🧵 /sfg/ - spaceflight general
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 13:57:26 UTC No. 16635040
previous >>16632072
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:00:16 UTC No. 16635046
>>16635032
He posted those a day after I talked about using AI to represent Mars mattress. Does he post here???
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:00:24 UTC No. 16635047
should have been "Starliner was a worse disaster than previously thought" - edition
https://arstechnica.com/space/2025/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:03:40 UTC No. 16635056
>>16635040
Literally destined to be starliner edition but whatever go off my beloved tard
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:05:11 UTC No. 16635057
>>16635040
He's literally me...
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:06:12 UTC No. 16635060
>>16635047
>>16635056
We all knew this a year ago though
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:11:53 UTC No. 16635065
>>16635040
>mattressfag posting on mars from a DOME
we just can't stop winning, domeGODS
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:14:26 UTC No. 16635068
>>16635065
rape
Always follw the SNEED rule at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:15:35 UTC No. 16635070
Space is unscientific nonsense.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:17:40 UTC No. 16635071
>>16635070
I'm so glad you guys will be staying here lol
I like to imagine future generations looking back at e*rth like we look at the Australian aboriginies
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:22:23 UTC No. 16635075
>>16635071
And then you woke up after blacking out while suffocating on Muskrats transhumanist phallus.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:33:53 UTC No. 16635082
>>16635075
it's always dicksucking with you lot. One day you'll come out of the closet...
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:35:14 UTC No. 16635083
>>16635082
What happens first, orbital Starship or me coming out of the closet? Want to bet?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:50:56 UTC No. 16635094
>>16635083
sure, I bet the ISS that you will be a full blown dick sucking bottom sissy faggot before starship completes a single orbit. Now go back to /pol/, april fools is over.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 14:52:59 UTC No. 16635096
https://x.com/TAbusnardo/status/190
>Next CZ-5 is said to be at the very end of month, April 29th is thrown around. Hardware for 2 CZ-5 (Base & B) was seen in Tianjin recently, maybe summer
These are probably for more Huliangwang satellites, since the next declared payloads for the LM-5 (Shensuo, Xuntian, Chang'e 7) aren't flying until at least next year.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:08:39 UTC No. 16635104
>>16635083
>>16635094
replied to yourself again award
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:10:47 UTC No. 16635109
>>16635094
>I bet the ISS
I have nothing of comparative worthlessness to offer in return
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:11:56 UTC No. 16635111
>>16635040
lmao
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:16:25 UTC No. 16635116
this fram2 mission is kind of boring. yeah its pushing boundaries but its not offering much for public consumption.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:26:20 UTC No. 16635126
>>16635104
MEDS
THE ANTICHRIST CALLS
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:29:49 UTC No. 16635129
>>16635104
wtf I never said this
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:33:48 UTC No. 16635135
>>16635130
it was a very poor effort and did more to disrupt than it did to bring together, as previous april fools have.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:34:05 UTC No. 16635137
>>16635130
Literally so dumb. Zero effort it was so lazy this year
>>16635096
LM-5 my beloved. It’s actually such a cool rocket.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:34:09 UTC No. 16635138
>>16635130
the joke was, haha fuck you, DOGE was here
go spend the day on other websites?
funny stuff
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:38:37 UTC No. 16635144
>>16635130
Site wide posting was down 95% yesterday afternoon. Anons didn't consolidate, they just left lmao. I did. I had enough loli and gore 15 years ago. They should've left at least one blue board open, but I guess the joke was about having less moderators and rules for efficiency
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:42:13 UTC No. 16635154
sfg literally died yesterday lel
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:46:54 UTC No. 16635160
>>16635126
>Anonymous 06/06/66(Wed)19:26:20 No.16635126â–¶
> >>16635104 (You)
> MEDS
> THE ANTICHRIST CALLS
>>>
>Anonymous 06/06/66(Wed)19:29:49 No.16635129â–¶
> >>16635104 (You)
> wtf I never said this
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:47:40 UTC No. 16635161
>>16635135
>>16635137
>>16635138
>>16635144
retarded newfags lol
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:50:27 UTC No. 16635165
>>16635161
explain the great and hilarious point i missed then oh wise one.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:51:51 UTC No. 16635166
>>16635047
>astronauts too cold because life support couldn't keep the cabin warm
>thrusters too hot to operate because they were surrounded with too much insulation
i see boeing is going to fix this by swapping their places
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:52:09 UTC No. 16635167
>>16635154
I had to go touch some grass, 0/10 thank goodness it's over.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:53:11 UTC No. 16635170
>>16635165
>the point
>of an april fools prank
>on 4chan
my god, just stop embarrassing yourself and lurk for a year or two
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:54:38 UTC No. 16635174
>>16635170
whatever. seen plenty april fools on here and this was by far the most retarded and low effort
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:56:30 UTC No. 16635177
>>16635170
>turn site off
>"lol epic prank bro"
Ur fagit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 15:57:17 UTC No. 16635178
>>16635116
>yeah its pushing boundaries
no it isn’t
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:02:08 UTC No. 16635187
how nervous will you be when we're T-5 from the first crewed Starship landing attempt on Mars?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:04:34 UTC No. 16635190
So basically Starliner passed the point of bad docking where it should have bailed back to Earth, NASA overrode the typical “return to earth” protocol (I’m still confused as to why? Because it would have been safer to just try to dock vs re-entering with shitty control tolerance, I think?) and then they lose more thrusters as the Station is drifting away and they no longer can thrust forward?
What the fuck. They should not attempt another crewed flight. Idc about the contract Boeing is under. They have had so many chances to get this right and they almost killed two astronauts
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:04:38 UTC No. 16635191
>>16635177
>NOOOO I NEED MY 24/7 DOPAMINE RUSH PLEBBIT GENERALS AIEEEE
>banter???? what's that?!?!?! NO FUN ALLOWED
Newfags deserve to be bullied every day and night, sadly we only get to properly do it once a year, when (you) come to whine about how horrible and dreadful your day was during this super duper bad and lazy event.
Don't even try to deny it, I've seen it happen every year since I joined, no exceptions.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:05:51 UTC No. 16635193
No way, fag.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:06:55 UTC No. 16635194
>>16635126
I don't like that guy
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:08:09 UTC No. 16635195
>>16635190
they fixed all but one of the thrusters (temporarily) and it docked automatically, according to Berger.
>Because it would have been safer to just try to dock vs re-entering with shitty control tolerance
yes. This is the main spacex rival btw
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:09:31 UTC No. 16635197
>>16635191
What the fuck are you talking about lmao? They're usually fun and everyone loves it. /fitlit/ is still remembered fondly to this day. This year they just forced us to /b/ with leet speak. It sucked
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:11:12 UTC No. 16635199
>>16635187
I might piss my spacesuit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:14:07 UTC No. 16635200
>>16635191
the last several were fun. if you think getting everyone to go into /b/ then turn the l33tspeak on didn't create exactly what you describe here
>24/7 DOPAMINE RUSH
then i dont know what to tell you
>muh no fun
maybe you should go and live on /b/ or something then if thats what you want for fun, but coming to a general on /sci/ and bitching that people dont want to post my little pony porn or whatever, is the work of a faggot.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:14:22 UTC No. 16635201
>>16635187
Chill since they're already made it or not at T-5 Earther time.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:14:45 UTC No. 16635203
>>16635195
>Boeing still gets more money
China deserve to win. Everyone but spaceflight fans will be utterly shocked
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:14:46 UTC No. 16635204
>>16635190
>it would have been safer to just try to dock vs re-entering with shitty control tolerance
Precisely. At least at that moment the capsule was in the broadly correct orientation to dock, versus going through the reentry sequence without 6dof.
