS MY PLUTONIUM, OAK RIDGE?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:52:36 UTC No. 16631061
>>16631050
https://caseyhandmer.wordpress.com/
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:54:32 UTC No. 16631066
>>16631048
The noise would be ungodly during sandstorms
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 17:56:20 UTC No. 16631068
>>16631053
10/10 would live on my 40 acres with a mule and some other livestock.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:06:22 UTC No. 16631074
>>16631066
>sandstorms
Dust storms. The particles are pretty light. It may not be so bad. Not sure how to clean it afterwards, especially since vacuums wouldn't work. Fleet of drones to blow it off? Some electrostatic shenanigans?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:07:39 UTC No. 16631075
>>16631012
Berger worded it like BO is reliant on NASA focusing on lunar activity. Theyāre all-in on blue moon and their cislunar transporter
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:10:43 UTC No. 16631078
>>16631074
things like solar panels and other such surfaces are self cleaning on mars. no problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:11:24 UTC No. 16631079
>>16631045
Holy shit. Russia might genuinely have more to offer than NASA, as far as SpaceX's Mars ambitions go. That's bonkers.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:12:25 UTC No. 16631080
>>16631078
You're telling me accumulated dust is liable to vanish from several hundred acres of plastic? Why?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:13:11 UTC No. 16631081
>>16631074
just send a guy out with a garden hose to wash them down.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:16:25 UTC No. 16631082
>>16631035
>>16631053
To whom it may concern: There is a designated repository on-base for used Zyn packets, PLEASE stop throwing them outside. Thank you.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:17:26 UTC No. 16631084
>>16631080
the next storm will blow it off
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:18:27 UTC No. 16631085
>>16631082
Dont Sin!
Bin that Zyn for
a 360 Win!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:18:36 UTC No. 16631086
>>16631000
>needing to specify derogatory
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:21:02 UTC No. 16631090
Does NASA have any idea on how to restart the magnetic field of mars? If they can be brought back online then it's atmosphere could be restored as well.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:22:44 UTC No. 16631095
>>16631084
Could take a while
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:23:20 UTC No. 16631096
>>16631090
>Does NASA have any idea on how to restart the magnetic field of mars? If
magic
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:29:02 UTC No. 16631106
>>16631095
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean
every reason to expect this
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:34:19 UTC No. 16631113
>>16631090
https://astrobiology.nasa.gov/news/
Just make a new one
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:45:47 UTC No. 16631130
>>16631090
>>16631113
Do you post this every week specifically to fuck with me
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:48:24 UTC No. 16631135
>>16631053
ok i will live here
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:51:05 UTC No. 16631140
>>16631090
Can you please fix the problems on Earth first?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:54:17 UTC No. 16631144
>>16631140
If you give me the nuclear codes I can do it in an afternoon.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 18:58:24 UTC No. 16631149
>>16631140
Impossible, there is not enough political will to fix earths problems at the source [aka: genocide].
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:13:45 UTC No. 16631161
>>16631090
Bro letās just restart plate tectonics bro surely thereās a way bro
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:17:24 UTC No. 16631167
>>16631144
>Nukes
Fucking idiot, not only would that also destroy so much infrastructure but earth itself gets caught in the crossfire. A genetically engineered Virus is the way to go, kills specifically the humans while leaving much of the infrastructure and environment untouched by nuclear devastation. If it can spread through fecal matter that is India eliminated in a matter of weeks.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:24:34 UTC No. 16631171
Mars will never be suitable for humans, it's really a shame that all the close planets to ours are fucking trash
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:29:08 UTC No. 16631179
>>16631171
moon and mars are suitable for something more or less like our antarctis expedition stuff
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:29:25 UTC No. 16631180
>>16631171
Mars is nearly perfect for humans. Faggot. Hang yourself.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:29:40 UTC No. 16631181
>>16631167
Earth has already been nuked more than 2000 times, it'll be fine if we nuke it a few more times.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:32:01 UTC No. 16631183
What if we force a collision course with mars and some other planetary object. If we can make it impact in such a way that both of the masses combine. If we do that enough times we might get a planet roughly the size and mass of earth, then we can colonize it no problem.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:34:03 UTC No. 16631185
>>16631171
Mars is great. Venus, however, is a geological tragedy
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:56:00 UTC No. 16631198
>>16631140
The problems on Earth cannot and will not be solved by the people who can and will solve Space.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:56:08 UTC No. 16631199
>>16630591
WTF WHY HAS ELON BETRAYED US
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:57:51 UTC No. 16631200
>>16630888
Based, this is great news.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 19:59:14 UTC No. 16631201
>>16630613
>>16631199
Anon left out the second post, B14 is going to do an extreme angle of attack on reentry.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:00:39 UTC No. 16631202
>>16631201
that's just cope
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:06:35 UTC No. 16631209
>>16630888
interesting to see Stoke get one but not Relativity
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:06:47 UTC No. 16631210
>>16631201
Why. Why do that instead of landing it.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:07:36 UTC No. 16631212
>>16631202
That SpaceX is doing a test to destruction?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:09:26 UTC No. 16631214
>>16631212
They are doing test to destruction because they are not catching it, not the other way.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:10:19 UTC No. 16631215
>>16631210
The higher an AoA a booster can come in at the less propellant is needed to land and the less heating/stresses are sustained.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:12:18 UTC No. 16631218
>>16631214
They aren't catching it because they don't know if it will be able to recover from a high AoA.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:14:13 UTC No. 16631219
>>16631218
Wrong, they are doing that because they are scared that second try catch might explode booster
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:16:51 UTC No. 16631221
>>16631219
source?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:17:53 UTC No. 16631222
>>16631215
LAND IT
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:18:48 UTC No. 16631225
>>16631221
my ass
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:21:06 UTC No. 16631229
I'm so happy for clear-chan!!!!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:36:59 UTC No. 16631239
When on a ballistic trajectory, such as the Apollo CSM from its parking orbit to the Moon, is it more appropriate to compare it to a manned missile? Or a manned torpedo.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:53:50 UTC No. 16631242
>>16630935
nice engine-rich green color
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 20:58:47 UTC No. 16631243
>>16631242
thats just the triethylborane innit?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:00:12 UTC No. 16631244
>>16631184
I wish I could stuff her
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:06:23 UTC No. 16631248
>The American model is not how frontiers work. Yet that is exactly the framing within which U.S. conversations about space have occurred for over 50 years. Itās absurd. Imagine if, after scouting west of the Mississippi, the government had followed Lewis and Clark with the construction of one government āFrontier Stationā served by one government āRiver Shuttle.ā Imagine if, after inventing the airplane, we had established one government-run airline with flights approved by Congress ā one route at a time.
