/sci/ - Science & Math

Details from the Musk conference call happening right now:

>it is possible that some or all of them will not work due to the large technical challenges at hand
>There is a lot of fundamental goodness about Starlink
>Largest payload mass launched by SpaceX to date. There is more solar power on this launch than the International Space Station (about 50% more power)
>Total mass is around 18.5 tons
>Six more launches needed to have a useful communications constellation. Another six more needed on top of that for continuous coverage over most of the world.
>Taking great steps to make sure there are not orbital debris concerns.
>Satellites receive NORAD debris tracking data to maneuver autonomously around what NORAD is tracking
>First time a Krypton drive (ion thruster system) has been used in space.

Best launch snacks?

Also
>18.5 tonnes

Hory shet

>>10646492
taquitos

>>10646481
>ISP of the Hall thrusters is around 1,500 seconds.
>We see this as a way to generate revenue to develop more advanced rockets and spaceships. Starlink is a key component for establishing a presence on the moon and Mars.
>Using Krypton because it's cheaper

What will be the first meme posted from Starlink net?

>>10646499

any indication how long it's going to take to deploy them all? how far apart will they be?

>>10646495
>There is not a specific deployment mechanism per satellite. It works by having stage 2 spread them like a deck of cards on the table. May lead to slight contact between satellites, but they are designed to handle it
>Trying 2 different mechanism for solar array deployment
>Should know health status of all 60 3-4hrs after launch

>>10646499

>>10646507
>We have sufficient capital to build an operational constellation. Will only need to raise more if things go wrong

excellent news

>>10646513
>Look at me, I own the internet now

>>10646515
>Funding rounds "have been oversubscribed for SpaceX." Recent round "was more interest than we were seeking."

aka funding secured

>>10646523
>"This is kind of version 1 but we have a lot of interesting ideas" for versions 2 and 3.
>One does not need anywhere near 10,000 satellites to be effective.

>>10646523
>>10646515
FUNDING SECURED

U

N

D

I

N

G


A

E

C

U

R

E

D

>>10646513
Based

>>10646474
damn that's really nice

I have some questions for you guys
1. Do these starlinks have cameras? Will we get to see them deploy individually?
2. Have any photos leaked about the design of the individual satellites?
3. Tell me about these thrusters
4. For Starship are you Team Texas or Team Florida?

>Concerned about AI takeover
>Proceeds to setup global Skynet infrastructure

>>10646535
1) maybe, Elon has hinted at making special probe versions for taking pictures of planets and stuff
2) no
3) Krypton-based ion thrusters, look it up
4) Texas

>>10646507
>May lead to slight contact between satellites, but they are designed to handle it
Thats nice. I'm pretty sure that if an agency like NASA made them, then they would be super fragile.

>>10646499
Can't wait till established media has died and SpaceX takesover.

>>10646529
>Starlink terminals ("dishes") look like a "flat pizza."
>If it's "more or less pointed at the sky it will be fine. It electronically steers its beam" to find the satellites. "Won't even notice that it's switching between satellites."
>"These are really cutting edge."
>"You could get this user terminal shipped to you in a box" and "just plug it in" to make it work
>We have the most advanced phased array antenna that I am aware of.

>>10646537
Better a devil as a friend than devil befriend your enemy.

>>10646542
>Tfw get to stop giving my money to telco Jews and can give it to SpaceX to fund dank space shit instead

I eagerly await the day, although I'm sure telco Jews will try to lobby like fuck in most countries to get the pizza box outlawed.

>>10646545
It just werks

>>10646545
>The initial constellation will not have inter-satellite links, but we will instead do a ground bounce off of gateways on the ground to connect satellites. May need ship based gateways in some places but can get global coverage with mostly ground based
>If things go well, SpaceX will have the majority of satellites in orbit" around the Earth
>They still hope to add inter-satellite connectivity in future versions.

>>10646552
>This will take around 30 launches or 18,000 satellites.

>18,000 satellites
>EIGHTEEN THOUSAND SATELLITES

>>10646552
Oof sounds like the intersat links were harder than they expected.