Granted I think they should've aborted way earlier than that.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:15:08 UTC No. 16635205
>>16635191
>since I joined
lol. did you join? what email address did you use for your account?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:17:10 UTC No. 16635207
>>16635200
Honestly the exposure to /gif/sissies, /mlp/edos, and /vt/rannies makes me want to leave the site. The entire place is a containment board to keep them out of /sfg/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:18:11 UTC No. 16635208
>>16635205
Lmao clocked him
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:18:38 UTC No. 16635209
>>16635190
Part of the untold story is also how trying to force a manual flight for too long could have and would have absolutley overheated the doghouse, aka the thruster bay that runs both the overheating thrusters and hypergolic fuel lines together (which was not relayed to NASA btw, boeing had a self-certification clearance and this fell under that. It was never addressed after the previous flight)
Also I’m not sure if manual control helped or would have killed them if used further. Obviously Butch trusted his own skills more than the computer fucking something up. Which makes sense. But manual control could have killled them as well thanks to boeing’s jeet design
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:21:41 UTC No. 16635211
>>16635197
> /fitlit/ is still remembered fondly to this day
and in 10 years people will fondly remember this year's prank because it made newfags go out of their tranny safehavens. Face it, pal, you're just grumpy because you like raging at everything. No other reason to be this mad over something so inconsequential.
>>16635200
they were, yes. But retards were whining every year. I know this because I already had the exact same argument last year kek.
>>16635205
>>16635208
>email address
>account
LMAO imagine buying the faggotpass, couldn't me me.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:22:33 UTC No. 16635212
>>16635195
This is the capsule that got the bigger of the two contracts versus crew Dragon btw.
Insane.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:24:01 UTC No. 16635213
>>16635211
>LMAO imagine buying the faggotpass, couldn't me me.
you missed the point, which is that nobody every says they 'joined' 4chan. that was the joke. go back to wherever you came from.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:28:45 UTC No. 16635216
>>16635073
Reminder that when the public learned of the shuttle hatch padlocks, NASA lied about the purpose of the locks. NASA told the public that the locks were to prevent somebody from bumping into the hatch and accidentally opening it. They lied to avoid admitting the merited fear of an astronaut going nutty and trying to murder-suicide a whole shuttle crew.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:34:01 UTC No. 16635217
>>16635212
well, I can see the benefits of subsidizing a potential competitor. Hell, SpaceX got the same preferential treatment when it was starting out. But uhhh, they weren't such colossal failures at the end of the day.
>>16635213
>nobody every [sic] says they 'joined' 4chan
I said it, I've seen many other anons say it. Do you have any source apart from your wishful delusions? Now sit the fuck down, ESL kid.
>go back to wherever you came from
Just did. Your turn.
>>16635216
wasn't that because of some chink who got salty over his experiment malfunctioning? Straight from a comedy lmao.
Anonymous (He/Him) at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:34:55 UTC No. 16635218
>>16635211
This is deranged. If you were used to posting as Anonymous you'd know you can just shamelessly bow out and post about something else without anyone knowing they're talking to the guy that just had a meltdown
Anonymous (He/Him) at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:35:59 UTC No. 16635219
>>16635217
>SpaceX got the same preferential treatment when it was starting out
Are you fucking insane?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:37:39 UTC No. 16635221
>>16635211
Ur fagit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:40:19 UTC No. 16635222
>>16635217
>SpaceX got the same preferential treatment when it was starting out
They did not. They almost didn't even get the contract.
>starting out
Boeing has been making space hardware for 70 years
You're a newfag.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:43:24 UTC No. 16635225
>>16635218
>>16635219
>namefagging
pffff
> meltdown
hey man, you're the only one sperging out about le super horrible 4chan april fools.
>>16635222
retarded newfag, I can see you started browsing here in the last few years. Why are you pretending otherwise?
NEVER read up on who bailed out SpaceX when they almost went bankrupt, lil guy.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 16:49:22 UTC No. 16635227
>>16635212
Plus tip!
>>16635225
This is mythologized by Elon, Gwynne says it wasn't so dramatic. Also they received a contract to do something that they went on to do. Where's the preferential treatment? How is it remotely comparable to Boeing using lobbying to siphon money from NASA regardless of what they do with it?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:11:36 UTC No. 16635232
>>16635217
SpaceX literally had to sue to be able to bid on launches.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:11:45 UTC No. 16635233
>>16635047
>Wilmore: "It was definitely low 50s, if not cooler. When you're hustling and bustling, and doing things, all the tests we were doing after launch, we didn't notice it until we slowed down. We purposely didn't take sleeping bags. I was just going to bungee myself to the bulkhead. I had a sweatshirt and some sweatpants, and I thought, I'm going to be fine. No, it was frigid. And I even got inside my space suit, put the boots on and everything, gloves, the whole thing. And it was still cold."
wow this is bad
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:14:02 UTC No. 16635235
>>16635233
Cut them some slack, they were just starting out!
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:14:47 UTC No. 16635236
>>16635227
>Where's the preferential treatment?
NTA but these people unironically believe NASA contracts are gibs. They have internalized that the government always overpays and are extraordinarily profitable for the company receiving the contract.
They don't care if SpaceX has provided a better deal, of course the rebuttal always is
>it's not as cheap as it COULD be
Implying that If you're not trying to actively bankrupt yourself on bidding then any contract is a gib apparently.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:16:22 UTC No. 16635237
>>16635236
The funny part is it's never libertarians saying this
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:18:51 UTC No. 16635238
>>16635233
Yeah this is strange to me. It said this was likely due to the life support being designed for 4 souls, while this test flight only had two astronauts on board. But is there not a climate control system? No way to turn the temperature up or down? Lol
Maybe it’s not that easy in space life support systemery idk
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:21:02 UTC No. 16635239
>>16635238
>It said this was likely due to the life support being designed for 4 souls, while this test flight only had two astronauts on board.
They're relying on the combined bodyheat of four people to warm the Starliner interior?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:27:10 UTC No. 16635240
elon is getting DOGE'd
Trump Tells Inner Circle That Musk Will Leave Soon
>President Donald Trump has told his inner circle, including members of his Cabinet, that Elon Musk will be stepping back in the coming weeks from his current role as governing partner
>Musk’s looming retreat comes as some Trump administration insiders and many outside allies have become frustrated with his unpredictability and increasingly view the billionaire as a political liability, a dynamic that was thrown into stark relief Tuesday when a conservative judge Musk vocally supported lost his bid for a Wisconsin Supreme Court seat by 10 points.
>One senior administration official said Musk is likely to retain an informal role as an adviser and continue to be an occasional face around the White House grounds. Another cautioned that anyone who thinks Musk is going to disappear entirely from Trump’s orbit is “fooling themselves.”
>The transition, the insiders said, is likely to correspond to the end of Musk’s time as a “special government employee,” a special status that temporarily exempts him from some ethics and conflict-of-interest rules. That 130-day period is expected to expire in late May or early June.
https://www.politico.com/news/magaz
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:28:48 UTC No. 16635241
>>16635240
>politico
He literally said he expected to step back by May. Journos get to walk on luna firma without an EVA suit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:28:49 UTC No. 16635242
>>16635217
nobody 'joins' 4chan you fake.
>>16635225
this is a troll who doesn't belong here. calling everyone 'newfag' is classic troll behavior.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:35:15 UTC No. 16635244
>>16635241
>He literally said he expected to step back by May.
source?
>Journos get to walk on luna firma without an EVA suit
Very nice. Too bad the same applies to Elon and Trump. Or is purposefully spreading misinformation about the status of astronauts for political gain somehow any different?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:35:50 UTC No. 16635245
>>16635240
>politico
Deposit all propaganda rags in the bin, please
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:44:08 UTC No. 16635247
>>16635244
>they could come down strapped to the storage pallet with no backup oxygen so they weren't stuck
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:47:51 UTC No. 16635251
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:49:06 UTC No. 16635252
>>16635251
The very gay anon who posted that will argue that it's on topic because Elon rocket man or something, when in reality he just wanted (you)s.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:49:17 UTC No. 16635253
>>16635227
so Elon is lying, is that what you're saying? Nah, I honestly don't think so.
>how is getting a life saving infusion of cash after failing to provide a functional rocket for years comparable to another day in bribesville
okay, fine. You're right. The two are completely incomparable. For SpaceX the stakes were way higher back then.
>>16635242
>getting this butthurt over semantics
laughably pathetic ESL behavior. Still waiting on proof or any sort of argumentation for your statement btw.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 17:57:05 UTC No. 16635255
>>16635253
>damage control after failing the three finger meme
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:00:15 UTC No. 16635256
>>16635253
Yes Elon was being dramatic about timelines. And the timing of CRS has nothing to do with SpaceX's woes. Boeing bribing for more cash doesn't compare.