https://spacenews.com/artemis-2-0-a
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:07:24 UTC No. 16631250
>>16631248
Truthnuke after truthnuke
>This was the fundamental failure of Apollo. The U.S., facing off against the Soviet Unionās state-controlled space program, responded with a state-controlled space program of its own. We out-mobilized the Russians ā but we couldnāt hold the ground we gained. Why? Because state-run programs in democracies only last as long as the political will to sustain them. When voter passion fades, so does the funding.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:11:16 UTC No. 16631253
>>16631250
You can sway voter passion, however. There needs to be an information campaign to make space colonization a politicized idea
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:14:50 UTC No. 16631256
>>16631250
Good job everyone is 100% behind mass immigration for 50 years and sending $185bn to Ukraine
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:16:13 UTC No. 16631258
>>16631256
We could send Ukraine to Mars
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:22:17 UTC No. 16631262
https://x.com/satofishi/status/1905
>Join me at 17:30 EDT / 21:30 UTC Weāll talk about our upcoming space mission, fram2āthe first human spaceflight to Earthās polar regions.
Do they think anyone really cares about them overflying the poles first.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:22:40 UTC No. 16631264
>>16631262
I care
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:25:27 UTC No. 16631268
>>16631184
Clear is cute
CUTE
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:27:07 UTC No. 16631270
>>16631262
I think it's pretty neat.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:27:36 UTC No. 16631271
>>16631262
Hell yeah that shit is awesome
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:30:12 UTC No. 16631276
>>16631222
LAND THIS CANDLE!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:31:13 UTC No. 16631278
>>16631239
manned spacecraft? they did course corrections too
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:33:13 UTC No. 16631279
xAI just acquired X, combined market cap is 80bil now
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:36:27 UTC No. 16631282
>>16631279
Explain how does this bring us closer to Mars
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:36:45 UTC No. 16631283
>>16631282
Fixing earth problems first
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:38:29 UTC No. 16631284
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1904944
Fram2 spaces live now
https://x.com/i/spaces/1gqxvjWngPex
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:39:33 UTC No. 16631285
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:43:24 UTC No. 16631287
Fram2 Dragon and F9 are on the pad, weathers looking good, they will have a dry rehearsal in the weekend
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:44:53 UTC No. 16631288
>>16631285
Why does he have a malta flag bro hahahahha
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:46:51 UTC No. 16631294
>>16631288
easy to buy a malta citizenship
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:47:10 UTC No. 16631295
NEW JOE BERNARD KINO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REY
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:47:49 UTC No. 16631296
>>16631287
A Stage 1 Blue Ball exercise.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:48:09 UTC No. 16631297
>>16631290
https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/n
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:48:16 UTC No. 16631298
>>16631294
Is he ashamed of his homeland, or something?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:48:34 UTC No. 16631299
>>16631288
chink buying malta citizenship to pretend they're european
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:49:16 UTC No. 16631300
>>16631297
>A rocket that can't launch anything besides Starlink on suborbital trajectory continues to win contracts
Amazing
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:49:31 UTC No. 16631302
>>16631298
probably tax reasons or something like that
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:51:49 UTC No. 16631303
>>16631294
I figured. If heās at least catholic then itās not as cringey
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:51:55 UTC No. 16631304
>>16631285
lol this woman is the commander of the mission I guess (next to the chinese crypto guy on this pic >>16631285
)
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:54:53 UTC No. 16631306
>>16631288
Itās LARP: the country
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:58:32 UTC No. 16631310
>>16631300
any day now
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 21:59:01 UTC No. 16631311
>>16631298
Partly. He was born in china, started a cryptoshit company and then fled to taiwan and then south korea. The malta thing is purely a larp because he could buy into it. Very cringe!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:00:02 UTC No. 16631312
>>16631300
Says a lot about the competition
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:01:45 UTC No. 16631314
they are going to be growing mushrooms in a substrate
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:03:14 UTC No. 16631316
The shuttle-derived rocket we ended up getting, i.e. Space Launch System, looks like SHIT. They even managed to make the iconic red NASA worm look gay as fuck by haphazardly slapping it on the SRBs. We could have at least had kino that inspired the kids and normies of the world.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:05:30 UTC No. 16631318
>>16631316
ironically Ares V had a lot less in common with the Shuttle than SLS does
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:09 UTC No. 16631323
>>16631310
Any day now they will manage to deploy dummy payload
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:14 UTC No. 16631324
>>16631285
He's doing this whole thing specifically to bang his oneitis (blond photographer girl next to him)
I guarantee she won't put out
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:08:14 UTC No. 16631325
>>16631311
luckily he can buy into america now
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:11:33 UTC No. 16631326
>>16631325
Always could. Now it costs $5 million instead of $1 million
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:11:54 UTC No. 16631327
>>16631323
The best part of Starships dev is how at this point if it were any other rocket it would already be considered operational.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:12:09 UTC No. 16631328
>>16631326
wasn't it a bit more complicated than that?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:13:28 UTC No. 16631329
>>16631327
Operational rockets usually serve purpose other than burn fuel.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:14:37 UTC No. 16631331
>>16631184
how do a fuck a girl like this
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:15:19 UTC No. 16631332
>>16631327
SpaceX has ambitions, something these other rocket companies wouldn't understand
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:19:06 UTC No. 16631334
>>16631331
a crazy foreign lady who is obssessed with anime and dolls?