>>10646552
>SpaceX may launch at a rate of about 1,000 to 2,000 Starlink satellites per year.
>Will switch to Starship eventually
>These satellites took a couple of months to build

>tfw soon will be able to buy land in the middle of absolute buttfuck nowhere and get a gigabit connection

HYPE

>>10646564
>1800 for initial constellation
>expected to become redundant after about 5 years and are replaced with newer generation satellites
>we're happy to launch any satellites ... it's always good to have competition ... there will be at least one other" internet satellite constellation, which "is the best thing for the consumer."

FUCK YOU KOREN

>>10646587
YOU FUCKED IT UP FOR EVERYONE KOREN

>>10646513
This tweet more than you think.

>>10646554
typo apparently
>>10646587
hahahaha holy shit get fucked

>>10646513
>tfw Elon will own the means of information distribution across the globe soon

HUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUEHUE

>>10646540
cool thanks for replying anon

>>10646609
Freedom of speech is back on the menu boys

>>10646609
>who do you think *owns* the press?
it's him, he owns the information

>>10646632
are you ready for Musk News Network (MNN) ?

>>10646552
Aren’t the inter satellite links required to achieve that low latency? Else they will be bouncing signals up and down repeatedly.

>>10646626
sadly freedom of speech and information comes with massive quantities of tolling and moronic opinions


there is no winning

>>10646652
Sounds good to me. Grow thicker skin

>>10646652
Better than massive quantities of genocide and population replacement

>>10646647
yeah but this is basically testing their satellite deployment scheme and attempting to extract some useful work out of the test sats since they've got them up there

>>10646662
Sounds like you'd be the 1st to go in that scenario.

>>10646535
1: they better have some cameras to show these little fuckers dance tonight
2: only pics I have seen is of them stacked (like in this thread)
3: I have the weirdest boner
4: Texas, fuck Flordia, double fuck California

>>10646826
Texans were the ancestors or mars in the expanse. its our new home

>>10646843
or/on

>>10646843
No, they were Iranians.

>>10646513
This was one of the great tweets of all time.

>>10646873
Texans, Iranians and Chinese.

ONE BONG TO GO

FUCKING STARLINK NIGGERS FUCK LETS GO

>>10646471
Have they made any changes or weather considerations for the drone ship? Don't want another tumble.

>>10646910
The heavy core only fell off because the grabby tool thing they normally use doesn't fit the heavy core for whatever reason.

>>10646933
different thrust structure. supposedly the upgraded octograbber is ready soon

>>10646938
Wait, did the countdown clock just increase in time?

>>10646957
Launch pushed to 11:00 EDT

>>10646959
Well fuck. Guess I'll watch it tomorrow instead of live.

>>10646959
Winds? I remember that they're gonna be a bit of an issue today.

>>10646891
>>10646873
>>10646843
Ask /tv/, they love the show so I'm sure they'd enjoy clearing things up.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1128834111878193155

>>10646994
Kek this one never gets old

im getting starlink as soon as i can

>>10647004
It's probably gonna be expensive as fuck at first.

>>10646959
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10647004
>tfw comcast/ATT are mad as fuck and churning out negative news about it all the time

>>10647007
Doubt it, he said affordable, fast and low latency. If Elon can deliver 100+Mbps for under $50, that will get me to sign up. If its gigabit under $100, that's even better.

>>10646999
checked

>>10647007
cost is relative though and i can afford it either way

>>10647011
When the hardware is mature and the full constellation is in place, sure. Until then I reckon it's going to be pricey.

>>10646647
Even having to make two bounces to LEO is still way better than one bounce to GEO.

>>10647007
or not, to encourage adoption.
Here's the genius bit: they can apply custom pricing to each zone that you live in. Meaning, they only have to undercut your current provider - not everyone's provider. In one place where the local ISP is providing 50/50 for $90/mo, they can offer 200/200 for 50. In another place where there are data caps for $75/mo, they can offer three times the data for $50/mo. etc etc etc.

It will be a glorious race to the bottom, where Musky BTFO's all of telecom while raking in the dough for Mars.

>>10646477
is there any image of how these starlink grid sats look unfolded?

>>10647019
There's only so much bandwidth to go around though, and the first people interested in it are going to be stock traders and shit with loads of money to blow just for a 2ms faster latency.

>>10647024
1:02:14 after launch they begin deploying. Might get a cool SpaceX video before the launch explaining it though

Who originally came up with global internet satellite constellations? I know that Elon and Richard Branson launched their plan in the same week, but was there anyone before this?