>>16635255
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:04:24 UTC No. 16635260
>>16635130
April Fools has never been funny, ever. We need a new holiday on April 2nd, "Fuck around and find out" Day, when it is legal to beat the shit out of anybody who tried to "prank" you.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:04:30 UTC No. 16635261
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:04:34 UTC No. 16635262
>>16635144
>normies and new fags can't handle /b/
what else is knew
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:06:00 UTC No. 16635263
>>16635040
someone posted this on /pol/ saying this is how rocket engines work, is he right?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:07:09 UTC No. 16635264
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:07:25 UTC No. 16635266
>>16635240
>relentless leaking from "insiders" again
Maybe he should get rid of these snakes and traitors ?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:07:50 UTC No. 16635267
>>16635263
Yes he's right and yes you should go back to your flat earth general on /x/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:08:09 UTC No. 16635268
>>16635263
yes
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:08:34 UTC No. 16635269
>>16635262
>handle
Recreational activities usually don't involve psychological self harm. It's not reddit to not want to get bait and switched into watching a guy blow his head off
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:10:08 UTC No. 16635270
>>16635263
There's no air for the rocket to push against. Atheists are so fucking stupid
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:12:37 UTC No. 16635272
>>16635047
>>16635264
>freezing cold
>unreliable thrusters
>helium leak (very disrespectful)
>haunted noises
Starliner is a fucking deathtrap
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:16:09 UTC No. 16635275
>>16635251
it is spaceflight because it means elon will be returning to focus on spacex instead of saving the country
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:17:56 UTC No. 16635277
>>16635269
It is absolutely reddit to get triggered by it
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:20:04 UTC No. 16635279
>>16635255
>impotent seething
so, big guy, where's your argument? I can show you plenty of oldfags using the term. Or are you saying that everyone is a liar? Surely you're not just pretending to be this retarded, right?
>>16635256
>Yes Elon was lying.
when has Gwynne said that? Honest question.
>And the timing of CRS has nothing to do with SpaceX's woes.
extremely debatable, SpaceX was floundering for a while before that point. It is a very real probability that a backroom deal was made to save it. If you honestly believe otherwise, you haven't really been paying attention in the last 60 years...
>Boeing bribing for more cash doesn't compare.
that's what I agreed upon, yes.
>>16635269
>/b/
>psychological self harm
KEK, absolute state of newfaggotry
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:21:38 UTC No. 16635280
>>16635270
I don't understand how space being fake and gay implies theism.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:23:17 UTC No. 16635281
>>16635277
>yeah I watch brazilian torture videos in my spare time, now interact with me and care about my opinion
>>16635280
I don't know, I was trolling
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:25:47 UTC No. 16635285
>>16635264
It’s so awful to be like
>oh fuck, we have limited control here, Suni
>*loses even more thrusters*
You just know Butch was praying to the good Lord out loud constantly hahah.
>>16635272
I’m sure we are going to see some fun stuff with Artemis II. I really wish the stupid Space Launch System would have gone haywire and blown up with the first launch bc if it’s hiding some issues that haven’t been found yet, it’s going to be a real problem for the crew
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:26:31 UTC No. 16635287
>>16635283
fuck off, space is full
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:30:58 UTC No. 16635291
>>16635283
looks like a school textbook from 2003
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:32:23 UTC No. 16635293
>>16635283
is this going to be the first operational satellites?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:33:06 UTC No. 16635294
I just can’t believe they called it Calypso, like what were they thinking?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:34:43 UTC No. 16635295
>>16635294
boomers love that shit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:35:44 UTC No. 16635297
>>16635244
it was always supposed to be temporary
if he wanted to be on board for over 130 days it would require some new procedures and he can still be an advisor even if he isn't accessing any files or whatever personally
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:45:27 UTC No. 16635300
>>16635291
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Mm
Accurate, considering that Atlas V launched for the first time back in 2002.
>>16635293
https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/in
Yep. The first batch of 27.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:45:35 UTC No. 16635301
>>16635297
>goalpost moving
okay so Elon hasn't stated that anywhere whatsoever, is what you're telling me?
>muh 130 days, le law says so
irrelevant, Trump is the president and can do whatever he wants. Are you honestly telling me the guy who implied he considered running for a third term wouldn't do this if he wanted? Get a grip, man.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:49:03 UTC No. 16635304
>>16635301
oh no it has severe TDS too
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 18:50:28 UTC No. 16635306
>>16635304
Delusional.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:07:20 UTC No. 16635309
>>16635301
https://www.foxnews.com/video/63706
starting at 1:40 and going about 20s they talk about the special government employee status, but he has talked about this being temporary previously as well
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:08:34 UTC No. 16635311
>>16635294
CIA name tricks
They signal everything that way
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:11:19 UTC No. 16635314
>>16635311
>next capsule is called Frodo
>goes apeshit and destroys the ISS docking ring
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:14:18 UTC No. 16635315
https://x.com/DerekdotSpace/status/
>ULA has released a timeline for the KA-1 mission which includes a 14 MINUTE Centaur burn for orbital insertion. This is the heaviest payload Atlas V has ever carried.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:16:41 UTC No. 16635317
>>16635283
this shit is so late, they had better have some massive, disruptive technological advantage Starlink didn't think of, or else its fucked.
Also, how embarrassing. Soviet engines, and antiquated solids? This is the nex-gen debut of Amazon Space? Beyond embarrassing, since the goddamn founder quit to run a space company of his own, and this isnt it.
This is the vehicle that notoriously left our astronauts stranded, needing a SpaceX rescue.
Project Kuiper had to buy three launches on Falcon 9s just to make their own investors quit with the lawsuits. The whole thing stinks of shit and is beyond saving, seriously who here wants Amazon as an ISP, or Amazon-ecosystem spying devices? Thats right, nobody asked for them because nobody wants them, and they wont sell. this is even worse then Alexa
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:16:42 UTC No. 16635318
>>16635315
If that centaur shuts off even a millisecond early it’s over.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:18:55 UTC No. 16635320
>>16635239
The coolant loop handling life support probably maintains constant flow throughout the mission to save money
Because it is only in space on its own for at most three days they gave zero fucks about crew comfort
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:19:55 UTC No. 16635322
>>16635317
Kuiper is b2b only
It links amazon datacenters together
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:21:00 UTC No. 16635325
>>16635315
>14 minutes
Why is it so weak?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:21:22 UTC No. 16635326
>>16635301
>>16635309
also
https://x.com/PressSec/status/19074
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:22:23 UTC No. 16635328
>>16635314
This would require a collision with the Gollum module.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:23:09 UTC No. 16635329
>>16635325
This is the power of hydrolox
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:27:59 UTC No. 16635332
>>16635318
It's not quite that bad. Atlas is taking these to a 450 km orbit, and Kuiper's operational altitudes are up at 590, 610, and 630 km. Shutting down early just means that this batch of Kuipers has a slightly longer burn to get to altitude and a slightly shorter operational life.
>>16635325
Centaur's thing has always been low-thrust high-efficiency. A single engine Centaur III can have staging accelerations of as low as 0.25g.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:36:15 UTC No. 16635337
>>16635332
What does efficiency get you, over power?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:37:48 UTC No. 16635339
>>16635337
And if the answer is
>precision
then what does precision get you? Tory is always autistic about the bullseye of ULA launches. Butch said he was surprised at how on the ball Atlas V kept the Starliner.