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:19:49 UTC No. 16631335
>>16631327
Maybe after flight 6 you could. No one would after two failures on ascent.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:20:15 UTC No. 16631337
>>16631331
Found a rocket company and fly her to space.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:20:58 UTC No. 16631338
>>16631331
Beg your guardian angel for intercession
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:21:03 UTC No. 16631339
>>16631331
>a girl
anon...
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:22:25 UTC No. 16631340
>>16631335
>I agree it's 'operational' but I will still try to argue it isn't
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:28:18 UTC No. 16631345
>>16631343
Sergey never smiles unless he's in space lol
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:30:45 UTC No. 16631346
>>16631345
>Hide his arm patch
lmao the pettiness
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:32:28 UTC No. 16631347
>>16631346
The backup crew photo patchmogs. Here's the other sergey, who always smiles lol
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:34:49 UTC No. 16631350
>>16631343
why does johnnyboy have all those nazi germany tier fencing scars on his face lol
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:34:57 UTC No. 16631351
>>16631340
A rocket that experienced a clear regressions isn't operational. They don't even have the confidence to try for orbit yet. That hesitance was clearly justified.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:36:43 UTC No. 16631354
>>16631351
>A rocket that experienced a clear regressions isn't operational
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:50:23 UTC No. 16631356
>>16631351
>a clear regression
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:51:36 UTC No. 16631359
>>16631351
>They don't even have the confidence to try for orbit yet.
That is some serious cope.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:53:12 UTC No. 16631361
Clear is not regressing
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:55:17 UTC No. 16631363
nothing has been happening for weeks now
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:55:43 UTC No. 16631364
>>16631316
The VERY least they could have done is put the white paint back on the psuedo-ET.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:56:53 UTC No. 16631366
>>16631363
we already have weeks where decades happen
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 22:57:12 UTC No. 16631367
clear never regresses you bloody bitch
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:00:14 UTC No. 16631368
>>16631363
give it two more weeks
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:05:33 UTC No. 16631371
>>16631324
He'll have some competition https://x.com/BigTechAlert/status/1
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:15:49 UTC No. 16631376
>>16631347
Dios mio! Es el creatura del espacio exterior!
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:33:56 UTC No. 16631385
>>16631253
lol no, people are far too stupid to even be propagandized into being pro-space. People will only realize the value of space when people are making trillions of dollars off of it, and then the stupid people who didn't understand space will be poor, and people who invested in space won't.
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:35:26 UTC No. 16631386
>>16631331
try a gay pride parade
Anonymous at Fri, 28 Mar 2025 23:40:41 UTC No. 16631390
>>16631350
he's a combat veteran, so it's possible he got them that way
on the other hand his father was killed by the police in the family home after domestic violence
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_K
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:02:30 UTC No. 16631400
>>16631390
>on the other hand his father was killed by the police in the family home after domestic violence
Wait, deadass?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:07:13 UTC No. 16631404
>>16631400
https://coffeeordie.com/jonny-kim not exactly the greatest site, but it has the grisly details
It was a sad end to a dude who probably was one of the rooftop koreans during the LA riots
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:17:36 UTC No. 16631411
>>16631404
Wow the jonny kim lore goes so deep
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 00:37:32 UTC No. 16631417
>>16631201
Ah, thanks anon. Thought maybe >>16630604 was insider-posting and was trying to see the rationale behind that.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:07:52 UTC No. 16631427
>>16631424
Cold fusion is indeed possible, if you can find a reasonable muon source
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:09:07 UTC No. 16631428
>>16631424
Just claim it produces dark thrust
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:19:19 UTC No. 16631432
>>16631424
and yet they still somehow got millions in funding with enough runway to last their grift for years
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:48:49 UTC No. 16631442
>>16631432
One day /sfg/ will learn that itās not just good ideas or luck
itās mostly nepotism and/or knowing the right people that gets you furthest in life. Think of people and programs that make you go
>how did this work???
Musk knew the right people from paypal to the falcon 1 days
Bezos knew the right people to hopscotch from hedge funds to starting amazon
Why is astra still alive? Either kemp knows the right people or his early life section has blue links
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:49:34 UTC No. 16631443
>>16629970
The Red Chinese are doing a grab and go, so they need luck for headline results. A nearby rock with fossils or organics. Maybe the atmosphere sample has biological methane.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:56:03 UTC No. 16631448
>>16631445
it's called plastic surgery
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:56:46 UTC No. 16631449
>>16631445
botex
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 01:58:22 UTC No. 16631452
>>16631445
Studio makeup.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:15:52 UTC No. 16631462
>>16631457
hullo would love this
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:23:20 UTC No. 16631466
>>16631457
Might as well just buy a fucking 3D printer
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:26:38 UTC No. 16631467
>>16631466
Has anyone made stuff like gunpla or regular model kits for 3D printing? I know there's figurines and other warhammer/TTG stuff but I've never looked up model kit .stls.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:34:23 UTC No. 16631473
>>16630764
> NASA's Dragonfly isn't going within a 1000 miles of that location. Gonna blow $5 billion looking at ice sand dunes.
