/sci/ - Science & Math

Differences between this plan and the old 2028 plan.
NASA translation:
>the Russkies and Euros are to be kept away from the critical path as much as possible
>ESPECIALLY the Russians
>like, fuck that noise
Apparently only communist Russia could into space. Capitalist Russia has just about burnt all that history away.

>>10663235
Differences between this plan and the old 2028 plan.
NASA translation:
>the Russkies and Euros are to be kept away from the critical path as much as possible
>ESPECIALLY the Russians
>like seriously, FUCK that noise
Apparently only communist Russia could into space. Capitalist Russia has just about burnt all that history away.

>>10663235
>>10663243
They haven't released the budget because when they do, it's getting cancelled.

>>10663243
>Focused urgency and energy to accomplish 2024
I get that they don’t want this to end up like the SLS, but wouldnt this just cause go fever?

>>10663450
NASA ADMINISTRATOR BRIDENSTINE HERE! I MUST EMPHASIZE THE FACT I AM ADMINISTRATOR OF THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION. I am here to say that nothing is off the table in order to meet this arbitrary deadline. We at NASA are firm believers in bringing all our astronauts home, but in order to meet this deadline we will need a revision of what we have traditionally called home and return. In our latest draft of plans for lunar return, we call for our brave astronauts to spend one fiscal year on the lunar surface without any contingency or return capability. We have determined that if we launch at the beginning of budgetary allocation that we can launch with considerably reduced launched mass by not including return capability. It has also been determined that no matter what the cost is, there is a 95% chance that a budget will be approved to fund a return mission before supplies run out. However, we can still meet NASA guidelines for returning astronauts home by naming the lander home.

>>10663361
That's what I expect. On top of the current SLS overbudget , another $15-20 billion by 2024 seems like nut. I don't think US should reward failure after failure after failure after failure after failure. Buy the rockets from commercial partners and fund their development if need be. But have the cost in mind. $15 billion dollar will have secured Starship's development plan well into Mars.

>>10663235
So what's the next big SpaceX fuckup going to be?

I want to see BFR pull an N1 and take out the pad.

>>10663525
Why do people think that if the SLS gets cancelled the money will go SpaceX. That Isn't even remotely how the budget works.

>>10663578
Reddit niggers on my /sci/?

Reminder; next hop in ~9 days. Starlink launch tomorrow.

Cocoa SS

>>10663712

>>10663716

Boca Chica SS

>>10663586
>Why do people think that if the SLS gets cancelled the money will go SpaceX. That Isn't even remotely how the budget works.

NASA budget is more or less constant ever since Apollo ended. No politician wants to be known as someone who defunded US spaceflight. So it is a plausible scenario that when SLS and Orion is finally cancelled for good, the funding will simply be transferred to the likes of SpaceX and BO.

>>10663785
That's really not how this works, anon.

>>10663785
>the funding will simply be transferred to the likes of SpaceX and BO.
Didn't they already get the money for the contracts they got? How would NASA just hand them more, unless it's for another contract?
"Shit, we're not gonna use this, here do some space stuff with it, private companies"

>>10663721
I've seen better metalworking from an Iranian boatyard

>>10663721
>this is the future of spaceflight
yikes

>>10663721
North Korean space program

>>10663721
This thing is going to be a spectacularly shiny shitpile when it makes its first flight and it will be fucking glorious.

>>10664034
It looks like a giant trashcan and I sincerely hope it flies as planned. just for the image of a giant waste bin gently soaring up and gracefully landing again.

>>10664036
Like I said, fucking glorious.

>>10664036
The best part is the color of methalox
F1 and Merlin burning kerolox have a bright white-yellow flame
SSME burning hydrolox has that almost invisible blue flame
Raptor burning methalox will have a brilliant purple flame
It's so good

>>10663965
>How would NASA just hand them more, unless it's for another contract?
That is the idea, yes.

>>10663721
is this a fucking joke?

>>10663785
why the fuck would they cancel the SLS? its going to be built

>>10664170
it is an obsolete rocket, will be embarrassing to fly once starship and new glenn begin operating

>>10664181
And just wait until New Armstrong drops.

>>10664181
While SLS is an outdated rocket, that doesn't mean that it can't be useful as a rocket. The only reason why its such a poor rocket is the piss poor management at NASA and the shady politics behind SLS.

As for Starship and New Glenn, those rockets are uncertain. New Glenn is always behind a cloud of secrecy and Starship changes every year. By the time they're supposed to fly something may happen and neither would make it to the pad. Meanwhile, the SLS is the only ultra heavy rocket that can be built and flown now. Its hardware exists and is proven to work. All of the manufacturing for it is there. What's holding it back are the slow contractors wanting to milk SLS and NASA enabling them. If NASA didn't enable contractors then SLS could've been flying by 2017.

>>10664260
Starship hasn't changed since they started building hardware
We'll get an actual presentation on the hardware sometime soonish

>>10663235
>all falcon 9s.
Not happening.

>People believe NASA will bring people to the Moon with SLS block 1.
No. Best you can hope is lunar orbit, maybe.

>>10663515

>>10663712
>>10663716
>>10663719
not very round, is it?

>>10664034
>>10664036
It will be so glorious, and the best part of the "joke" will be all the rectal rupture when it flies.

>>10664036
Ksp as fuck

>>10663721
what a piece of garbage.

Who here has read the court documents that just recently got unsealed regarding SpaceX's current protest/lawsuit?

>>10664330
Giant space buttplug

>>10663719
Vertical assy is going to require copious amounts of cranes

Full USAF SpaceX bid lawsuit


https://www.scribd.com/document/411128817/Space-x-Complaint

really really seems that someone with influence doesn’t want SpaceX any of the pie.

>>10664351
>current protest/lawsuit
Like from SpaceX or against SpaceX?

>>10664308
>a return ticket with 23ton TLI isn't happening

no shit

>>10664308
That's the reason Gateway exists you dummy.

>>10664393
Except it doesn't exist.

>>10664395
Neither does a lunar-capable starship. You know what I fucking meant.

>>10664396
What will it help for?
Nobody has a fucking clue.

>>10664376
If SpaceX goes through with this completely, it will expose all the crony ties of ULA/politics of defense industry.