What is the advantage of this shit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:39:14 UTC No. 16635344
>>16635339
Some minimal fuel savings, maybe?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:39:58 UTC No. 16635346
>>16635337
Better performance to high-energy trajectories. A few decades ago (really, before Falcon 9 and Starlink) GTO and GEO were the only orbits anyone really cared about. LEO was a side market at best.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:46:05 UTC No. 16635356
>>16635339
Satellites didn't always come with their own propulsion system. If your final orbit is wherever the rocket drops you off, it's nice for the rocket to have a good reputation for accuracy. Satellites that did have their own propulsion were usually raising their orbit from a transfer to geostationary and didn't have much margin beyond those maneuvers. Accuracy meant that satellite builders could keep to as tight a fuel-weight budget as possible, which would keep costs down.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:48:17 UTC No. 16635363
>>16635339
>What is the advantage of this shit
Old way of thinking with satellites having extremely limited margins for orbit keeping.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:49:16 UTC No. 16635367
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrI
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:50:11 UTC No. 16635369
>>16635075
MuskCucks are intellectual cancer. Imagine believing the guy who's so shit to work for that he has to import engineers from the third world because no qualified first world engineer wants to work for him will ever do anything but grift taxpayers and make empty promises.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:50:55 UTC No. 16635370
>>16635251
this is good for spaceflight. unironically.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:53:29 UTC No. 16635374
>>16635082
To be fair, sucking dick is the universal language of the liberal left so is used, metaphorically, to bring discourse down to their intellectual level.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:53:51 UTC No. 16635377
>>16635369
SpaceX has all American engineers. Get a grip.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:54:12 UTC No. 16635378
>>16635363
>Old way
retard. It's the only way.
>b-buh muh saarling
don't make me laugh
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:56:13 UTC No. 16635382
Yeah, fake news
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 19:57:25 UTC No. 16635384
>>16635378
You can use a cheaper provider now and not penny pinch so hard on propulsion.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:05:11 UTC No. 16635396
https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1
>SpaceX President and COO, Gwynne Shotwell, has become a billionaire with a net worth of $1.2 billion, driven by her 0.3% stake in the company. SpaceX reached a $350 billion valuation in December 2024 after a sale of insider shares.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:10:46 UTC No. 16635403
>>16635396
please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire please don't retire
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:11:07 UTC No. 16635404
>>16635396
Is this the only competent woman leader in modern history?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:13:12 UTC No. 16635405
>>16635404
Victoria.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:18:37 UTC No. 16635407
>>16635384
Is spacex all that cheaper? There's no reason for them to provide launches at a significantly lower cost when there's barely any competition.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:23:06 UTC No. 16635408
>>16635407
SpaceX is cheaper, and also safer and more reliable than the competition (meaning, safer insurance for the customer.) They're not MASSIVELY cheaper though, except the costs to SpaceX are massively cheaper, which means SpaceX enjoys a massive profit margin and a very wide moat. Nobody can come close to competing with them, they have brutally mogged the entire launch industry.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:26:25 UTC No. 16635410
>>16635407
SpaceX is near a monopoly because it's cheaper, although like the other anon said it's not much cheaper but it's enough to eat into almost everything where the advantages of ULA and other launchers (like more precise insertions) aren't nearly as attractive.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:35:11 UTC No. 16635414
>>16635322
That seems like a horrible business case compared to starlink. Where is electricity plentiful but cables are logistically challenging? With Starlink it makes sense because you're connecting to a billion out of the way points, but entire data centers??
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:41:50 UTC No. 16635418
>>16635216
CBS news coverage from 1995: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-y
webm clip: >>>/wsg/5848883
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:44:43 UTC No. 16635420
>>16635217
>wasn't that because of some chink who got salty over his experiment malfunctioning? Straight from a comedy lmao.
His experiment wasn't working and mission control didn't want to give him extra time in the schedule to fix it, so he threaten to solve sudoku puzzles and then a few hours later started asking suspicious questions about how easy it would be for him to open the hatch while in space.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:46:36 UTC No. 16635422
>>16635414
Guess where undersea cables can't be cut?
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:49:12 UTC No. 16635424
>>16635422
On land.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:50:17 UTC No. 16635426
>>16635422
Seems easier to just not build data centers in Taiwan or Iceland than to launch an entire satellite constellation. Especially when there's already a satellite constellation
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:54:42 UTC No. 16635430
>>16635216
seems reasonable. people going nuts on various kinds of craft have been a thing for hundreds of years at least. my own father had to subdue someone who went stir while he was crew on a barge back in the day. it just happens...only thing is that on a spacecraft a man gone nuts can kill the whole crew even more easily.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 20:57:41 UTC No. 16635432
i will vandalize any and every spacex rocket i encounter on sight until elon makes starship 12m
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:02:56 UTC No. 16635435
>>16635396
Almost threw up reading this thinking it was gonna say she was stepping down. I need this woman to remain until 18m+ starship exists
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:03:16 UTC No. 16635436
>>16635432
based moderate
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:03:21 UTC No. 16635437
>>16635430
This is going to be when one of my 7 SpaceX mandated indian crewmates breaks the backup toilet on month two
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:04:21 UTC No. 16635440
>Elon Musk wants to launch 25 starships this year
>3 months have already passed and he only launched 2
Is he cooked? The maths don't add up>>16635040
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:06:11 UTC No. 16635444
>>16635346
GEO was where the billion dollar sats and governments willing to pay gold plated prices were
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:07:38 UTC No. 16635445
>>16635440
>elon lied
you're still surprised? at this rate, I'll be damned if we get the same amount of successful flights as last year
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:07:49 UTC No. 16635446
>>16635440
25 launches was ULA's claim for Vulcan
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:12:48 UTC No. 16635451
>muskrat resorts to blatant lying when cornered
you love to see it
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:14:28 UTC No. 16635452
>>16635446
>ULA
>Vulcan
First time hearing these names. Are they a public or a private venture? I didn't understand the wikipedia article
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:26:13 UTC No. 16635459
>>16635451
Don’t we all, really?
I white lie so much at work to stay out of trouble it’s unreal
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 21:28:28 UTC No. 16635460
>>16635437
it probably will. you'd think they have fairly trustworthy screening for this by now but as the pool from which candidates expands it all changes.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:00:57 UTC No. 16635474
>>16635435
may Goddess Empress Shotwell reign for 10,000 years
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:11:56 UTC No. 16635480
>>16635478
nothing ever happens
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:21:32 UTC No. 16635485
>>16635217
>SpaceX got the same preferential treatment when it was starting out
Holy shit. Nonetheless, a sobering reminder of how history will warp as the days go by. In a century, early SpaceX will have succeeded because they had the full support and resources of the federal government.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:27:49 UTC No. 16635488
>>16635485
>being on the verge of bankrupcy and being saved only by gibs does not count as government support because uhhhh IT JUST DOESNT OKAY
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:32:49 UTC No. 16635490
>>16635488
go back to /pol/
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:34:38 UTC No. 16635493
>>16635490
You first
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:37:28 UTC No. 16635496
>>16635233
>>16635238
>>16635320
according to wikipedia (i was trying to remember how badly oft-2 fucked up) there have been previous issues with things on starliner running too cold.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:45:06 UTC No. 16635500
>>16635488
>same preferential treatment
also a contract isn't "gibs" by default you retard
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 22:51:25 UTC No. 16635505
>>16635488
>Commercial services rendered
>"gibs"
That's not what gibs are. Gibs are social programs that involve giving money out for no services rendered, or for buying shit that will be privately owned at everyone else's expense.
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:09:55 UTC No. 16635513
>>16635471
sciencefags of /sfg/ explain why this wouldn’t work
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:36:23 UTC No. 16635529
>>16635513
The second rocket would explode 7 minutes into the flight
🗑️ Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:41:15 UTC No. 16635533
>wake up
>trump has tariffed my country again
>because we don't buy infected beef????
uhh burgerbros fix your shit
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:43:51 UTC No. 16635536
>>16635533
Cook your food
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:43:54 UTC No. 16635537
>>16635533
That's what we're doing
Anonymous at Wed, 2 Apr 2025 23:44:39 UTC No. 16635538
>>16635440
And musk wanted 10 launches in 2024 and got 4, and 5 in 2023 and got 2
They'll still likely surpass 10 launches this year tho
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:01:55 UTC No. 16635551
>>16635533
>infected beef
those were from the brits
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:07:19 UTC No. 16635555
>>16635543
They needed to do this a year ago ffs.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:13:10 UTC No. 16635559
For me, it's Dr. K's Engine Elixir.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:16:08 UTC No. 16635561
>>16635558
Starship for HLS was so absurd that I think from the very beginning very few people ever seriously thought it would happen. That's why it was such a shock when Starship was selected for HLS, it suddenly snapped people into realizing
>"oh, Artemis isn't actually going to happen."