>>10647017
Until you can show some data suggesting why it would be expensive, its hard to be convinced of your argument.

If anything, Musk has suggested the hardware itself won't be an issue when the service will be rolled out for consumers. I suspect corporates/military will pay a killer for this kinda access. Elon may charge $200-$300 for the antenna he's developing but I think that's to be expected for the upfront cost.

>>10647019
>undercutting
I thought it was illegal to intentionally drop prices below profitable level to drive out competition?

>>10647027
yeah.. 200 different HST's paid 2.8 billion fucking dollars for a 13ms cut between Chicago and New Jersey a few years back

>>10647035
they'll still be profitable, but perhaps you're right

>>10647019
you're right, that is genius

>>10647034
New tech is always expensive at first, where's the data that says it won't be?

>>10647027
>the first people interested in it are going to be stock traders and shit with loads of money to blow just for a 2ms faster latency
nah i'll be getting it because satellite is my only real option for internet and existing choices suck. plus i want to support spacex and i finally have a means to do so.

i want grimes to sit on my face in 3.5 G's

>>10647036
that is an insane amount of money. it's absolutely unbelievable how much profitability there must be in HFT in order to justify that. I wonder if this fucks up their return on that investment

>>10647041
this man has a point

My worry is that telcos in other countries are going to be fighting tooth and fucking nail to not let this be legal where they are. Given that they have massive and successful lobby operations already going it seems like a strong possibility that many, many countries will not be able to have starlink service.

>>10647051
it's not a problem; Elon's saying that they're going to be partnering with telecos initially. remember, SpaceX still has to beam the internet up to begin with

>>10647035
>I thought it was illegal to intentionally drop prices below profitable level to drive out competition?
lol, tell that to uber.

>>10647049
NOW i do

propellent load has started. half a bong left

Is there any information on the amount of bandwidth a starlink satellite can handle?

>>10647051
>other countries

>>10647051
>worry
it's going to happen. some countries, especially authoritarian regimes will outright ban it. others will regulate it so hard that it wont be profitable. in countries where it does work, local isps will bury it in endless lawsuits.

>>10647038
SpaceX needs to be competitive for people to switch from copper wire. It needs to be competitive for people to switch from current satellites. SpaceX is aiming for both.

So it will be forced to produce better/similar products at similar rate as current copper wire internet. Thus by design, they will be cheap.

You don't have to buy this argument. Just look at his other ventures. SpaceX's launch price is almost 2-3x cheaper for better services. Tesla's $35K (~$40K with bit of tricks) car is a much better/comfortable/futuristic/cheaper than competitor's $60K-$80K cars. Their battery techs are ~50% cheaper. Their solar panels are ~20% cheaper than competitors.

The market in mind for Musk is cheap and reliable for mass market adoption.

>>10647031
sure, but we won't see them unfolding. Was kinda wondering how large their solar panels and if they have other retractable shit

t-minus ~30 minutes

>>10646492
Ecliptic Brewing Star Party IPA and cheddar Rocket crackers

>>10647051
At least until sat2sat happens, there still needs to be a ground station to get data to you. They don't just magically connect to the internet via 4D chess.

>>10647060
gigabit throughput according to FCC docs, but Elon has said today ""about a terabit of useful connectivity." Per sat

>>10647065
says who? we see the Dragon solar panels unfold. And since they're testing two methods of folding I'd imagine they want video too

>>10647064
What about competition from Jeff Bezos? They have much deeper pockets and can afford to outspend SpaceX

>>10647072
a terabit per 60-sat launch, or a terabit per satellite?

>>10647072
That figure is total bandwidth not per sat.

>>10647072
solar panels are fragile. They said they're going to release them all at once like a deck of cards with some bumping into each other being expected. They won't deploy solar panels or any other fragile shit before they got separation between individual sattelites. Dragons solar panels have nothing that could crash into them.

>>10647064
I don't doubt that it can be cheaper once it's fully rolled out. I'm just talking about early adopters.