Hate them so much.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:40:14 UTC No. 16631476
>>16631445
He's a gamer
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 02:40:52 UTC No. 16631477
>>16631300
That's not a contract, it just means they could be eligible for some contracts
New Glenn got this in 2020, Vulcan in 2021, it has little relation with flight readiness.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 03:56:20 UTC No. 16631496
>>16631491
>prior to skip entry
Well what fucked it up? Did shit crack off during launch?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 04:38:15 UTC No. 16631504
>>16631473
I keep telling you they can't risk it taking a header into a lake and never being heard from again (although once all mission objectives have been accomplished they may risk it)
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 05:28:33 UTC No. 16631516
>>16631316
Yeah, it's the cubicle farm of rocket designs
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:14:50 UTC No. 16631527
>>16631445
Money.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 06:27:48 UTC No. 16631532
>>16631053
you're going to need to double or triple pane that shit
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:00:24 UTC No. 16631541
>>16631445
Adrenochrome
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 07:42:31 UTC No. 16631554
>>16631504
> It's too risky! That's why we just going to sit here quietly and look a dunes. Again.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:28:14 UTC No. 16631573
technically on topic
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment
>Elon Muskās Daughter Blasts Mars Colonization as a āMarketing Schemeā
>In a follow-up to her recent feature in Teen Vogue, Elon Muskās estranged daughter Vivian Wilson had her first ever live interview late Friday night, appearing on popular left-wing streamer Hasan Pikerās Twitch stream
>In response to a question from Pikerās followers about how much Musk actually works on any given day, she couldnāt say for sure, but shared that, āMost of the time I saw him working he was just yelling at employees in the car while we watched, horrified, like viscerally screaming.ā
>She argued that Musk was ānever on the leftā and has been right-wing since āat least 2016.ā
>But perhaps one of her most interesting assertions was that Mars colonization, one of SpaceXās planned objectives, is simply not happening. She told Piker, āItās not happening, people... Itās a marketing scheme that everyone somehow fell for despite being debunked by a f---ing Google search.ā
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:30:49 UTC No. 16631575
>>16631573
Hopefully he kills himself
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:32:32 UTC No. 16631577
>>16631573
>yelling at employees in the car while we watched, horrified, like viscerally screaming
lmao, based
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:32:59 UTC No. 16631578
>>16631573
>appearing on popular left-wing streamer Hasan Pikerās Twitch stream
left wing doesnt even come close. he's far far far left. anyway, twitch is about to get shut down.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 08:34:02 UTC No. 16631580
>>16631573
>But perhaps one of her most interesting assertions was that Mars colonization, one of SpaceXās planned objectives, is simply not happening. She told Piker, āItās not happening, people... Itās a marketing scheme that everyone somehow fell for despite being debunked by a f---ing Google search.ā
actual retard
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:47:09 UTC No. 16631608
>>16631573
This kid is fucked up, itās sad.
>durrr my father was always right wing
Heās blinded by hate
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:53:47 UTC No. 16631612
>>16631491
Orion failing on reentry and killing the Artemis II crew would bring what little public support there currently is for the moon program down with it
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 09:57:06 UTC No. 16631613
>>16631424
>>16631432
investors are retards who don't even care if a company is a scam if they think they can sell their stock to an even greater retard. The one who contacted Tom probably isn't pissed that it's a scam, but IS pissed that Tom went public with that.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:00:54 UTC No. 16631615
>>16631491
He's right and NASA is insane to go forward with this.
>model the behavior of the heat shield
>test once
>it fails, the model was broken
>okay but according to our model we can fix this by altering the trajectory
>don't test this, even though you just found out your model is broken
>going to put humans on it
Homicidally retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:02:13 UTC No. 16631616
>>16631573
>Elon Muskās Daughter
Fraud. That's a man.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:03:26 UTC No. 16631617
>>16631612
>Orion failing on reentry and killing the Artemis II crew
sfg would have a field day with this
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:03:39 UTC No. 16631618
>>16631578
there's a chance of that actually happening now that bezos as decided to switch teams and be based. (but of course, bezos is probably less than entirely sincere with that alignment shift.)
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:03:49 UTC No. 16631619
>>16631616
thats the point. he's trying to trigger elon because elon called him a retard on twitter lol.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:07:43 UTC No. 16631625
>>16631473
There may be some small lakes in the equator, but nothing like at that poles.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:14:12 UTC No. 16631629
>>16631616
uhmm, yeah
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:15:56 UTC No. 16631631
>>16631629
Perform a viviansection so we can see the bone structure.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:16:36 UTC No. 16631633
>>16631615
Normalization of Deviance strikes again!
I'm just surprised they decided to have Starliner go down empty, only to be followed by this.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:17:33 UTC No. 16631635
>>16631629
if he really wants to cause a stir, he should accuse elon of molesting him as a child
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:19:33 UTC No. 16631638
>>16631633
it's called build break fix, it's what spacex does. spacex has completely normalized failure
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:20:43 UTC No. 16631640
>>16631629
feed that pic into one of those AI things that tries to analyze faces
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:21:46 UTC No. 16631642
>>16631629
I f-feel confused anons...