I remain convinced that NASA allowed Starship to be selected so that blame for the failure of the entire program could be placed on SpaceX, sparing NASA itself and other contractors from their fair share of the blame. They already knew Artemis was in trouble so they decided to bring SpaceX into the picture to serve as a lightning rod that would attract all the blame and thus spare the rest of the structure.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:16:15 UTC No. 16635562
>>16635325
because they don't produce any engines in house and RL10's are fucking expensive
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:22:37 UTC No. 16635570
>>16635561
Space is hard
having sane mission architecture is even harder
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:24:16 UTC No. 16635571
>>16635570
It certainly doesn't help that SLS was designed before Artemis, and was never intended to be a Moon rocket in the first place.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:25:23 UTC No. 16635573
https://youtu.be/vIp_jwHMjIk
>sfg missed the first fusion engine revealed
your gueys are useless
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:27:39 UTC No. 16635574
>>16635558
elon has only become more ruthless since falcon heavy.
nobody will be able to stop it if he hyperfixates on mars and deletes everything else.
hopefully we get a few one off expendable hls before that but im starting to doubt.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:28:31 UTC No. 16635575
>>16635513
I can't, it's exactly how it works in realism overhaul KSP
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:30:00 UTC No. 16635576
>>16635571
SLS doing HLS is no issue... and vastly cheaper than any competition..
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:30:02 UTC No. 16635577
https://x.com/FutureJurvetson/statu
>Bryce Smallsat Report 2025
>For the past decade, 74% of 10K commercial smallsats (<1200kg) are SpaceX
>SpaceX launched 80% of all smallsats (commercial+gov't)
>Forecast: "Increasing government adoption" and "Market share of small launchers most likely to remain small."
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:32:56 UTC No. 16635582
>>16635576
SLS cannot do HLS. SLS lacks the power to do a proper single-launch moon mission, at least with Orion, and congress loves Orion almost as much as Israel.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:36:46 UTC No. 16635583
>>16635582
yea Orion is just the capsule to bring people to Lunar orbit
Then HLS lands them
It's insane, god knows what they are thinking but thats the "plan" to use as much wildly expensive one off hardware as possible
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:38:13 UTC No. 16635584
>>16635577
>>16635578
>smallsats (<1200kg)
>Electron (2%)
Peter Beck is quaking in his tiny carbon composite booster seat.
But not any kind of carbon composite, a RocketLab carbon composite.
There isn't just rockets in this lab!
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:41:02 UTC No. 16635586
>>16635533
>tariff America
>America tariffs you back at half the amount you are doing
how evil the orange man is, you dindu nuffin
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:42:23 UTC No. 16635587
>>16635558
Saar are you ESL by chance?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:43:58 UTC No. 16635588
>>16635583
>>It's insane, god knows what they are thinking
They were thinking that Orion would launch on Ares, not SLS. Ares was cancelled but Orion lived on. Then the senate dreamed up SLS, but didn't have any mission for it besides unspecified "deep space" missions. Then later they got the idea to go to the Moon and decided this must be done with SLS and Orion, but this isn't possible unless you do retard shit like send Orion to NHRO and have a completely different rocket launch a lander that has to be retard huge to make up for this.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:44:40 UTC No. 16635589
>>16635584
Almost didn't see this
>>16635578
>Micro
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 00:48:58 UTC No. 16635592
>>16635587
is this perhaps hlscuck mooncel cope?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:18:00 UTC No. 16635600
hop wen
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:22:34 UTC No. 16635602
insert cum in the lady astronaut
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:25:01 UTC No. 16635604
>>16635558
This is awful news. let's hope oscar isaac ignores musk on this one
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:25:09 UTC No. 16635605
https://x.com/johnkrausphotos/statu
>The U.S. Senate’s nomination hearing for Jared Isaacman to be confirmed as the 15th NASA Administrator is set for next Wednesday, April 9
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:26:13 UTC No. 16635606
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:27:46 UTC No. 16635608
>>16635606
cant go saying for years "we should do both" "we need a base on the moon" and then ignore the moon after receiving billions to go to the fucking moon
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:30:33 UTC No. 16635610
>>16635605
Confirm that nigga NOW
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:36:17 UTC No. 16635613
>>16635609
As someone who halfway blind I wish I could appreciate control panels more, but I can't read none of them
Makes simulators much, much harder
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:39:00 UTC No. 16635615
>>16635609
>replaces that whole panel with an ipad
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 01:55:54 UTC No. 16635628
>>16635609
this. it's a space craft, not a toy for distracting toddlers.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:10:16 UTC No. 16635640
>>16635609
Sorry boomer, no more frontiers. Rockets are missiles that will automatically launch a crew of like a dozen welders or something with no training. They don't need switches. They barely need the iPad save for it telling them when to strap in.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:24:36 UTC No. 16635646
>>16635605
so ted cruz has finally gotten over his butthurt? Texas has been so retarded about space investments it's almost incomprehensible.
even if you entirely oppose budget cuts and changes to NASA missions you want to get the administrator in as fast as possible. this long period of no clear direction is only making things worse within and for NASA.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:37:59 UTC No. 16635651
>>16635166
if NASA had wanted their astronauts to have the deluxe comfort package that included heat on demand they could have opted for it, it would have only added $139M (+ tip) to the total out-the-door Starliner cost, but no they had to cheap out, shame on NASA
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 02:50:47 UTC No. 16635655
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:00:47 UTC No. 16635660
>>16635559
oh my eager
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:04:52 UTC No. 16635662
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:13:07 UTC No. 16635664
>>16635558
People interpret this as him saying "fuck the Moon mission"
He's just simultaneously saying "the moon should not be the end goal people are thinking about" and "Congress likes fucking slamming the brakes on any type of space shit once a milestone is reached"
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:14:20 UTC No. 16635665
>>16635664
more like
going to the moon in no way helps going to mars
and the physical effort it takes to launch from Earth is basically the same, going to mars or the moon
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:15:51 UTC No. 16635666
>>16635558
That faggot needs to stop trying to weasel his way out of his moon contract
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:16:31 UTC No. 16635667
i think spaceflight is a bit of a generous phrase for this infantile species' toying around with barely controlled bombs in halfassed attempts to achieve orbits and shoot shit off in varying directions
none of you are ever leaving the earth <3
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:21:53 UTC No. 16635671
>>16635667
you work at a store
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:21:56 UTC No. 16635672
>>16635665
>physical effort it takes to launch from Earth is basically the same
>a 3 day road trip is the same as a 90 day road trip
Is everyone with that opinion severely autistic who can't think outside dv?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:23:02 UTC No. 16635674
>>16635672
>3 days away from earth vs 90 days away from earth
I know what I'm choosing
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:26:20 UTC No. 16635676
>>16635655
Cool that they get to play Breakout on that thing
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:28:54 UTC No. 16635677
>>16635674
for sending people off on their way, it all costs the same on ur end
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:31:20 UTC No. 16635680
>>16635677
Not even close
Go back and look at the terms of the rocket equation again
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:33:35 UTC No. 16635681
>>16635662
Subtle.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:37:02 UTC No. 16635684
>>16635680
LEO to moon = 6 km/s
LEO to mars + landing = something similar
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:38:42 UTC No. 16635685
>>16635684
Yeah, now look at the mass you need to get to mars vs the moon and tell me the rocket costs the same
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:39:51 UTC No. 16635686
>>16635685
what are you talking about
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:53:09 UTC No. 16635691
Are solid rocket engines still in use for anything other than weapons? I understand why they're unsuitable for human spaceflight but for boosting mass qualities of cargo into orbit or beyond, seems like a good method, especially for simple things like water or basic construction goods.