>>10647073
Project Kuiper is shit and Bezos should feel bad. Nonetheless, Elon said today "there will be at least one other" internet satellite constellation, and that competition is good. Even said that they'd launch "any satellites" for a price

>>10647073
Bezos's competition is at least 10 years away. They only recently proposed the idea. In 10 years, Mars/fully deployed Starlink will be a killer

>>10647072
>testing if your solar unfolds properly

things NASA will never be able to do with the James Webb Lelescope

>>10647077
bet ya five bucks they just pop open

>>10647085
you're on

>>10647078
Depends on what you mean by "early adopters." When he opens up sign up sheet for mass consumers, I bet it will be fairly low cost. But before he does roll out such service, he might be selling some to military/private ventures some access that might be priced at premium rate for premium service.

>>10647078
Consider that they're basically launching a beta of the system. In one launch, almost as many sats as freaking Iridium. They're not even at the point where they need customer money yet, they're over-subscribed on venture funding.

>>10647074
Terabit per satellite.

>>10647089
>military
https://spacenews.com/air-force-laying-groundwork-for-future-military-use-of-commercial-megaconstellations/

>>10647035
as long as they can show that their business case doesn't depend on outlasting the competition at an unsustainable price point and they're just plain old undercutting them, it'll be fine

IT BEGINS

STREAM

WE HAVE OONTZ!

It's alive! The stream, I mean.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT366GiQkP0

Stream active now. t-minus 15 minutes till launch

stream's up
>https://www.spacex.com/webcast & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT366GiQkP0

Stream is live

FUCK YOU FUCKERS

RIP LAUNCH is cancelled today.

ARE YOU FUCKING SHITTING ME?!

AAAAAAAAA KEKED SO HARD FUCK.

BLUE BALLED AS FUCK

BAIT STREAM

FUCK

.... shortest stream ever?

>>10647106

>scrubbed
FUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCK

stream's down

Elon should fire whoever ran the countdown clock on the stream

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKE

>>10647032
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iridium_satellite_constellation

>>10647117
shortest SpaceX stream ever!

"Hi! Welcome to SpaceX!"
"But upper level winds were just announced too strong."
"See you tomorrow!"
[cue ending muzak]

>>10647132
There was a brief 5 second shot of the rocket I almost took a screenshot but hesitated too late.

Cat is not pressing the button tonight. HOLD HOLD HOLD.

>>10647135
Based launch kitty poster

Scrub while I was making popcorn for the stream :(

ELON YOU WASTED MY TIME AND THAT IS UNFORGIVABLE.

>>10647134
you can go back in the youtube stream

>>10647143
it's 5 AM here in central yurope. Now I'll have to spent a day sleep deprived in the lab for nothing

HAARP strikes again

>>10646513
>>10647154

KEKED

see you all tomorrow
>Backup launch date: May 16 10:30 PM EDT / 2:30 UTC May 17 — 12:00 AM May 17 / 4:00 UTC

>>10647146
Got it. Posted the clip below.

>>>/wsg/2850140

We're all casually watching, but imagine those cable media companies watching this launch. They must be ready to kill themselves. If Starlink succeeds, it will put them out of business.

>>10647189
10% of their market is not "out of business". They're will be pressure, but no bankruptcies.
(that comes later)

>>10647194

How can they be put out of business and replaced with Elon cable?

>>10647198
it would be impossible, really. Starlink physically can't work for highly or even mediumly populated areas. It's perfect for most everything else

>>10647198
>Elon partners with Netflix/Amazon/Hulu/Youtube (google invests in SpaceX)
>traditional media company suicide mode

>>10647202
Why is it physically impossible for Starlink to work in dense cities?

>>10647202
Wasn't one of the things about starlink is better internet?

i want it to fucking blow up on the launch pad, killing everyone inside

>>10647209
No clear line of sight, do you even understand EM you dumb shit?

>>10647215
Why wouldn't there be clear line of sight in the city?

>>10647209
satellites overhead vs customers vs maximum throughput.
Also, if you live in an apartment, you can’t exactly all stick your pizza boxes on the roof.

Elon has said that rural areas PLUS telecom backbone load is the main market. NOT cities

Starlink approval application, if anyone wants technical information:
https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/8174403/SpaceX_Application_-.0.pdf
>>10647214
>killing everyone inside
>inside
Okay, retard.
>>10647215
>No clear line of sight
Okay, retard.