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:21:53 UTC No. 16631643
>>16631638
>it's what spacex does
with Starship maybe, but not with a crew on board
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:23:06 UTC No. 16631644
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:24:04 UTC No. 16631645
>>16631638
You're supposed to test your fixes without crew on board. NASA are literally retarded.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:24:31 UTC No. 16631646
>>16631615
Orion 1 would have not killed people, so why should Orion 2 kill if they are going for more conservative reentry?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:24:47 UTC No. 16631647
>>16631643
yeah except for that bad dragon toilet
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:25:27 UTC No. 16631648
>>16631644
would
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:25:30 UTC No. 16631649
>>16631647
a toilet isn't going to break up the capsule on re-entry, anon
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:27:09 UTC No. 16631650
>>16631649
yeah well it still got tested with crew and pee got everywhere. this is a pattern
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:29:06 UTC No. 16631652
>>16631496
It cracked during heating, resulting in large chunks to come off all at once.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:29:36 UTC No. 16631653
>>16631646
Foam strikes didn't kill shuttles until one did.
SRB exhaust blowing past o-rings didn't kill shuttles until one did.
>the heat shield falling apart this one time didn't cause the vehicle to fail, therefore it's fine.
literally appealing to the normalization of deviance as if it were a good sign...
YOU RETARD HOLY SHIT.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:30:35 UTC No. 16631654
>>16630546
Double your dry mass with this one easy trick
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:30:53 UTC No. 16631656
>>16631629
Would. But itās still a dude at the end of the day, letās be realistic.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:32:10 UTC No. 16631657
>>16631652
Crew on artemis 1 would have been just fine.
>>16631653
spacex does this all the time, thats why F9 keeps having failures
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:32:25 UTC No. 16631658
>>16631646
Either good bait or youāre actually down syndrome
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:32:26 UTC No. 16631659
>>16631656
just like Clear then
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:33:25 UTC No. 16631661
>>16631659
Nah I used to be a clear hater but Iāve come around. i think clear is actually an autistic japanese girl in all seriousness
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:33:26 UTC No. 16631662
>>16631657
>spacex does this all the time
NOT WITH PEOPLE ON IT YOU FUCKING RETARD
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:35:38 UTC No. 16631665
>>16631662
Only because NASA doesn't let them
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:39:21 UTC No. 16631666
Orion is going to kill people, so we should use Starship
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:40:46 UTC No. 16631668
>>16631666
Orion is going to kill people, so we should use dragons up and down earthās gravity well and starship for TLI and lunar landings
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:41:18 UTC No. 16631669
>>16631668
cuck
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:41:27 UTC No. 16631670
>>16631668
And do like 30 refuels?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:41:38 UTC No. 16631671
>>16630800
>>16630803
Yeah, and then it turns out there are existing mechanisms to force divestment or even seize the shares when there's obvious bad faith.
Another nothing burger from the coping and seething crowd.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:45:48 UTC No. 16631674
>>16630898
I don't know shit about Russia, but if that's the best argument you have I can tell you don't speak Chinese and haven't lived in China
>>16630903
ęęä½ ēøēå±ē¼
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:49:34 UTC No. 16631677
>>16631045
>deny Elon rockets because you know he can and will do better
>give him nuclear reactors because you want Mars colonization to succeed
based
give this guy a ukraine
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:50:42 UTC No. 16631679
>>16631642
About what? That's clearly a guy in a dress.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:50:56 UTC No. 16631680
>>16631650
Well, if Orion's heat shield fails, I'm sure you can be satisified that at least the pee did not get everywhere.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:50:57 UTC No. 16631681
>>16631090
It's gay and unnecessary like you and your post
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 10:57:31 UTC No. 16631686
>>16631300
>A gay retard who can't post anything but bad bait continues to get (You)s
Amazing
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:02:11 UTC No. 16631689
>>16631476
explains all the rising up
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:04:08 UTC No. 16631690
>>16631573
The guy who chopped off his own penis and balls seems like a reliable source of completely sane information
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:07:48 UTC No. 16631692
>>16631686
Excuse me, I'm not gay
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:16:36 UTC No. 16631697
>>16631457
their technics shuttle is pretty nice
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:38:01 UTC No. 16631701
>>16631428
>pic
so what's the alternative? pretend that 1+1 is 3?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:47:16 UTC No. 16631703
>>16631646
it wouldn't, lots of anti-NASA spergs lately
>>16631653
>the heat shield falling apart this one time didn't cause the vehicle to fail AND the trajectory has been changed to be less stressing next time, therefore it's fine.
that's right, now provide an argument to the contrary or sit the fuck down kid.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 11:57:54 UTC No. 16631707
>>16631703
bait
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:08:34 UTC No. 16631711
>>16631707
>no argument
kek I accept your concession, retard.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:24:50 UTC No. 16631714
>>16631703
>it will be fine, according to our modelling... which failed last time.....
>........lets put people on it without testing again
retard
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:39:56 UTC No. 16631717
>>16631714
>modelling
it does not take advanced models to determine that a less aggressive reentry profile will result in less stress on the heat shield. It only takes common sense.
>failed
you mean the Orion capsule that exploded during reentry? The one that doesn't exist?
kek
>lets put people on it without testing again
sure, in a perfect world testing again would be the optimal course. But we live a world with SLS. Personally, I don't want to see NASA waste god knows how many years just to prove something that is already understood and accounted for. And it seems that the new administration is also adopting a similar mindset.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:41:51 UTC No. 16631718
>>16631717
>no no our models are very advanced. we know this because last time they completely failed
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:44:39 UTC No. 16631720
>>16631718
who are you quoting, sperg?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:45:03 UTC No. 16631721
>>16631720
NASA.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:50:26 UTC No. 16631722
>>16631721
surely you can give me a source then?
btw what failure are you talking about?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:51:50 UTC No. 16631725
>>16631722
>the tested trajectory worked so well, we think it's safer to send astronauts on a completely untested trajectory than reuse the trajectory we just tested
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 12:54:28 UTC No. 16631729
>>16631717
>It only takes common sense.