SpaceX really wants everything to be reusable but from the diagrams I've seen about getting enough fuel up in orbit to power craft beyond Earth, SRBs seem like a better way of getting large tanks of fuel up there. But I'm pretty out of my depth here but perhaps I'm missing a bunch of things.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 03:55:41 UTC No. 16635693
>>16635691
What part of showering your launch infrastructure in hot hydrochloric acid and molten aluminum traveling at supersonic speeds sounds like a good idea
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:01:42 UTC No. 16635694
Relightable SRBs
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:10:46 UTC No. 16635698
what if there are SRB's but filled with LCH4 and LOx
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:13:33 UTC No. 16635700
>>16635691
>seems like a good method
They're not. For starters, they're very inefficient, which mean they need to be very large to move a comparable payload. That could be excused if they were also economical, but they're not that either. Because you've got mixed fuel+oxidizer you need to handle solids with the same protocol you use for unexploded ordinance, because that's exactly what they are. This drives up your groundside costs compared to a rocket that's an empty can waiting to be filled on the pad with LOX and kerosene. It's not as bad as handling costs for hypergolics, but its enough to kill any economic advantage. On top of that, they're very heavy, which means you're going to need huge and expensive transporter systems at your launch pad. An unfueled Superheavy only weighs about 275 tons and can be driven down an unimproved two-lane state highway using a commercially purchased modular transporter. SLS needs a custom-built crawler capable of lugging 1500 tons of SRB down a path made from specially imported Alabama river rock. One of these systems is far more cost-effective than the other. The cost of the rocket isn't just the cost of building the rocket; you also need to think about every step the rocket takes between the factory and the launch pad, and how much work each of those steps costs.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:34:40 UTC No. 16635708
>>16635698
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/documen
>Solid methane hybrid rocket engine. Regression speed increase by oxidizer doping and embedding wires. Vehicle optimization application through motor parameters.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 04:45:43 UTC No. 16635716
>>16635698
Solid methane and oxygen
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:02:31 UTC No. 16635722
Berger is posting whispers that ted cruz wants to become the next shelby
is it over?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:15:01 UTC No. 16635732
>>16635722
Over? Shelby was one of the most successful senators of all time at getting money earmarked for his state
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:31:13 UTC No. 16635744
>>16635722
he's going to do to mars what shelby did to depots
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:55:02 UTC No. 16635754
>>16635732
Lol its johnson he cares about - aka gateway and the ISS. He is a Houston man and he has never done a thing for spacex or tesla. Texas in general is hugely behind the curve in supporting its space sector outside of Johnson.
>>16635744
what he considers to be most important for NASA will become very obvious during Isaacs hearing.
personally I don't think Cruz has the relationships and competence to be a Shelby. I think he will try to swing his dick, certainly, but I don't think with great success. Maybe after another 5 years under his belt. That said, there is certainly plenty of institutional weight behind gateway, so he won't be without friends in that fight.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 05:59:54 UTC No. 16635758
does anyone know of any really reliable and insightful sources for chinese aerospace news/analysis? Dongfang hour has nearly stopped posting and its borderline slop even when it isn't paywalling every other video, china-in-space is more or less just surface level reporting, and andrew jones isn't really much more in depth.
surely theres a berger or hullo, or even just NSF tier source of news on chinese aerospace? im desperate enough to follow xitter accounts if i have to
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:01:01 UTC No. 16635781
>>16635758
there are but not in english or on western sites
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 07:35:16 UTC No. 16635792
we need elon to be the actual president if we want anything to get done
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:16:20 UTC No. 16635800
https://x.com/GoToImpulse/status/19
>“GEO is still the most important orbit. And it always will be.” — Tom Mueller
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:22:22 UTC No. 16635804
>>16635800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33c
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:37:26 UTC No. 16635811
>>16635377
>SpaceX has all American engineers. Get a grip.
100% PURE AMERICAN SAAAAAAR
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/2079611
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:38:03 UTC No. 16635815
>>16635811
yes, all those people by law are american
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:41:14 UTC No. 16635821
>>16635790
trump has been pushing for the moving of the space force base to bama for as a concession to get... i forget what. which is a shame because it was interesting. but he wants to slash something in aerospace which is based out of huntsville.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:41:29 UTC No. 16635822
>>16635815
By law an African from the deepest depths of the Congo who just got a green card is 100% American does that actually make him American you midwitted Muskrat?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 08:48:47 UTC No. 16635827
>>16635811
you're a sick racist fuck
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:27:35 UTC No. 16635842
>>16635792
Becoming India isn't the path to better spaceflight.
>>16635821
Redstone has a bunch of different federal agencies located on it, including FBI offices. It's like a mini-DC. Wouldn't be surprised if something in that assortment got slashed in the general downsizing. Transferring Space Command would be a good consolation prize, probably worth more than whatever was lost.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:33:44 UTC No. 16635847
>>16635573
>nuclear fusion thrusters are easier than nuclear powerplants
makes sense after you hear it, and it might actually be a way to get a commercial application of fusion (and then an easier way to keep improving it) which might help with the power plant application later as well
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:36:07 UTC No. 16635848
>>16635667
Nigger.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:38:49 UTC No. 16635849
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 09:40:36 UTC No. 16635850
>>16635691
>>16635693
it sounds glorious
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 10:57:58 UTC No. 16635912
>>16635908
It will explode :(
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:04:18 UTC No. 16635917
>>16635908
It will explode :D
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:09:18 UTC No. 16635919
>>16635908
It might explode (50/50)
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:26:50 UTC No. 16635932
>>16635908
>it doesnt explode
:|
>it explodes
>:D
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:40:05 UTC No. 16635941
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 11:53:25 UTC No. 16635954
>>16635938
>day 3
is this likely to be the last day or will they get another day or two?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:02:44 UTC No. 16635964
>>16635908
It WONT explode
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:03:56 UTC No. 16635966
>>16635964
source?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:05:41 UTC No. 16635968
>>16635667
you lack vision
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:19:46 UTC No. 16635977
>>16635217
Guards, crucify this retard immediately
🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:22:42 UTC No. 16635981
fuck you
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:26:37 UTC No. 16635986
>>16635471
This could work, but the "political scientists" insist it needs SRBs, too.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:29:23 UTC No. 16635989
>>16635608
don't care
ur moon a gay
We are going to Mars
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:31:01 UTC No. 16635990
>>16635989
Who is "we"? You are not even an astronaut.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:33:17 UTC No. 16635992
>>16635990
correct, I'm a passenger
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:33:57 UTC No. 16635993
>>16635992
*bus passenger
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:35:06 UTC No. 16635994
>>16635993
*starbus passenger
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:36:17 UTC No. 16635999
>>16635994
Starbus is not real.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:49:45 UTC No. 16636008
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:50:51 UTC No. 16636009
>>16635698
Metallic hydrogen SRBs
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:52:34 UTC No. 16636010
>>16636008
>4channel.rog
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:52:38 UTC No. 16636011
>>16635732
At tremendous cost to the taxpayer, and to absolutely no benefit unless you like make work programs.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:54:20 UTC No. 16636014
>>16636012
...and a rather great dildo.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:55:39 UTC No. 16636015
>>16635800
GEO is irrelevant if you have enough satellites to maintain coverage, isn't it? In that case you're just getting super shitty latency and less satellite for the same upmass, no?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:57:12 UTC No. 16636017
>>16635822
That's false, you dingus
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 12:59:33 UTC No. 16636020
>>16635990
And you will never be a woman. How curious!
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:05:16 UTC No. 16636023
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:08:07 UTC No. 16636027
>>16636017
>ITAR does not restrict access to U.S. citizens only, but also generally allows access by non-U.S. citizens who fall within the following classes, among others:
>Nationals of the U.S. (i.e., those born in the outlaying possessions of the U.S. meeting specified requirements, or individuals born of a parent who meet specified requirements);
>Aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence (i.e., green card holders);
>Certain refugees; and
>Certain asylum seekers.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:10:30 UTC No. 16636030
https://x.com/StarshipGazer/status/
>Booster 14 on the launch mount this morning. Highway 4 is closed and Booster 14 is expected to perform static fire testing today. This will be the first time that a flown and caught super heavy booster will be static fired likely in preparation for using it on Starship test flight 9 but SpaceX hasn't officially announced that flight 9 will use booster 14 yet.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:12:14 UTC No. 16636032
>>16635403
I feel like shotwell is a true believer, and if Elon completely loses it she is in the position to become space king
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:25:57 UTC No. 16636042
>>16636030
Explosion!
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:31:12 UTC No. 16636045
>>16636032
She's 61
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:37:29 UTC No. 16636049
>>16635396
>>16636045
>tfw you will never bury your face in space milf's muff
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:41:13 UTC No. 16636053
>>16635691
Vulcan uses SRBs, as do IRSO and JAXA rockets, and more.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 13:51:19 UTC No. 16636055
>>16636049
Brother we're in gilf territory
If she could be a great grandmother you've lost me
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:39:59 UTC No. 16636074
>b14 about to static fire
>no posts
/sfg/ is dead
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:41:33 UTC No. 16636076
>>16636042
fail
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:47:43 UTC No. 16636083
>>16636074
call me when it launches again
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:47:44 UTC No. 16636084
>>16636045
Out of 10!