I think Airforce will want to settle just like the last time, however I don't think SpaceX will let this one settle without reaching a clean guidelines for future bidding process and oversights to remove the crony bias.

>>10664396
Yet, one has gotten $40 billion dollar so far and 10 year development time plus they will require additional $20 billion dollars if they want to accelerate to 2024 timeline.

While the other got $0 for funding but is in early testing phase with hops happening in just 2 weeks.

>>10664404
At this point, I'm just hoping SLS just esplodes over 39B and get done with it.

>>10664354
I meant the rectal rupture of the trolls. But I suppose methane will make a nice purple brapp.

>>10664393
The reason Gatewat exists is to create yet another pork pie to divide up. Otherwise it's just another waste of delta-V.

>moon base
>it's actually a disposable lockheeb Boeing welfare project

>>10664416
That's a really fucking awful thing to say. You're literally hoping NASA fails to land on the moon. Even if you don't think they can do it, why cheer for their failure?

Ah I see the space "fans" have arrived in this thread.

>>10664350
She may not look like much, but she's got it where it counts, kid.

>>10664504
>NASA posits a plan to return to the moon
>"muh pork! I hope sls destroys pad 39B so they fail!"
For people that claim to love space exploration, you sure hate anything thet your "team" doesn't do.

>>10664511
I mean, I bitch about the pork around NASA, but by the end of the day I still support them and hope that they make it. Honestly, spaceflight needs as many players in it as possible.

>>10664535
This is the correct attitude.

>>10664535
Then you're not part of the problem, Anon. That is the correct mentality.

>>10664377
Here >>10664376
SpaceX are suing the air force

>>10664511
You can love space exploration without bathing yourself in pig feces.

>>10664535
You can say "spaceflight needs as many players in it as possible" but when one player eats all the cake, there's not much left for the others. So when you bitch about SLS but don't advocate for any action, its a useless thing to do.

Kek SpaceX seething with that lawsuit, but after looking through it, yeah what a bunch of shit. They got screwed pretty hard. Amazon and ULA doing the hard lobbying and offering cushy consulting gigs there I see.

>>10664573
>actively cheering for a space exploration initiative's failure is somehow NOT "bathing in pig feces"

>>10664612
> All this moralfagging on an anonymous message board

Death to ULA
Death to SLS

>>10664616
It's your prerogative to be shitty. It's mine to call you out for it

>>10664612
When there's a initiative that requires me to bath in pig feces, I'll happily cheer for it to be cancelled. I'd rather not when there are other options for me where I can comfortably sit on sofa and do the same thing.

>SpaceX zealots get salty when called out on being zealots
who woulda thought?

>>10664699
for the record im not talking about all SpaceX fans. only the shitty ones

>>10664705
>>10664699
You're just mad. SpaceX is the only the most active/successful/innovative/furthest reaching American rocket company for the last 10 years. No other rocket company has done anything in the history of American space exploration program since Apollo program ended in the 60s.

>>10664728
>implying that I cant like what SpaceX is doing just because I dont like the zealots it attracts

ula could be ok if it was independent from LM/Boeing control. Boeing even gimped ula so it wouldn't compete with sls.

>>10664665
Back to rebbit moralfag

>>10663721

>>10664737
>hurr durr reddit
>hurr durr moralfag
You are really fucking triggered that people are calling you out for actively hoping a moon program fails on a SPACE GENERAL.

>>10664751
You're getting triggered because someone trash talks about your pig filth lmao. What a redditcuck.

>>10664751
You are literally rebbit

>>10663721
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6xJzAYYrX8

>>10664751
>Waaaaah mom someone is saying mean things about my favourite rocket on the internet

>>10664762
These pictures look weird. Idk what it is but they remind me of a stop in claymation

>>10664751
Just ignore them. They live off drama. Here, look at this chill space picture.

>>10663515
10/10 felt like I was there

I love both old space and new space.

>>10664838
Same. They both have their upsides and downsides, but both are essential for a healthy space industry.

SpaceX Starlink (2nd) launch thread up

>>10664876

>>10664752
>>10664761
/r/spacexmasterrace is that way
----->

>>10664896
>reddit nigger asking 4channers to visit their reddit nigger safe space site

LMAO. Go neck yourself dumb redditnigger

>>10664843
I can't wait to see Artemis 1 on the pad. With the new ML, it'll look so reminiscent of the Apollo days. Say what you want about the rocket, but the Apollo-style launch infrastructure is photogenic as hell.

>>10664900
You'd fit in better over there than here, you brainlet.

>the last thread predicted this would happen
can you two get a room

Aye. Repeated use of the combination of the same three words as the go-to, unimaginative insult only demonstrates one's limited vocabulary and takes away what little bite they have left. But I suppose real trolling would require too much effort.

>>10664953

>>10664956
Wasn't that a while ago? Or was that a different SpaceX parts issue?

>>10664964
As far as I can tell this is this first involvement with this particular company/person. Doesn't seem to be related to the struts on CRS-7 or something like that. I don't know of any other issues they've had relating to quality control

>>10664979
Glad they caught him.

>>10664504
it is hard to be a true space fan and not be disgruntled after half a century of stagnation, forgive me when I am not very excited about maybe sending a tiny tin can up there in a decade for countless billions

there needs to be a paradigm shift

>>10665065
It will always only ever be tin cans, anon
Even when a permanent space economy kicks off it's going to be tin cans

>ramping to an engine every 3 days this summer
has a rocket company ever put out engines that fast?

>>10665112
Only if V2 production counts.

elon tweets:

>About to complete SN5, ramping to an engine every 3 days this summer
>Mk1 & Mk2 ships at Boca & Cape will fly with at least 3 engines, maybe all 6
>After the GoT finale, we dropped it to 6 [used to be 7]
>3 sea level optimized Raptors, 3 vacuum optimized Raptors (big nozzle)

>>10665133
how the fuck do they arrange the 6? Gotta have one in the center for low thrust applications

>>10665133
i thought spacex had settled on only using one type of raptor for the first few years?

>>10664762
RIP rocket hat.

>>10665127
Forced labor was that effective?

>>10665133
Doesn‘t that reduce payload?
Or do they compensate by having vaccuum engines again?

>>10665149
5200 in roughly two years, so I guess so.