Ahh yes, I too like running my human spaceflight program off of vibes and gut feelings.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:00:58 UTC No. 16631734
>>16631725
so? where's the source and the failure you keep whining about?
why are you so mad lol
>>16631729
>vibes and gut feelings
not what I said, but sure, even that is better than the state of NASA in the last decade or two
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:02:08 UTC No. 16631737
>>16631734
>n-nothing went wrong
Why isn't NASA going to use the trajectory they tested?
Why is NASA going to use a trajectory they haven't tested?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:08:10 UTC No. 16631745
>>16631737
The trajectory they tested turned out to be unsafe. The exact mechanism for WHY is not understood in its entirety.
The untested trajectory they are going with from here on out is believed to be safer, and allows them to not delay the artemis program any more than it already has.
We must assume, or pray and hope, that NASA still has stringent safety margins and that this new profile does not place the four souls outside of those margins. I personally believe they would have committed to grounding Orion and doing a complete heat shield overhaul and another uncrewed test flight if they believed that to be the case. Case study: NASA committed to sending Starliner back empty. It was outside of their margins.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:10:08 UTC No. 16631747
>>16631745
>The trajectory they tested turned out to be unsafe
WHAAAAAAAA????? I THOUGHT YOU SAID NOTHING FAILED
>The exact mechanism for WHY is not understood in its entirety.
So they haven't successfully characterized and modeled the failure? No way!
>The untested trajectory they are going with from here on out is believed to be safer,
Believed to be safer, without understanding the previous failure? So they're running this program off vibes and gut feelings after all? NO WAAAAAY
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:12:35 UTC No. 16631750
>>16631747
I should have clarified, I was NTA. I just joined the conversation in my last post.
The other anon youāve been talking to is kind of retarded Iāll give you that
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:14:57 UTC No. 16631752
>>16631737
>n-nothing went wrong
again, who are you quoting?
>Why isn't NASA going to use the trajectory they tested?
because they are safety obsessed cucks.
>Why is NASA going to use a trajectory they haven't tested?
because it will be less taxing on the heat shield, as I have already stated.
here's an exercise for you: go heat up a stove and put your hand on it. It will hurt and you will quickly move it away, but there will be no damage done to your hand. Now, what do you think will happen to your hand if you only heat the stove half of what it was previously and repeat the exercise? Please give me your honest answer.
>>16631747
You're being extremely delusional today, why don't you go take a walk outside or something.
>>16631750
what was retarded about what I said?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:18:32 UTC No. 16631754
>>16631752
>>>n-nothing went wrong
>again, who are you quoting
Okay, then since you are aware that the test was a failure, explain it to this guy: >>16631722
>btw what failure are you talking about?
>>Why isn't NASA going to use the trajectory they tested?
>because they are safety obsessed cucks.
So the trajectory they tested was unsafe.
>>Why is NASA going to use a trajectory they haven't tested?
>because it will be less taxing on the heat shield,
You didn't answer the question. Why are they using this trajectory before testing it? Why did they test anything in the first place if testing is supposedly optional. Why haven't they tested this new trajectory if they are, as you say, "safety obsessed cucks"?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:27:55 UTC No. 16631759
>>16631754
>explain it to this guy
no, that is your responsibility, which you haven't fulfilled btw. What failed during artemis 1? Give me an answer.
>So the trajectory they tested was unsafe.
that is not what I said. Reread the post again.
>You didn't answer the question.
I did. Reread the post again.
>Why are they using this trajectory before testing it?
Do the tard exercise in my previous post.
>testing is supposedly optional
according to..?
>Why haven't they tested this
Do the tard exercise in my previous post.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:32:46 UTC No. 16631766
>>16631763
one or two more times and they'll beat spacex at most scrubs for a launch
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 13:36:25 UTC No. 16631770
>>16631763
What a nice launch site, hope its never, like, windy or something
Those aurora and drone shots were so worth it though, also Norway shits money out of every orifice, so the accommodations are so very nice, even the prisons, nobody give a fuck about the rocket anymore, all that sweet sweet money and nobody works, everything is free
fuck work, only losers like Musk do work, this the the land of endless expensive hobbies and no commitments, please understand, we have other interests and a lot of money
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:06:54 UTC No. 16631790
>>16631657
I don't think parts are supposed to come off when the action is happening, anon.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:07:12 UTC No. 16631791
>>16631661
based
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:08:39 UTC No. 16631793
>>16631573
>broken boy appears on lunatic show
I don't think this was on topic
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:08:42 UTC No. 16631794
>>16631770
meds
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:15:25 UTC No. 16631797
>>16631790
Thatās not very typical, Iād like to make that point.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:17:55 UTC No. 16631802
>>16631797
How would anybody know? It's only been tried the one time so far.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:27:17 UTC No. 16631806
>>16631802
Well, there are a lot of these capsules coming back to Earth every year, and very seldom does anything like this happen ā¦ I just donāt want people thinking that Orion isnāt safe.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:29:51 UTC No. 16631809
>>16631806
>Well, there are a lot of these capsules coming back to Earth every year-
The subject is Orion, not other capsules.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:38:58 UTC No. 16631811
>>16631809
Well I was thinking more about the other onesā¦
šļø Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:41:22 UTC No. 16631814
fuck you
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:41:46 UTC No. 16631816
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:45:36 UTC No. 16631817
>>16631657
It could have led to loss of the vehicle. Its a huge risk. Just because it didn't does not mean it WON'T you tard.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:46:37 UTC No. 16631818
>>16631664
Booster Goes Binted
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:57:51 UTC No. 16631823
>>16631717
>less aggressive reentry profile will result in less stress
they're actually using a MORE aggressive reentry profile for A2 thoughbeit, their modelling was that the issue was happening during the skip out of the thicker part of the atmosphere
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 14:59:58 UTC No. 16631824
>>16631817
except it didnt
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:06:36 UTC No. 16631827
I said fuck you
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:06:59 UTC No. 16631828
The funniest outcome is Artemis II reentering fine only to suffer a fatal parachute failure
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:08:11 UTC No. 16631829
>>16631828
Or splashing down only to sink like a stone in spite of all those summer dunk tests in the NASA pool.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:09:49 UTC No. 16631831
>leave giga heat shield/reentry module in orbit
>dock with it when you're back
what's the issue, unironically. why does a capsule need to work during launch, orbit, travel, landing AND reentry
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:14:15 UTC No. 16631834
>>16631831
>>dock with it when you're back
Does Orion come back with much fuel left for that? I thought it was running on fumes when it departed the moon dove straight into the atmosphere.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:19:50 UTC No. 16631837
>>16631834
You can just make the reentry module dock with you if fuel is an issue
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:24:41 UTC No. 16631839
If you don't give a (you), you wont get a (you).