>>10647209
satellite is extremely good at connecting everything above moderately spread out populations, which coincidentally, are very difficult to connect physically
imagine 500 million people all trying to use the bathroom at once for big cities

>>10647216
what if you live in a short building next to taller buildings? Use your brain

>>10647219
i'm not the retarded one, shit for brains. i hope you get loaded into a fucking rocket too and blasted into the fucking sun.

>>10647226
Just how many people do you think were inside the rocket tonight?

>>10647218
>>10647221
>>10647220
I don't understand the rational. You guys never used cell phones in city? You've never seen satellite dish on top of apartment buildings?

The argument about buildings blocking others is just dumb. Cities are not 100% skyscrapers blocking each other. Most first world countries have developed a city planning guide where buildings don't all block each other.

Finally, most people in the west live in the suburbs outside the core of the city. The core of the city only functions as workspace while the suburbs function as actual residential areas with traditional homes. Living in pacific northwest, that's the standard city life so there's no "blockage" of satellites even living in a moderate city with the size of 700K.

>>10646609
Amazon is planning the same thing

>>10647249
>700K
that's a town dude

>>10647260
Dumbass.

>>10647060
you can use it to play fortnite

quote from Elon today:
>Starlink "has not signed up any customers" but SpaceX is talking to "possible strategic partners," such as telecommunications companies in countries with lots of rural connectivity issues

>>10647269
financial companies will pay top dollar for this kind of thing

>>10647271
yep: >>10647036

>>10647271
note: financial companies will pay top dollar for the cross-atlantic inter-satellite laser, which these sats don't have yet

>>10647285
can someone better at geometry than me calculate the new coverage radius now that the constellation is at 550km? Old one was 1060km radius area

>>10647290
Just go with 450 km that's good enough approximation.

>>10647237
Idk, how many people do they normally put in rockets? You really are a shitstain of a person and I wish nothing but the absolute worst for you.

>>10647298
So like twelve ground hops needed for Atlantic traversement.
I bet the next batch will have intersat links, dunno

>>10647299
How many people do they usually put in SpaceX rockets? Zero.
>I wish nothing but the absolute worst for you
Oh no. Surely your wishes will negatively impact my life. It's time to stop posting here and go back to eating crayons.

>>10647299
>Idk, how many people do they normally put in rockets?
Not the guy you're arguing with but holy shit you need to just stop

>>10647299
they don't put anybody in the rockets, dumbass
this one was full of IKEA furniture

>>10647307

>>10647290
>>10647303
Are you trying to figure out latency? This is at the old altitude but maybe it will help.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEIUdMiColU

>>10647319
Is Northern Europe just cucked out of this?

>>10647328
True global coverage comes with a more filled out constellation

>>10647328
I think they plan to add some coverage later on in those areas in phase 3 but it doesn't look like it will be that good. If there's a market for it, it wouldn't cost them that much to fill it all in, or whatever the industry term is for that.

>>10647328
maybe for now, high inclination orbits are in the plans but it's not a priority
apparently high inclination orbits will improve north-south intersatellite backbone (for stuff like Europe to Johannesburg or Shanghai) as well as provide near-polar coverage

>>10647266
not any more dude

>>10647345
>>10647349
s-so possible antarctic coverage in the future? i want to work there eventually

>>10647408
doesn't oneweb do polar?

>>10647411
it's shit unfortunately

>>10647378
one of his better tweets

>>10647408
hello fellow USAP brethren. Reminder that Palmer a shit

>>10647072
if Elon gets a girl who's into NGE cosplay what are the chances his next venture kicks off privatized mecha development?

>>10647507
zero, there's nothing a mech does that you can't do better another way
SpaceX will probably either develop or buy a few swag robot arms tho

>>10647009
Starlink is gonna give you cancer AND make you autistic. Muh Kessler Syndrome! Greenhouse gasses from rocket launches!

>>10647328
Don‘t know about Norway and Finland, but when I last visited, Sweden already had LTE on every road to absolute nowhere and for every hermit living in his red wood shack. Meanwhile I drive 20 minutes between two big towns in Germany and lose connection in the middle. Let alone driving out to the actual countryside.
I think they‘ll be fine without Starlink for a little longer.

>>10647067
Kinda wanna try that IPA

>>10646471
Thoughts on this comment about Musk?