>>10665139
Q: "So RaptorVac is back on the table for nearer term launches?"
Elon: "Aspirationally"

>>10665149
Don't have to pay for overtime

>>10665166
"Hoping for 380 sec Isp, but at least 370. Otherwise similar to sea level version."

>With Raptor development progressing smoothly, how isvernior/RCS thruster development going for Starship? Still methane-based? Nitrogen, hydrazine, or something new?

"N2 for vacuum. Aero surfaces & high gimbal angle main engines for atmosphere."


>Expected payload to LEO?

"Aiming for 150 tons useful load in fully reusable configuration, but should be at least 100 tons, allowing for mass growth"

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1131443179297878016

separate rooms for each passenger

>>10665149
The forced labor was actually more effective at killing people than the V2 was.

>>10665136
I guess 3 sea level in a straight line in the center and the 3 vacuum in a triangle pattern on the outside

>>10665165
Sounds terrifying. Good thing they couldn‘t aim them for shit.

>>10663721
>This is the orbital prototype

Muskrats actually believe this.

>>10665190
Probably like the ISS or Skylab compartments.

>>10665453

>>10665184
I like how he talks about a potential increase of 50 tons of payload capacity like it‘s just whatever.

>>10665454
How do you change the screen orientation of an iPad in space? Is there a force toggle setting somewhere, or do you have to resort to grabbing it and flailing it around?

>>10665478
Because it is. It's a paper rocket, you can talk about payload capacities however you want, it's not real.

>>10665527
Just move it in the desired direction fast. Since in most cases acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity it will turn the screen just fine.

>>10665478
Because you need to learn to walk first before you run. Look at the F9 first version and then remember all the butt hurt trolls that said it was a paper rocket...

>>10665545
Who said F9 is a paper rocket? lol, strawman-arguments to comfort yourself.

My dear friends, today I embark upon the study of shockwaves, supersonic and hypersonic flows from Anderson's "Fundamentals of Aerodynamics". Wish me luck for I'm going to need a lot of it.

I hope to move to reentry profiles next.
I'm very glad about this thread on /sci/.
Here's to a decade of paradigm shift in Spaceflight!

>>10663361
Sticker Shock.
Jim seems to be playing the long game.

But almost seems taking money from the Pell Grant reserve is intentional to tell everyone "we wanted to setup a base 9n moon but Democrats stopped us".

I, for one, welcome our new Space Force overlords.

>>10665530
Not a paper rocket as hardware is being built

>>10665553
You called BFR a paper rocket and it is being build ergo F9 was a paper rocket when it was build.
My point was that you go easy on the first versions.

>>10663649
It's more likely than you think.

Well that at least confirms that the Cocoa starship is a version ahead of Boca Starship

>>10666069
Come again?

>>10664771
That's because it's the Wallace and Gromit rocket.

>>10666116
“Mk1 and Mk2 ships at a Boca and Cape”

I'm watching the NASA stream right now. Bridenstine's talking about the moon landing plan. Looks like the threadimage is still very much the plan. All they basically did with the announcement is change it to say "Artemis."

Bridenstine's also emphasizing that the Gateway is NOT going to be the ISS around-the-moon. In fact, the way he's talking about it, it sounds like it's been severely descoped, not just that the later modules have been delayed.

"Since I became administrator we looked at every possible way to get humans to the Gateway as fast as possible; SLS/Orion is the only way to do it by 2024." - Bridenstine

>>10665535
>in most cases
Actually its ALL case, but yea. I understand what you're saying

>>10666314
To be pedantic: I don't think acceleration warps spacetime. Gravity does.

But yeah, either that or they lock the screen orientation on the tablet.

>>10666318
Mass warps space-time, creating gravity. Mass and energy are equivalent (E=MC2).

>>10663235
>31 launches over 8 years
>averaging 3.875 launches a year

Meh, that is a disappointment. They should be squeezing in 50-60 per year. Fuck best launch windows. Get that shit out the door now, before China sets up shop.

>>10666330
and this is why I switched away from being a physics major

>>10663721
lol Anyone else feel like this is a lot of work and hope it succeeds, even though all we've done is click on images of its progress?

>>10665553
Welcome to /sci/.

>>10666345
It's, to be charitable, an "unconventional" testing strategy, but I wish them luck, Anon.

The prototypes aren't gonna be winning any "most beautiful rocket awards" though, that's for sure.

>>10666349
>The prototypes aren't gonna be winning any "most beautiful rocket awards" though, that's for sure.
Agreed. As much as I dislike the shitposters who keeps saying "Look how ugly that thing is! You expect it to go to Mars! HAHAHA" on these threads, they do have a point. It's pretty ugly.

Maybe that's Elon's master plan. Make a rocket so ugly that the Earth tries to reject it, thus achieving anti-gravity and an easy way to space.

>>10666362
Unfortunately, I don't think he will succeed. Such approach had been thoroughly tested, and disproven, by OP's mom.

>>10665133
>engine every 3 days this summer
>EVERY
>3 (THREE)
>DAYS
NIGGER YOU WHAT

>>10666336
>before China sets up shop.

well they have to get to orbit reliably first. They lost another 3rd stage yesterday.

Reminder to not respond to the shill
You can recognize the subhuman by it's use of the terms "muskrat(s)", "pipe dream" "scam rocket" and any variation of the idea that musk is the anti-christ and NASA is soon to shut him down, somehow

He's been here for years and is likely to stay for years more, unless he kills himself when BFR flies

>>10666397
who are you even talking about? aside from the cancer wave yesterday, no-one's said anything like that

more elon tweets
>Yeah [cluster of 3 sea level right in the middle and then 3 vacuum around the outside]. Outer engines with much larger nozzles are fixed to airframe, inner engines have high gimbal range ~15 degrees
>Vacuum nozzle engines are only used in (near) vacuum conditions. Sea level engines need to gimbal rapidly & at high angle for landing. Larger nozzle leaves less room to move & increases moment of inertia.
>vacuum raptor testing in: hopefully 4 months
>super heavy construction in: 3 months
>first [super heavy] flights would have fewer [raptors], so as to risk less loss of hardware. Probably around 20.
>how to move super heavy in cocoa to launch pad: horizontally

>>10666436
>super heavy construction in: 3 months
my body is ready !