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:49:21 UTC No. 16636085
>>16636074
strangely, /sfg/ is uninterested in daily activities at Starbase
It seems the user base here are not of the tank watching type, I think mostly losers here shitposting on low IQ boards and fapping to traps
reused superheavies are a popular topic on /s/ in the "post your wife" threads and its a series of fat chicks with rolls and the head cut off
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:51:09 UTC No. 16636087
>>16636085
or something like that
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:52:39 UTC No. 16636088
>>16636074
Static fires stopped being interesting when the full stack started flying.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:52:39 UTC No. 16636089
>>16636085
>I think mostly losers here shitposting on low IQ boards and fapping to traps
what a freudian slip
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:56:50 UTC No. 16636091
>>16636074
i like non-static fires
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 14:58:09 UTC No. 16636093
Static fire!
https://x.com/NASASpaceflight/statu
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:02:50 UTC No. 16636096
>>16635558
I disagree, I would say going to the moon is essential to prove the technology works.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:08:11 UTC No. 16636100
>>16636085
tankwatching doesn't feel the same after watching starship launch so many times
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:09:12 UTC No. 16636102
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:11:12 UTC No. 16636107
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:16:04 UTC No. 16636112
>>16636100
It's definitely going to make a comeback when booster reuse becomes common.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:17:28 UTC No. 16636115
>>16636027
Being a green card holder doesn't make you American
t. former owner of a green card holder
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:22:21 UTC No. 16636119
>>16636115
you owned a slave?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:25:46 UTC No. 16636120
>>16636119
active trader here, pm me if you own & trade slaves
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:38:53 UTC No. 16636129
>>16636093
STATIC FIRE IN THE HOLE
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:44:17 UTC No. 16636130
>>16636119
i hope she was hot
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:44:21 UTC No. 16636131
>>16636126
If it hits the earth facing side of the moon will you be able to see the impact from the ground?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 15:45:18 UTC No. 16636132
>>16636131
hope so. i do like seeing a nice puff
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:15:04 UTC No. 16636156
>>16635430
I just wish they wouldn't lie about things like these. Simply not commenting would have been better.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:19:19 UTC No. 16636157
>>16636156
>okay, but WHY are there padlocks on the hatch?
>n-no comment
>...
>STOP NOTICING
no, it wouldn't have been better, at least from a PR perspective, which just so happens to be the most important perspective for most parties involved.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:21:46 UTC No. 16636158
>>16636157
>>Why was there a padlock on the hatch?
>To lock the hatch, retard. Next question?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:24:31 UTC No. 16636159
>>16636156
everyone knows, or should know, about this kind of thing on the darker side of life. no need to shout about it i guess and its hardly the sort of factoid which goes with the shiny 'right stuff' image of space flight back then.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:26:12 UTC No. 16636161
>>16635418
Maybe my perspective of what's news worthy is skewed since this story dropped four years before I was born but I don't see why this got a segment. They're drilling the astronaut like there's some sort of conspiracy.
>In the 1/1000000 chance someone loses it we'd like 7 lives and a multi billion dollar vehicle to be unharmed
Seems extremely reasonable. Am I autistic or missing something?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:26:40 UTC No. 16636162
>>16636158
why does the hatch need locking?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:30:25 UTC No. 16636165
>>16636162
keep the aliens from bewitching the crew members and letting them in
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:37:53 UTC No. 16636170
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:44:15 UTC No. 16636175
>>16636170
this. gotta keep keep the crew from succumbing to the space sirens. And Ramierzes
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:52:56 UTC No. 16636178
will yuros have to pay 25% more to use Falcon 9 now
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:54:49 UTC No. 16636180
>>16636178
No but SLS will cost 10% more now with the European Service Module
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:55:18 UTC No. 16636181
>>16636180
guess it'll have to be cancelled for American Made Rockets
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:55:50 UTC No. 16636182
>>16636178
It's a service that Euros buy from the US. Services are normally exempt from tariffs. I suppose they could slap a tariff on the satellite that arrives to the US, that sound dumb so it will probably happen.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:56:00 UTC No. 16636183
>>16636085
i know this is bait, but oh well. sfg gets bored too fast, and they only get their dopamine hit from the latest milestone. before IFT1, people here were avid tankwatchers or whatever, maybe not at the level of counting bolts and screws like NSF unironically does, but still quite following the development over at boca chica. just watch how nobody gets excited anymore about starlink launches here, one day it'll be like that with starship.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:57:15 UTC No. 16636184
>>16636180
https://x.com/culpable_mink/status/
>Fun fact: NASA doesn't actually pay for Orion ESM directly. The US covers the EU's ISS resupply obligations in exchange for the ESM, so SpaceX/NG are actually the ones getting paid directly by NASA for the Orion ESM costs.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 16:58:47 UTC No. 16636186
>>16636184
this is some real jewish money shifting
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:01:30 UTC No. 16636188
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:07:36 UTC No. 16636197
>>16636183
I stopped tank watching when I got a job
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:07:54 UTC No. 16636198
>>16636188
I’d rather have to figure out the two Ramirez situation than be stuck in starliner.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:09:49 UTC No. 16636200
>>16636198
The Thing but in space on a space station who is making this movie
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:10:44 UTC No. 16636201
>>16636115
Did he/she leave you once it got citizenship?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:27:32 UTC No. 16636216
>>16636197
Tank watching is a real job, ask the guys over at NSF.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:27:49 UTC No. 16636217
>>16636197
Next step is growing up and ditching children's toys.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:27:55 UTC No. 16636218
>>16636183
lmao trvke dropped but its true, Starship tanker flight #59 to LEO will probably not be as exciting anymore
feels like being somewhere in between normie casual interest and hyperautistic obsessive nuts and bolts counting, imo and that's fine, glad others do the latter to bring us whatever info is relevant and novel but obsessing over it that hard daily sounds exhausting with rapidly diminishing returns to me
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:30:17 UTC No. 16636220
>>16636218
>5th refilling flight for the 34th ship of the 3rd window
>Hey guys who's watching ift 700??
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:33:19 UTC No. 16636224
>>16636220
>don't forget to subscribe to our patreon and buy our latest merchandise! :)
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:33:23 UTC No. 16636225
>>16636217
Uh akshually Those are not merely toys they are collectibles for adults
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:34:46 UTC No. 16636226
>>16636224
>>>don't forget to subscribe to our patreon and buy our latest merchandise! :)
and that's another reason I'm not tank watching
it all went to shit when NSF removed the camera/mic near the shore, so no more beachwaves.mp3 and then they plastered their merch all over the stream in obnoxious ways
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:36:06 UTC No. 16636230
>>16636197
very cute! Bless people like yourself who make me want to start collecting as well lol
I guess the cirno is okay too...
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:37:26 UTC No. 16636232
>>16636226
>it all went to shit when this completely meaningless detail changed
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:37:53 UTC No. 16636234
>>16636232
Yes.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:46:03 UTC No. 16636245
>>16636232
If it's meaningless, then why was it added?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:50:29 UTC No. 16636248
>>16636232
its enshittification of the livestream experience
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:55:37 UTC No. 16636255
>>16636245
>there is only one perspective in the universe - my perspective, and every person on Earth acts according to it
kek, this retard failed the Sally test
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 17:57:37 UTC No. 16636258
>>16636255
>+1 NSF Coin(TM) has been deposited into your account
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:18:35 UTC No. 16636273
>>16636271
it looks like there's a tard hat with the little windmill on top
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:21:56 UTC No. 16636276
>>16636232
Slippery slope, downwards spiral, etc
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:25:13 UTC No. 16636280
>>16636278
Wrong
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:25:14 UTC No. 16636281
>>16635758
the penguin guy follows them closely for sure but I don't know how much he gets into the weeds apart from reporting news.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:25:45 UTC No. 16636282
>>16636280
Explain your reasoning.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:28:12 UTC No. 16636285
>>16636271
Water towers can FLY
YES
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:28:34 UTC No. 16636287
>>16636278
ITS was too good for this world
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:28:42 UTC No. 16636288
>>16636278
Starship is cooler in some ways but ITS looked more powerful and menacing
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:28:51 UTC No. 16636289
>>16636282
I got 2 words for you
Stainless
Steel
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:30:41 UTC No. 16636291
So what ship will fly with B14? S37 or an old ship? I think S36 may be scrapped.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:31:13 UTC No. 16636292
>>16636278
This is too short.