>>10647737
Wow it turns out he is mostly a salesman who has some good ideas and gets together the people and capital to make it happen, no way, this is truly surprising.

>>10647737
do people really expect him to be a super genius? he just plays that role for marketing

>>10647737
His daughter must be pretty stupid to fall for the genius meme, basically only IQ posters fall for that.

>>10647507
plug suits for manned missions

also NGE mechs a shit, they have to use an extension cord for power

>>10647737
Pro tip*
She wasnt as smart as she thinks.
If you cant see through the bs that he is presenting to the public you are dumber than Musk and you have no right to trash talk him period.

>>10647737
Musks strength is setting ambitious targets and managing in a way to make it happen. Also setting those ambitious targets attracts ambitious people and him being a loud mouth spreads the word about it. Oh and then he overworks the fuck out of his people.
He also has good intuition as to what is worth pursuing.
He‘s not a genius tech wizard, but he‘s still fulfilling an important role at his companies that can‘t be easily filled by other people.

>>10647310
Sure, retard. Where's the furniture going? Nonexistent lunar outposts? LOL Ok retard.

>>10647309
Piss off

>>10647307
What's even the fucking point then if they're not sending people to explore the solar system or outer space? Seems like a waste of taxpayer dollars to me.

>>10647737
if we assume the comment is true and Musk is a certified brainlet while revolutionizing spaceflight industry, then what the fuck does that say about NASA and the old space

looking at the disaster that was the Shuttle, I have a feeling your average highschool dropout would make a better job

>>10648294
IKEA in spess
just watch

>>10648294
>Sure, retard. Where's the furniture going? Nonexistent lunar outposts? LOL Ok retard.
Woosh. The joke just orbited right over your head. Or it would have if it launched yesterday, see >>10646477

>>10648484
>wooosh
>>>/r/eddit

Ignore him you morons

>>10648543

>>10648094
This is 2019, battery power is better.
Plus they had a test unit with a nuclear system, they could improve on those.

>>10648317
It's all in the management.
Nasa is a bloated shitshow ever since the shuttle era.
Look at Apollo. You can accomplish great shit quickly. But only with a unifying vision and a desire to get shit done.
The initial vision behind shuttle was to make space launches cheap so they could maybe use a nuclear tug or something to ferry shit to the moon easily and really get their teeth in space. But by the time shuttle was finally approved by congress, it was already a complete hodge podge without a real purpose. The only infrastructure shuttle kinda fit into was the ISS, but it wasn't really designed specifically to serve the ISS either. They also did some spy satellites and a bit of human space flight on top. There was no actual vision, no ambition that survived past the first few design stages. It just existed so it could exist. Launches had to continue without adjustements to the vehicle because the shuttle had to continually prove its existence, because it was inefficient and expensive, which was because it was never adjusted. But it needed to exist because it needed to exist.
So for 30 fucking years they scraped broken tiles off its belly and glued new ones on and everyone just kept on keeping on.
This is not an environment where your people dream of the moon again and come up with innovative designs. It's one where you try to keep your head down, work from 9 to 5 and collect your paycheck.

>>10646471
So, like is this going to happen today again?

>>10648094
>>10648574
I always found it hilarious that they had a super duper sci-fi concept anime show where battery power was utter shit specifically for handicapping MCs and use as a plot element. It is as bad as restrictions placed on a magic-centric literary universe.

>>10648817
yeah the wind is much better

6 bongs left. Weather is 90% GO

new stream link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfbIMknNWks

>>10648984
>Live in 6 Stunden
>17. Mai, 04:30

>>10648994
do it fgt

NASA is shilling the SLS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM

Will the Boomer Launch System go anywhere?
Or is it another "project" doomed to never fly?

>>10649053
It‘ll fly once or twice at least just because. Although honestly, if they actually manage to start churning these out maybe it could launch a couple more times with Trump's moon plans in the works. That‘s gonna be it though.

>>10647737
Doesn't really matter, at the end of the day he's a billionaire and she's working for peanuts.

>>10649066
I like to imagine what starship tech could do with all the shekels spent on SLS, we could in time even go back to SeaDragon cargo edition for the memes.
It feels like old space haunting everyone's dreams of a new age space program. Like there is some voodoo practioner trying to raise the space shuttle from the dead, but all they got is a few boosters, and have to stick something newer on top of it.