JWST will never fly
WFIRST will never fly
SLS is just as overfunded, over-schedule and badly designed and constructed as Constellation.

Defund NASA

>>10666486
lol

>>10666393
That's still too damn close for comfort.

>>10666397
thanks anon, added some to my cultist filter

It's all so fucking sad.
NASA pretending to into space with its toy rocket.
SpaceX making orbital trash cans and pretend to still be going to Mars.
Blue origin, never having launched anything into orbit gets contracts.
We're never getting off this rock, are we?

>>10666349
Wait until they return from suborbital reentry heat, they'll be all sorts of colors

>>10665133
>Every 3 days
>Tfw lived long enough to see rocket ship yards and rocket engine mass production lines

>>10666387
No brakes on this train, apparently

>>10666520
Have some hope. NASA has developed the hardware necessary to go beyond low Earth orbit that can survive multiple administrations, all they need is a goal that can do the same. SpaceX, while ambitious, has delivered on their promises before in some way so there is a good chance that their BFR will be done. If BFR fails, then SpaceX can just fall back on the Falcon Heavy for their Mars missions. While Blue Origin hasn't released much information, that doesn't mean that they haven't been busy. Contracts don't just get handed out blindly, especially for a newcomer like Blue Origin. They have been reviewed and the United States government is confident in their abilities. We will eventually get off this rock.

>>10666524
not nearly enough. 120 engines a year is enough for like 3 full stacks

>>10666530
NASA has developed billion dollar tin can 2.0, it's a fucking joke, blue origin has been around for 20 years and have not managed to build more than a toy. SpaceX is literally the only hope

>>10666543
If they are truly fully reusable that's pretty serious my dude, plus they can just build as many production lines as they want once starlink dollars roll in.

remember how this had 3 layers a week ago?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkxaZ2X-SV4

Elon Musk confirmed for idiot.

>>10666555
He's right you imbecile, without a fusion economy, shipping niggatonnes of shit around the solar system muh fuckhuge cylinders with tens of metres of shielding and niggatonnes of imported soil is retarded as fuck.

>>10666436
>super heavy construction in: 3 months
>yfw the most powerful rocket ever built is soon gonna be some shitpile watertower

>>10666568

Why would you ship it far away? Just build a cylinder right next to a source asteroid/moon.

>>10666544
>NASA has developed billion dollar tin can 2.0, it's a fucking joke,
Do you mean LOP-G? It's small now, but it does have the chance to develop into more. Or at the very least it'll help establish a lunar base.

>blue origin has been around for 20 years and have not managed to build more than a toy
While New Shepard isn't that much compared to the Falcon 9, it did give Blue Origin the expertise in making, launching, and landing rockets Their work on the BE-4 and BE-7 has shown that they can develop new engines in relatively short order. They've made it this far, so they should be given a chance.

>SpaceX is literally the only hope
SpaceX is just ahead in lots of developmental areas, and that is due to their design philosophy of making stuff first then test it. Rather than the study-first methods of NASA and Blue Origin. While this philosophy has allowed SpaceX to develop itself relatively quickly, it's not without it's downsides. Such as a higher chance of failure especially if they're developing something that hasn't been well researched by others such as a manned Martian mission. One bad failure couldn't ruin SpaceX's reputation and doom the company.

On top of all this, we shouldn't consider just one company/agency as "our only hope". Considering one space organization as the only way into space was what held back spaceflight for decades after Apollo. NASA back then was seen as the main way into space, but it had severe problems within it that made new ambitious missions impossible to do. And since there was really no one else doing the kind of stuff NASA was doing, NASA's lackluster post-Apollo performance was seen as the norm and thus no encouragement to improve. If SpaceX were to be considered as the sole way into space, then a similar trap could happen where SpaceX's flaws become more apparent, slowing down progress, but no desire to improve since the flaws could be deemed acceptable.

>>10666568

Elon Musk bets everything on Mars/Moon gravity being strong enough to prevent health issues. We dont know that. If its not the case, his plan is fucked and only Venus remains. O'Neil cylinders can achieve 1G, so they will not have this issue.

>>10666598
couple hours a day in gravity sim elevators will fix that

>>10666555
He is correct, the only way orbital colonies are worth thinking about this century is if there is no way to colonize Mars due to low gravity. Otherwise Mars is much easier in every way due to you know, having actual resources.

>>10666551
H-hayai.

>>10666612
you dont know that

also, needs to be sufficient for pregnant women and children, too, not just rugged astronauts

>>10666591
Bless your heart for actually engaging with that guy, but it's pointless. Anything that isn't on his "team" is worthless to him, and he'll badmouth and shit-talk it no matter its merits.
The correct response to idiots like him is just to ignore them.

>>10666598
I'm kinda sad that no research has been done to figure out that's the bare minimum gravity for humans despite spending decades in LEO.

>>10666613
Plus having natural gravity (no matter how little) makes mining, moving, and storing resources much easier than in micro-gravity where everything will drift around.

>>10666598
>>10666612
>>10666613
As a brainlet, let me ask this, would weighted clothes at least help against muscle and bone mass loss in Mars?

>>10666613

Phobos/Deimos > Mars.

>>10666568
that's why you convert an asteroid

>>10666642
I don't know how much ice is on/in Phobos or Deimos, but if there were plenty there then they could be sites for propellant depots for manned Martian missions. Think Mars Direct, but with an additional ISRU above Mars.

>>10666640
it would help a bit, but is it enough? dunno. your body uses pressure on the feet while walking to help pump blood up the body, and your legs help serve as a kind of reservoir of blood for the rest of the body in case you need a sudden increase of blood flow.

would wearing weights help with pumping? will gravity pull on the blood enough that it properly collects where your body expects it? pressure on your brain might be higher than it is on earth, what's the effect of that? dunno. we experience vision problems if we're in microgravity too long. does the same thing happen with reduced gravity? dunno.

side note - having skeletal muscles isn't just about moving around, too, it provides an important last-ditch source of protein for metabolism in an emergency. in starvation mode, your body will eventually start cannibalizing muscles for calories. too long without food and you'll start burning up the muscles you need to stay alive. take two people with the same amount of body fat but different muscle development because one is adapted to smaller gravity - the low-gravity one will die first in a famine. we dont have to worry about that here but if i was a mars colonist i'd be very concerned about the idea of losing our food supply.

also i dont believe we know anything about how low/micro-gravity affects vertebrate development

>>10666555
He's focused on the short term, and he's right

>>10666642
Thanks demons

>>10666598
Why would you lie like that in the internet?