Looks stubby. But ITS with V2 Starship proportions would be perfect
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:32:40 UTC No. 16636293
>8 years ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qo
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:33:30 UTC No. 16636296
>>16636288
The way the fins on the ship extend starting from the top of the booster makes it look like some kind of beast. Starship just doesn't have that flow nor presense.
>>16636289
They would've used SS for ITS.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:37:21 UTC No. 16636298
>>16636296
The ITS landing leg design was peak, but it was probably so much added dry mass lol
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:38:23 UTC No. 16636301
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:39:04 UTC No. 16636303
>>16636296
You think starship will stow it's in the fins also? You would cut down on an unneeded leg as well. Simply using only two landing legs instead of three on mars
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:41:45 UTC No. 16636308
>>16636303
>Simply using only two landing legs instead of three on mars
t. boeing engineer
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:43:06 UTC No. 16636311
>>16636308
Best leg, no leg
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:47:22 UTC No. 16636316
>>16636303
>two landing legs
>behold_a_man.jpg
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:48:24 UTC No. 16636319
>>16636317
has no one told them yet?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:49:06 UTC No. 16636323
>>16636317
brotherhood of nod ass looking shit
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:49:41 UTC No. 16636324
>>16636317
That text placement for the names, yeesh. Just plugged & chugged on adobe indesign, didn’t even change default font or awkward text placement lol.
Graphic design is my passion
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:50:36 UTC No. 16636326
>>16636324
where would you put them?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:52:36 UTC No. 16636328
>>16636324
the names orbit the moon, it's nice
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:52:46 UTC No. 16636329
>>16635758
https://chinaspacemonitor.substack.
China Space Monitor is probably the best you're going to find. The language barrier, the fact that Chinese social media needs a local phone# to register an account, and the press being less free overall keeps someone like a Chinese Hullo from breaking out into the west. Chinese spaceflight twitter is probability only six people at max, and you can find most of them by just looking at whoever Cosmic_Penguin retweets. CNSAWatcher and CNSpaceflight were the two big ones, but CNSF went dark back in February. CNSAWatcher actually has a pretty nice looking website (https://cnsawatcher.com) that stopped updating last June.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:06:39 UTC No. 16636347
>>16636285
Remember that time in Boca Chica?
Also remember to thank the FAA for saving Hopper.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:17:13 UTC No. 16636355
Milestone reached on the road to Neutron's first launch. Stage 2 qualification is now complete, proving out the stage's design, operations, and readiness for flight.
https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1907
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:29:33 UTC No. 16636374
>>16636355
>RocketLab
refer to this >>16635578
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:32:48 UTC No. 16636378
https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1907876
They are going to refly a booster on flight 9? Thinking slightly back.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:46:21 UTC No. 16636391
>>16636378
Extremely bold wtf. After two failures in a row, NOW they want to do reuse. Lord help us they might not even make it to stage sep lmao
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:48:19 UTC No. 16636395
>>16636391
The boosters haven't been failing, hell they seem 90% complete. I swear the engine bells on the first flight warped but I haven't seen that happen on any of the subsequent ones so that must have gotten ironed out already.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:48:35 UTC No. 16636396
>>16636378
only 4 swapped out engines out of the 33
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:49:46 UTC No. 16636401
>>16636391
One way to think about it is confidence in the ship isn't that high. So they are risking less and you're gonna try to reuse boosters eventually anyway. Why not now?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:49:59 UTC No. 16636402
>>16636391
nah, I bet they will ace the booster reuse. Starship on the other hand... Well, I can already picture the cope of "uhm achtually the test was a success because booster landed HA take that"
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:51:19 UTC No. 16636405
>>16636378
https://x.com/SciGuySpace/status/19
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:53:39 UTC No. 16636410
>>16636405
>really needs to be successful
why?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:54:51 UTC No. 16636412
>>16636410
who knows, it seems to be a common doomer/EDS talking point
SpaceX could fail one way or another 10 times in a row and it still wouldn't really matter as long as internally things are good and they know they are making progress
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 19:58:49 UTC No. 16636416
>>16636410
Because it's currently just burning money, not to mention that with each failure Mars 2026 becomes even more unlikely.
There's also Artemis deadline, but I don't think that matters anymore.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:11:28 UTC No. 16636429
Do you realize that if they had the balls to use the first reused booster after 2 consucutive failures, they will 100% (if this flight is 100% succesful) try to land the ship during Flight 10.
Also, the numbers are perfect, flight 5 first recovery of the booster , flight 9 first reuse of a booster, flight 10 full stack recovery . Just pray it all goes well
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:11:41 UTC No. 16636430
>>16636391
The Boosters have had a 100% success rate since like the third flight.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:12:12 UTC No. 16636431
>>16636410
Unironically, for employee morale.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:12:32 UTC No. 16636432
>[Wilmore is one of only two active NASA astronauts who has experience piloting the space shuttle.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:12:50 UTC No. 16636433
>>16636431
(also, successfully reflying a super heavy booster will be excellent for employee morale.)
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:13:48 UTC No. 16636434
>>16636410
It's purely emotional reasoning.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:15:13 UTC No. 16636437
>>16636432
everyone else is dead
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:16:13 UTC No. 16636440
>>16636437
or at Axiom kek
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:17:10 UTC No. 16636441
>>16636440
ego death
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:20:17 UTC No. 16636443
>>16636285
So long ago I'm still so pissed that Starhopper's nosecone was fucking destroyed due to winds. What the fuck man, they should've built another one for the flights, that piece of shit always looked ugly and weird without the pointy part. Normies and media didn't understand what was even going on during the live streams.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:22:58 UTC No. 16636448
>>16636410
Between flight 7 and 8, SpaceX lost 2 opportunities to perform orbital testings and moved the timeline to the right by 3 months with nothing to show for it. There's not much time left.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:29:17 UTC No. 16636451
>>16636448
>There's not much time left.
for what exactly?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:29:49 UTC No. 16636453
>>16636451
Mars
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:31:11 UTC No. 16636456
>>16636405
I don't know shit about shit but this is what I would do if ship V2 didn't work and it won't be fixed until V3. You might as well test booster re-use
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:31:19 UTC No. 16636457
>>16636453
I don't think it will disappear or explode any time soon though.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:34:05 UTC No. 16636461
okay, serious question. So if the fuel line rupturing or whatever the problem is now is caused by oscillations, why not just throttle down the engines and do a longer burn instead?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:35:57 UTC No. 16636463
>>16636457
if we don't hit the next launch window for mars, aliens are going to come and envelope earth in a force field and prevent anyone from leaving
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:40:44 UTC No. 16636474
>>16636468
I believe him
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:41:32 UTC No. 16636475
>>16636468
>gets "delayed" two days
>elon jokes about that in ten different tweets
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:42:01 UTC No. 16636477
>>16636378
This is reckless emdangerment. It wont be enough to arrest Musk. Every engineer doing this is complicit and should be rounded up and executed for supporting Elon and by definition Trump
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:42:02 UTC No. 16636479
>>16636468
NET 4/18 but delayed to 4/20 because of course
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:42:24 UTC No. 16636480
>>16636468
>spacesudoer
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:43:24 UTC No. 16636482
>>16636405
Berger knows if this doesnt work, the whole program is cancelled
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:44:30 UTC No. 16636485
>>16636457
One eighth of the time has passed between flight 7 and the end of the next Mars transfer window.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:44:38 UTC No. 16636486
>>16636410
It just does, ok?
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:52:11 UTC No. 16636494
V3 just looks so fucking stupid. Guarantee the oscillation problems they're having now will be 10x worse with V3. Starship should've had a 12m diameter.
Anonymous at Thu, 3 Apr 2025 20:54:45 UTC No. 16636497
>>16636494
Not likely.
Resonance frequency can change drastically with small changes in length.