>>10649103
The idea of SpaceX having 30 billion dollars to play is pretty exciting. Maybe Starlink will get them there at some point.

>>10649113
I think the starlink option is better. Nasa does their RND and that's all well and good. But when you earn the money to play with, you do more to earn more. I know capitalism is a frigid bitch.
But in the case of non heavy RND situations, spacex earning the money, and having their goals be tied to musks vision pretty much is set to trasnform space into bizzaro world in two decades.

if you just sort of groan, and say there is a possibility of 50 operational starships by 2030 and 50 new glenns by 2030s. Is a mass driver on the moon really that hard of an engineering problem?

>>10649053
by declaration of Senator Shelby, NASA has to shill for the SLS. NASA doesn't like the SLS. For the Europa Clipper mission which was intended to give SLS something to do and which funding was contingent on using SLS for launch the mission managers said change of plans we're launching on another rocket cause SLS won't be ready in time.

>>10649113
SpaceX's yearly budget is somewhere around probably under 5billion to 1 billion with geometric mean of 2.2 billion. If they can double that or triple that with Starlink, they will be sitting very comfortably in Starship development.

>>10646471
Here's SpaceX's new link for the launch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfbIMknNWks

3+ hours remaining.

>>10649455
I like how they're not having someone have a go with some car polish on that booster

>>10649455
>Virgin unflown booster vs Chad flight proven booster

>>10649455
what are those 4 towers around the rockets for?

>>10649512
Lightning towers. Gives the bolts something to go for instead of the rocket full of fuel.

Is it possible to build a platform like a launchpad by essentially raising the terrain at a low incline of a few degrees to several hundred meters into the air. To essentially save small amount of deltaV. Is a relevant amount at the most drastic, at half an everest.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/15/falcon-9-starlink-1-mission-status-center/
>For the second consecutive night, SpaceX has called off a Falcon 9 launch attempt at Cape Canaveral with the first batch of the company's Starlink broadband satellites. There's no word on when SpaceX plans to try again.
>Countdown clocks at the Florida spaceport stopped a short time ago.

>>10649576
AAAAAAAAAA

>>10649576
goddamn

>>10649576
FUCK

You do plan to relaunch your reusable boosters, right? Hello? Yes?

>>10649559
it does not save enough delta v and also makes many many things more difficult

>>10649605
no sorry, no more launches

>>10649576
NEIN

>>10649576
I think we should just stick to Comcast, this whole space internet thing just won't work out.

>>10649619
(((we)))

>>10649609
Good to know, I suppose giant floating helium launching platform is also out of question because of vibrations.

>>10649637
>>10649609

Question how hard would it be to build a basic O'neil station. I am thinking about the smallest possible one as a proof of concept.

>>10649637
that plan DOES make sense, but only on Venus

>>10649640
two tin cans and a bit of string, also known as Gemini 11
https://youtu.be/28gtHpFCBBQ

>>10649576
GOD FUCKING DAMN IT

>>10647737
>Elon is dumb says Blue Origin employee

start your own spacex and your own Tesla and your own satellite internet and your own solar companies then bitch
he was probably dumbing it down for the newbies

the youtube stream is still scheduled to go online in two hours, maybe the timer just broke

HOL' UP MAYBE WE'RE STILL ON FOR TONIGHT

>>10649657
I mean broadly speaking. Just cause we can set up gravity doesn't really mean we can set up life or anything like that.
I wanna see something like rat colony, plants, filtered sunshine or something.

>>10649699
what the fuck is going on

https://twitter.com/djdavidking/status/1129179778689503232 yeah it's a scrub everyone go home

"Standing down to update satellite software and triple-check everything again. Always want to do everything we can on the ground to maximize mission success, next launch opportunity in about a week."
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1129181397262843906?s=19

>>10649755
>next week

>come back from working outside
>launch at 8:45pm
>check clock, 8:50
>panic
>check stream
>HOLD

God damn it!

Oh well, next is the chinese Long March in less than 15 hours without any live stream. I just can't wait

More like spaceL

>>10649755
They noticed that their software was shit when the rocket was already on the pad? Oh well. At least they‘re not gonna launch a mission that is predictably going to fail like certain other organizations did in the past.

>>10649801
No they crashed into the moon