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:38:49 UTC No. 16631844
>>16631794
Its so funny how Euros just sit around all day taking a series of vacations, pursuing whimsical hobbies, including pointless arts & crafts, literature, travel, and other feminine niceties, because why not, its all free. Health care is free, the university was free, housing is cheap (for you), your parents are rich, and everything was handed to you since day one. Social safety nets abound, you cant even fail by fucking up in a place like that.
A society which challenges individuals not at all creates the weakest, most self entitled crybabies, who feel they belong in the top tier of technology as well, just because of the massive bank accounts full of unearned wealth. This is the very description of Norway right now, and to some extent the rest of Old Europe. Sorry but it doesn't work that way losers, its obvious you have put little to no effort into your rockets, and at the last second are desperately trying to buy your way in, while also taking a few more luxury vacations in the meantime. Because your "hot" gf with the latest fashions needed plenty of Instagram moments, or she wasn't having it, you pussy whipped femboys. I see zero dedication here when the goal is only exploring the fucking universe. Lets see where you are in a decade, compared to nations that actually push boundaries. Stupid fucking hobby project, this is even worse then Richard Branson's whole life
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:39:12 UTC No. 16631845
TODAY
>China's Long March 7A - (Unknown Payload)
TOMORROW
>ISAR Aerospace's Spectrum - "Going Full Spectrum" (Demo Flight)
>Firefly's Alpha "Message In A Booster" (Demonstration mission for Lockheed Martin LM400 satellite bus)
>SpaceX Falcon 9 (Starlink Group 6-80)
MONDAY
>SpaceX Falcon 9 (Fram2)
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:41:01 UTC No. 16631846
>>16631844
ok retard
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:43:00 UTC No. 16631847
>>16631845
Spectrum>Frame2>Firefly's Alpha>Long March 7A>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:55:50 UTC No. 16631855
>>16631844
Absolutely based
Didn't know jd Vance posted in /sfg/
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:57:49 UTC No. 16631856
>>16631847
I'm more interested in Fram2 than Spectrum but otherwise yeah pretty much. If I knew anything about China's various "unknown payloads" I might be interested in them too.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 15:59:10 UTC No. 16631858
>>16631844
eh I'll just buy a rocket in a decade, plenty of space to go to.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:00:03 UTC No. 16631859
>>16631855
kek
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:12:13 UTC No. 16631864
>>16631844
damn, yanks are extra butthurt today
shall I go boil some tea for my fellow euroGODS while we observe and chuckle at the rage exhibited by this particular specimen of americunt from the leisure provided by our numerous alpine vilas?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:17:27 UTC No. 16631865
>>16631644
thats a man
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:21:13 UTC No. 16631868
>>16631573
The Starship lunar landings are happening in 2021 and there is nothing this tranny can do about it
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:30:05 UTC No. 16631875
>>16631868
can't wait for the first manned mars mission using starship in 2024! libs will have a total fucking melty kek
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:35:56 UTC No. 16631880
Anyone want to talk about spaceflight or nah
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:42:20 UTC No. 16631881
>>16631844
Americans are rootless mystery meats with no common heritage and are owned fully by the Jews.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:48:45 UTC No. 16631890
>>16631881
Just like you
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:54:21 UTC No. 16631897
I remember when Dragonfly was just announced back in 2019. How time flies.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 16:54:50 UTC No. 16631898
>>16631895
It does images now? Last time I asked for one it said it didn't do images and tried directing me to another AI thing instead.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:22:02 UTC No. 16631914
If a copper wire carrying a steady electric current is subjected to external heating at a short section while the rest remains cooler, heat is absorbed from the copper as the conventional current approaches the hot point, and heat is transferred to the copper just beyond the hot point. This effect was discovered (1854) by the British physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin).