>>10666555
So the guy who wants to terraform Mars by throwing asteroids says building space habitats is too hard, nice.

>>10665136
>>10665418
Don't forget the Vacuum ones are going to have much larger bells.

>>10666387
Weren't they making Merlin D's one a day for a while?

with news of superheavy I got a question how does the starship even stay on top of super heavy. These two are both massive and incredibly heavy. How come it doesn't just tip over in a strong wind.
Or something like that, or super heavy just start bending due to stress, or wear itself down just by the sheer weight of starship?

>>10666798
2.8m

>>10666807
yep

>>10666811
How come it doesn't just tip over in a strong wind.
I don't know, but my guess is that Starship is attached to Superheavy via clamps around it's circumference and pistons reaching into the engines of Starship. Similar to how the Falcon 9 upper stage is attached to the booster stage.

> or super heavy just start bending due to stress, or wear itself down just by the sheer weight of starship
Steel is pretty strong. Pressurized steel tanks is very strong. Think pushing down on an open soda can versus an unopened one. Plus, Superheavy is meant to be reused. This would require stronger parts all around compared to an expendable rocket which will definitely help it hold on to Starhship.

>>10666811
If you look at early rockets you'll notice most of them had giant-ass fins to keep them aerodynamically stable, kinda like a dart. Yet most modern rockets are basically just featureless cylinders with engines on the end. Why? They're aerodynamically unstable without them, right?
Well the thing is that with modern computers and gimballed rocket engines, you don't need to be aerodynamically stable - your engines and control systems can keep you upright and pointed the right way. That way, you don't need all the extra weight fins add.

>>10666811
Those are actually good Questions that aren't easy to solve. Also, what launch pad will survive this beast on it and releasing the Energy of 31 Raptors firing at the same time at full thrust?

>>10666846
39a. it was design for C-8

>>10666846
Pads 39A and 39B could possibly. But that's because they were overbuilt to hell and back for the Nova rocket that never happened.

>>10666835
I don't know much about engineering, the strength of steel, how it bends etc. So I appreciate the answers. Seems like a difficult problem on several levels.

>>10666850
>>10666855
Starship is being built in Texas.

>>10666869
No problem. It's fine to not know something. Also, SpaceX didn't make it this far by just jumping to challenges blindly, I have confidence that they'll figure these issues out.

>>10666870
>Starship is being built in Texas.
Starship is also being built in Florida.

>>10666891
>>10666870
And the question was about what launchpad could withstand superheavy's thrust.

I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

>>10666937
As other's have said. Probably 39A or 39C as they were overbuilt for Saturn V.

http://heroicrelics.org/info/lc-39/lc-39-abcd.html

>>10666952
39C, whose pad was never built, was leased to Blue Origin. It'll be 39A or a scratch built pad.

>>10666958
I am fine they will use 39A until they build their own pad with a kino tower on it

>>10667000
>kino
I keep seeing this word, but I have no idea what it means. I assume it's slang similar to "fine", "lit", or "cool"?

>>10667011
It's supposed to be from the russian word for "cinematic". So, basically calling something aesthetic. but kind of ironically

>>10667011
I just read it as "neato" I had never seen it 'til it cropped up on /o/ a few years back from somewhere else.

>>10667011
It's a word that's used to describe something that has a "perfect" cinematography quality to it.

>>10666762
Only idiots want to terraform Mars, forge world or bust
Do you have a source on Elon saying that?

>>10667022
Fuck off back to /tv/

>>10666555
jello babies :)

>>10667011
kino = moving experience/the feels

/tv/ meme.

>>10667022
Aesthetic you say?

>>10667064
Man I saw Apollo 11 yesterday and the first part of the movie was amazing. The shot of Saturn V at maxQ was insane.

SLS will never fly. it just exists to funnel money to defense companies and justify some engieers and suits at nasa.

NASA is hopeless. As the Democrats just want to use it for climate science and "insert minority here outreach program". Republicans say they want NASA to do cool shit in space. Then cut the budget and get no specific legislation in place for NASA to do anything.

SpaceX Mars 2024 Bros $5-$10 billion > Virgin NASA moon "2024" that requires $60 billion dollar.

>>10667162
>Man I saw Apollo 11 yesterday and the first part of the movie was amazing. The shot of Saturn V at maxQ was insane.

It was super intense in IMAX, with the sound of the rocket engines thundering in your chest. 10/10 theater experience, there.

>>10667183
I'm soo jelly ! I live in Eastern Europe and didnt have the chance to go see it at least twice.

>SpaceX status update
2 Starship (being built)
1 Starhopper (hopping in 2 weeks)
60 Starlink launching in 2:30 hours
4 engines built, in process of churning out 3 engines every 3 days in coming months
1 Superheavy test prototype to be built in ~3 months

>Starship
Using 3 vacuum + 3 sea engine for first batch and next versions will be optimized even more for vacuum. Expect 100+t at the very least 150t for optimized. Next version will be 200t+

>Superheavy
Using 20 engine for first prototype to minimize risk (still more thrust than Saturn V and will be the most powerful ever)

>Starlink
First 60 batch doesn't have laser intra-communication. Next few batches might have it.

>Initial goals/Mission
Mars 2022 (uncrewed)
Moon 2023 (Yusuck Maezawa)
Mars 2024 (crewed)

>>10667193
>1 Starhopper (hopping in 2 weeks)
Looks like it should be in about eight days.

>>10666551
They definitely have less ugly welds than the Texas guys. I doubt that affects the structural integrity of the rocket though.

>>10666762
That's long term shit, but yes you are correct that if you are capable of terraforming a planet building giant orbital colonies makes much more sense.

>>10666762
You think its harder to goto mars and build a giant vacuumed dome that can grow plants than to go into space and transport raw materials/pre-built stuff with rockets into space and then assemble them in space?

What you're thinking of is, terraforming the entire planet vs building a 1 km space station.

Think going to mars, building bunch of vacuum sealed/radiation protected buildings that can sustain their own eco-system with 1 km in sq km vs 1 km of self-sustaining space station from scratch with no raw materials.

>>10667317
You don't build domes retard, you ship a tunnel boring machine and dig tunnels. Use tailings and sulfur to make concrete to line the walls with.

>>10667339
Doesn't matter. SpaceX could land near some mountain area to one side and then build only partial covers to protect themselves. Whatever the case, its much easier to do 1 sq km of self-sustaining habitat than building one in space.

>oh noes mars gravity is 1/3
Well space has almost 0 gravity.

>but o'neills can spin
And you can't build spinning machine on mars?

>>10667022
Now it all makes sense

>>10667022
Close. It's German for cinema. Who knows why /tv/ latched onto it.

Anyone know what the extent of visibility will be for the Starlink launch? Any chance those in the far north might see a light go across the sky sometime tonight? I'm way up by the great lakes so I don't expect much, but it'd be cool to see.

>>10667525
Nevermind, of course I wasn't gonna see it. Looks like next two orbits pass right over me though, is the Starlink payload reflective enough to see from the ground like ISS? I'd love to go out in 90 minutes to look up and see a white dot go by.

>>10667643
perhaps; they're being deployed in a lengthy sequence

>>10667647
Does deployment begin right away or are they waiting 24 hours or some such? Any information on how they're deploying the numerous satellites? I'd be happy just to see the second stage fly by overhead, regardless.

>>10667661
Should find out in about 30 minutes. F9 just launched/landed.

Check >>10664876 thread for live status.

>nasa selected maxar to build the PPE for the gateway
I know they said maxar gets funding for 12 months, but when would the PPE actually be launched?

>>10667193
>Mars 2024 (crewed)

Imagine NASA landing on the moon while SpaceX is sending astronauts to mars lmao

>>10667803
Thats why NASA wants to move to 2024 instead of 2028 date. They don't want to take the risk of a private company landing on mars before NASA's darling lands on moon. The propaganda being sold is, SLS is needed for moon and moon is needed for Mars.

>>10667709
Looked at wiki and it said that launch is expected in 2022. So they have at least 2 years to build and test it? That sounds like a rush job for NASA.

>>10667512
it is russian for cinema though

>starlink deployment
>nasa funding first segment of the gateway
>space force gets approved by the senate armed services committee
today was a good day for spaceflight

>>10667960
Isn't space force bad news for spaceflight because it means the MIC is going to be collecting taxes on the moon or whatever

>>10667803
but that date's elon time. there's no way they can do a manned landing on mars by then. even an unmanned landing would be a stretch

>>10666546
Starlinks doesn't have the bandwidth to be significant

>>10667995
I think it's funny that you think that

>>10667995
>ELON LIES
>REEEEEEEEE

Do you guys think they even have the money to build 100 raptors and Superheavy (maybe 2 or 3 Superheavy stages to throw the current starships)?

Elon committing to use 26 raptors on the first Starship+Superheavy launch means this is some FUCKING SRS BUSINESS M8

>>10668003
NASA/Airforce thinks Starship/Superheavy won't happen for another 10 years because Spaceshuttle took 10 years and SLS is taking 10 years and Amazon is taking 20 years. So that's the average. Isn't it?

So if SpaceX reachers orbit this or next year, SpaceX would have proven NASA/Airforce/Everyone else wrong for the 1000th time once again.

>>10668005
I'm talking about MONEY dude

solar deployment soon for the starlink sats

full size images from starlink.com

"Starlink is targeted to offer service in the Northern U.S. and Canadian latitudes after six launches, rapidly expanding to global coverage of the populated world after an expected 24 launches. SpaceX is targeting two to six Starlink launches by the end of this year."

>>10667053
Yoi didn't fly too good

onboard star tracker, 4 phased array antennas per sat, 227kg each. autonomously avoids debris

>>10667339
>we're gonna have fucking dwarf fortress IRL on mars
This timeline

>>10667989
Space force = military budget can now be dumped into space shit freely

>>10668062
Huh, those must be the reaction wheels, I wonder how they plan on to desaturate those. Also, with only one solar panel jutting off, wouldn't the center of mass and thrust not line up?

>>10668078
code, lots of code.
Also, the next batches will be entirely decomposable https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/spacex-claims-to-have-redesigned-its-starlink-satellites-to-eliminate-casualty-risks

>Now, it says that at the most, the first 75 Starlinks will include an iron thruster and steel reaction wheels likely to survive reentry. Any built subsequently will “use components that will demise fully in the atmosphere,” wrote the company. No satellites at all will be deployed with the silicon carbide components described in its initial filing.

>>10667011
/tv/ had a thread saying terms like flicks, motion picture, films, etc. should all be used to describe movies of varying levels of artistic merit. Flicks should be used to describe movies with low artistic merit and film should be used on movies with a lot of artistic merit. Kino is some foreign language word for film and /tv/ decided that the best/perfect films are kinos. This was years ago and the other categories aren't used anymore but kino stuck.

>>10668078
If you know the reaction wheels will last longer than the satellite's fuel reserves/useful life, that's not a problem. Just apply a torque during burns.

>>10668127
In fact, we can assume that's exactly what they'll do because the thrust from the engines is going to be miniscule. The power draw to counteract the thruster's torque should be very minimal.

>>10668159
True, but still, how do you dump that torque in the first place after the burn is complete?

shit whoops

correct image here

>>10668165
The atmosphere is RIGHT THERE and you've got a big wing

>>10668165
>What are control loops
The reaction wheels should be able to reorient the satellite any particular direction that's needed in the first place. If their control system is tuned properly, this will never be a problem.

>>10668184
big moment arm with your wing too, the panels weigh practically nothing

btw venting has resumed

>>10668184
>>10668191
Even in a perfect vacuum where you couldn't use drag, the reaction wheels alone would be able to correct for any overtorque.

>>10668195
wonder if the eventual laser links will need separate aiming modules, or if the reaction wheels are sensitive enough to line up the sat

>>10668191
This was from this afternoon, dumbass
You can tell because it's midnight in Texas right now

>>10668201
I expect they'll have a range of motion that should be able to account for trim and switching between satellites at different altitudes. Beyond that they should all be attempting to keep their RF antennas as close to tangent with the Earth's surface as is possible.