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 17:57:14 UTC No. 16631937
>>16631881
itās cute how the only thing you have going for you is which people had sex to make you.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:14:01 UTC No. 16631949
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:18:33 UTC No. 16631954
>>16631936
That is incredibly cursed.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:19:07 UTC No. 16631955
The term "thermoelectric effect" encompasses three separately identified effects: the Seebeck effect (temperature differences cause electromotive forces), the Peltier effect (thermocouples create temperature differences), and the Thomson effect (the Seebeck coefficient varies with temperature). The Seebeck and Peltier effects are different manifestations of the same physical process; textbooks may refer to this process as the PeltierāSeebeck effect
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:27:30 UTC No. 16631958
>>16631898
Yeah.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:31:37 UTC No. 16631961
What do they call the device on the ISS that converts carbon dioxide into oxygen, and what is that chemical reaction called?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:33:56 UTC No. 16631962
https://x.com/dsshhh114/status/1906
>China successfully launched the Long March-7A from the Wenchang Space Launch Center on March 30, 2025, deploying the Communication Technology Test Satellite-16 into its planned orbit.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:36:01 UTC No. 16631965
>>16631961
Bosch reaction isn't it?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:45:08 UTC No. 16631974
>>16631962
China has so many damn rockets, how do they choose which rocket goes to what payload? They need to consolidate into two or three launchers. They have a bajillion
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:46:09 UTC No. 16631976
>>16631966
the stone seawall is very aesthetic
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:49:27 UTC No. 16631978
>>16631554
you'll be able to understand someday, kid
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:49:41 UTC No. 16631979
>>16631966
Thereās a saying the polulation around the AndĆøya, Norway launch site like to say: Ų§ŁŁŁŁŁŁ°ŁŁ Ų£ŁŁŁŲØŁŲ±Ł
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:49:45 UTC No. 16631980
>>16631965
I think they use electrolysis to generate oxygen and just dump the co2 outside
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:51:37 UTC No. 16631981
>>16631625
>There may be some small lakes in the equator, but nothing like at that poles.
Source?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:54:09 UTC No. 16631985
>>16631980
Oh is that all
That's a bit shit
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:57:04 UTC No. 16631986
>>16631864
you guys are acting like a bunch of jew D&C posters, take it back to /pol/
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 18:58:41 UTC No. 16631989
Why doesn't Blue Origin give employees stock options like SpaceX does for theirs?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:02:43 UTC No. 16631991
>>16631974
The LM-7A is for geostationary payloads that are too large to fit on the LM-3B/E. The latter would have probably strangled the former in its crib if it wasn't for the fact that Chinese GEO payloads have been growing just like everyone else's.
Everything else has a pretty cleanly defined niche. The LM-2C/2D are cheap Delta II-class LEO launchers; the LM-4B/4C are for bigger SSO payloads; the LM-2F does crew launches; the LM-7 does Tiangong cargo missions; the LM-5 is their (current) heavy-lifter; and the LM-6 is too expensive for a Vega-class rocket which is why it never flies and is being replaced by commercial solid fuel rockets. The mess only gets really started when you look at the new stuff like the LM-6A, 8A, and 12, which are all competing to be a cheap constellation launcher, or the nightmare that's the upcoming reusable fleet. They could consolidate down a bit, but there's not that much toe-stepping and this keeps all the design and manufacturing groups happy.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:07:10 UTC No. 16631995
>>16631958
make one with wellfag vs o'neill cylinder enjoyer
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:09:52 UTC No. 16631999
>>16631989
they don't deserve it
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:10:33 UTC No. 16632000
>>16631986
>D&C
Dragon and Calypso?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:25:20 UTC No. 16632007
>>16631775
me when I eat the brocc brocc.
To answer your question, about 5%.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:26:23 UTC No. 16632008
>>16631991
Ah see I always confuse the LM-2FE-119 with the LM-8E/24_52.557F theyāre so similar in name and role!
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:38:22 UTC No. 16632017
>>16631991
some of it is that they are moving away from their previous generation hypergolic rockets (LM-2/3/4) with inland launch pads, to kerolox launchers (LM-5/6/7/8/10) from their Wenchang island launch resort. Similar to how Russia is trying to phase out Proton for Angara, but with less corruption.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 19:47:48 UTC No. 16632028
>>16632000
Divide & Conquer
ckecked
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:07:35 UTC No. 16632040
The US needs more lunar-capable human vehicles. Orion is a POS. I wish SpaceX had been working on some sort of expanded dragon capsule with a service module and beefed up heat shield. Now itās too late and they canāt really do that, it would spread them too thin.
I hope starship can realistically launch and land humans soon UGHH it feels like the program is slowing down with progress
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:11:07 UTC No. 16632044
>>16632040
>expanded dragon capsule with a service module
dragon xl
or repurpose iss deorbit vehicle
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:12:43 UTC No. 16632045
>>16632044
Nah neither of those have human life support. This is apparently one of the hardest things to conquer in all of space flight. Life support is apparently some huge PITA
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:19:40 UTC No. 16632050
>>16632045
How the FUCK did they do it six times 56 years ago?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:20:34 UTC No. 16632051
>>16631958
>Visible Saturn in the sky
garbage
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:20:53 UTC No. 16632052
>>16632050
Maybe they faked it.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:23:39 UTC No. 16632054
What orbit are they using for Fram2?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:24:06 UTC No. 16632055
>>16632050
By taking a lot more risk than people are comfortable with today. 11 almost crashed. 13 exploded.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:43:40 UTC No. 16632064
>>16632055
13 2nd stage also nearly tore itself up.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:57:39 UTC No. 16632073
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 20:59:06 UTC No. 16632075
>>16632050
German engineers
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:04:31 UTC No. 16632084
>>16632073
Congrats your thread is ass
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:07:15 UTC No. 16632087
>one starship launch a week by next year
What are the chances that they actually achieve this?
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:08:17 UTC No. 16632090
>>16632087
50/50
In all seriousness it would be awesome. It would accelerate the r&d shit so much. Feels like a factory starship capable of real orbital missions (not to mention human flight) is so far away right now
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 21:19:57 UTC No. 16632101
>>16632087
Launch, sure, catch of heavy, sure, starship safe return and catch?
Lol no.
Anonymous at Sat, 29 Mar 2025 22:03:52 UTC No. 16632118
>>16631976
it is a cool looking site. be nice to see a booster land there.
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 00:47:25 UTC No. 16632189
>>16631966
AQUILO
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 03:00:58 UTC No. 16632233
>>16632044
Test Golden Shield by vaporizing the ISS
Anonymous at Sun, 30 Mar 2025 05:20:25 UTC No. 16632277
>>16632087
Unlikely