>>10668202
yeah I didn't imply it just happened; it hasn't been mentioned yet that's all

chill bruh

>>10668204
Shut up, nigger

>>10667355
>And you can't build spinning machine on mars?
No. You need to spin an entire fucking colony of people and it just does not work when there is any friction at all.

>>10668003
If SpaceX manages to pull off an orbital Starship test, then it is possible NASA will throw a few billions their way, especially if SLS is cancelled.

>>10668245
>if
not going to happen

>>10668251
>>10668245
(to your second if that is)


the problem is if you try and cancel SLS you drag Orion into the mix as well.... together that's an impossible beast to politically defeat

>>10668256
Best-case SpaceX-centric scenario: Musk demonstrates a landing of an unmanned, crew-capable starship and several unmanned landings and returns from the moon (plus the DearMoon translunar flight). NASA agrees to partner with SpaceX, and a crew-ready but unmanned Starship launches to orbit and is fueled. SLS with the crew on Orion docks with it, they perform their surface mission, and the crew returns via Orion.

Hearings afterward gut SLS and probably gut Orion. If Orion survives, it flies on v2.1 Blue Origin hardware from then on.

>>10668268
too late https://twitter.com/ChrisG_NSF/status/1131650518634377223

>>10668256
Make a modified second stage for Superheavy instead of Starship and bolt Orion and its hardware on top. Once Orion has fucked off to wherever its going, the second stage can remain in orbit for a Starship to come up and pick up the engines for reuse.
The steel can that was the second stage can be simply chucked into the atmosphere over the south pacific to break up.

>>10668273
That's still five years away. Five years is a long, LONG time in politics. (Even then I bet Starship could manage the burns to still use gateway if it was forced to)

>>10667022
It's Euro for "cinema" so it's naturally applied to refined European cinema for men of taste and integrity such as ourselves.

>>10668245
No need to even cancel SLS, but funding should definitely be redistributed. We have three heavy lift rockets already bending metal - SLS, New Glenn and Starship. Yet NASA gives generous funding to one of these, and almost nothing to other two. In many other industries this would be considered blatant sign of corruption...

>meanwhile on /g/ someone is claiming the speed of light is 300 km / s

Help

>>10668314
Looks like he realized his mistake
I was about to go nuclear

>>10668318
hey I once put on a chem exam that water is HO2... you never know when you’ll have a brain fart

>>10668314

Starship will not be ready to carry people in five years. This is not a diss against SpaceX. Everything takes much longer when people are involved.
It's taken eight years and counting of their time to develop the capability to launch humans on a Falcon 9. Looking to be closer to 9 thanks to the abort delay. There's a real chance Boeing will beat them to the ISS at this point.
Again, not a diss against SpaceX. Space is hard. Manned space is even harder. But Musk admits that the 5-year manned Starship development is "aspirational." It's not going to be ready for people by 2024.

#Starliner’s integrated propulsion system hot fire test was a success. This paves the way for both the capsule’s pad abort test and upcoming flights to @Space_Station later this year.

https://twitter.com/BoeingSpace/status/1131726543900819457

I wonder, will there be Starlink flares like there are Iridium flares? Those solar panels are pretty damn big after all.

>>10668350
Last I heard the Boeing issue was a problem with their ENTIRE HULL. Possible plumbing issues on a Dragon that had spent an hour or so thoroughly awash with salt water are less alarming than issues with THE FUCKING HULL.

>>10668362
Once the whole constellation is up, I would expect at a precise time range around dusk and dawn you will be able to see them just out of sheer quantity.

Artemis is now officially cancelled

>>10668374
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-appointment-to-lead-2024-moon-landing-plan-idUSKCN1SU0A5

Rip

>Lets just huck the whole stack of Starlink sats into space off the upper stage
Absolute madmen.

next up from spacex is radarsat launch in 17 days

https://www.spacexstats.xyz/

>>10668374
>>10668379
Time for Private Enterprise to put Sen. Shelby to fuckin' shame.
>For any senate aides who may come across this shit, maybe your bosses would do better to diversify their states' portfolios, even within a single industry. If Alabama had pushed for more private facilities to set up shop there, Sen. Shelby would never have been in this position at all.

These satellites look jank as fuck. I love the junkyard yolo look of this new SpaceX stuff.

>>10668434
and next up globally are two Russian military satellite launches: Soyuz on the 27th, and the first Proton of the year on the 30th.

>>10668711
hope they'll have more luck than the chinks

>>10668361
Awesome! I wish Boeing good luck!

>>10668374
Do you people actually read press releases?
The reorganization of the human spaceflight division got shot down. Nothing more, nothing less.

>>10668117
Actually if I remember correctly kino wasnt the highest tier. It was something like
>joint
>flick
>movie
>film
>kino
>cinéma
but kino stuck the most...

>>10668030
Anyone have any idea how to get starlink once its operational or how much its gonna cost me?
And how would I even best use it? For my home PC I doubt itll give me a better connection and I assume Id need a satellite dish again, which my apartement doesnt right now. And for my phone wont it be a huge drag on the battery similar to GPS?
Im asking cause the starlink website goes into great detail about how the satellites work and how theyre gonna launch them, but no info on how to actually buy the product and what you need to use it.

>>10669028
you’ll have a base station, which will need line of sight with a big swath of the sky. It will be a pretty power-hungry pizza box shaped thing, which shits out internet to your home. So I hope your apartment has a roof or something

>>10669036
4 floors and like 15 parties living in this house, so I guess we'll have to wait till the landlord decides to build one on the roof, which I can imagine happening sooner rather than later.
I guess I was right that some sort of satellite dish is actually making a comeback, but Im still a bit skeptical if it will actually be faster than the 100k we can get now. Is there any estimate on speed once a good chunk of sats are operational? Latency I know is supposed to be way better than cable based internet which makes sense, but I wonder if it can actually compete in speed...

>>10669052
Estimates are around Gigabit speed with possibly unlimited*/TB+ monthly bandwidth per customer. Samsung's did a calculation on their own potential project of 4600 satellites and they came up with 200 gb of monthly data allotted for 5 billion people. Now if Starlink "only" gets 10 million customers, that's more than enough for each customer get virtually unlimited bandwidth. Plus Starlink will be a 12000+ constellation rather than just 4600.

There are very big potentials and many people maybe underestimating its capabilities because their only interaction with satellite internet has been those old satellites sitting at 30000 km in geosync with only handful of satellites to provide for couple million of subscribers.

Carefully choreograph a 15 minutes long deployment process with purpose-built dispensers? Nah, just use centrifugal force and yeet the whole thing when we get to the right orbit.

>>10669074
Shit I thought it would be significantly lower than gigabit. I thought it was going to be in the 100mbit range, which is still decent internet. I wonder if they'll have a lower-cost option available, trade bandwidth for a lower subscription price.

>>10669090
Probably. They'll scale the speed to pricing demands. Maybe they'll market 50mbps for $40/m and 100mbps to $60 and 300mbps to $80 and 1gbps to $100+.

Something sane like that with latency under 40ms would be decent.

>>10667989
No more than the MIC collects taxes on the ocean or sky, anon. Think of this like the creation of the Air Force several years after the Army had been using basic planes for scouting and whatnot.

>>10669094
Or they'll go ham and provide 1 gbps or close for $60 and everyone in rural area would literally line up to buy Starlink service like they're in some sort of a SanFrancisco Apple store waiting to buy the newest iPhone Z.

>>10669094
they could (and probably will) make pricing heavily dependant on region. The question is how granular that will be. Could be just cheaper plans for poor countries as a way to get money out of otherwise unused capacities. Could be the plans in cities being more expensive and dirt cheap in rural areas

>>10669074
>Gigabit
Wow ok. How would they be able to do that if no ground based company can come even close? Germanys telecom companies are notoriously bad and I only get like 8MBit/s in the middle of a big city, but thats still an order of magnitude more than even in better developed countries.
I do hope that its gonna be unlimited because the one thing we have going here is that nobody accepts a contract that has limited download...
I do hope that we'll get some more info from SpaceX themselves soon though. Isnt it supposed to be somewhat operational by next year? In a few months people are gonna want to install the dishes if theyre early adopters, and they themselves must have at least somewhat solid numbers on how much bandwidth and what the costs look like...

>>10669131
We wont know until they've got the first 800 online for basic service. And keep in mind, as more sats are added to the network the overall bandwidth is going to increase and improve.

>>10669131
>How would they be able to do that if no ground based company can come even close?
Cities are notoriously expensive to work in. So many permits/rights/approvals are needed to deploy infrastructure upgrade throughout the city. Chances are if you're only getting 8 Mbit/s then your infrastructure is stretched to the maximum due to huge density already and is in dire need of upgrading. In space, its just FCC license and the only real cost is access to space/satellites themselves.

>nobody wants limited download bandwidth contracts
Depends, if Starlink offers 5 TB monthly bandwidth cap but $50 Gigabit with under 40 ms latency, a lot of people will still jump over. 5 TB monthly is so huge right now that only 0.001% of people will use it per month.

>when operational
They said with 6 more launches they can start proving services in North American bases. Then expand from there on after. SpaceX says they hope to launch 6 by end of this year (so its possible to come online end of this year) but its 2-6 more launch so its not completely certain. But it will definitely be up for North America by next year and then a year after will have rolled out for Europe and such.

>>10669131
that's a bit of an understatement, coax is able to provide at least 100/5 here in many areas. If your infrastructure isn't old as shit (as is the case in many yuropean countries that got EU bucks for boardband developement as they had nothing before) 200/50 and upwards is a non issue. Americans got google fibre in some towns so gigabit is available already and not even expensive.

As for how they're able to do so cheapely, they need a fuckhuge constellation for their plans anyways. If they screw one or four phased array antennas to their satellites makes little difference for total cost and they cover the enitre earth with it. If you want to improve bandwidth for normal cable bound internet you have to dig to every fucking house, which is ridiculously expensive, even without the regulatory bullshit that makes prices for it even higher.

>>10669144
if they cover the US they cover europe. Rome has roughly the same latitude as new york. Apart from regulatory shit there is nothing preventing them from rolling out service simultaneously along the same latitudes. The satellites are there anyways, it would be a waste not to use them.

>>10669180
>Apart from regulatory shit
Like what? Posting illegal memes?

>>10669184
I'm talking out of my ass here but I'd assume that the US, Canada and yurope/insertrandomothercountry have different radio spectrum policies and you'll have to negotiate and buy the required frequencies from the controlling entities of the territories in question

>>10669085
>virgin estronaut
>uses stock
vs
>chad manley
>painstakingly recrates missions with exact specs in realism overhaul

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/24/spacex-raised-over-1-billion-this-year-as-starlink-and-starship-ramp-up.html

>here's your interplanetary spaceship bro

>>10669365
>mad max: martian anarchy

>>10669365
Looks fine to me.

>>10669365

>>10669365

Mr Steven doing stress tests with multiple drop tests on each section on the net to assure its readiness for next launch.

https://twitter.com/lake_sea_mtns/status/1131991032730726401?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

>>10669195
You also need to negotiate the fact that communist countries like Europe need to police their subject's internet, so an unregulated outbound lane is a big "vulnerability" in their thought police programs

>>10669517
I expect that the PRC would sooner Kessler us all than risk letting dissidents get organized.

hopping pushed back to week of June 3.

>>10669365
OI TEL DAT DER MECHBOI TO PAINT'IN RED TO MAEK IT GO FASTA,
but udder den dat it luk orky wich meens it will fly mate

>>10669594
YA DAT CAN GOT PLENTY DAKKA UNNER IT
dat gonna fly reel gud

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1132015214629490688

so far so good for starlink sats

>>10669529
>K-Bomb
I would love to see China try that before getting smacked down by everyone else because their space programs got fucked.

>>10667193
>1 Starhopper (hopping in 2 weeks)

Looks like you were right about the hopper in two weeks.

>Beach closures are no longer planned for the week of May 28. SpaceX is planning to proceed with spaceflight activities that will require closures the week of June 3.

>>10669365
>You want to send me into SPACE in a CONVERTIBLE!?

>>10669638
da raptas burn green dat mean it orky

>>10665112
Yeah, SpaceX, with Merlin 1D.

>>10669824
Nah dad rapta burns purple, 'n ave ya ever seen a purple ork?

>>10665136
>how the fuck do they arrange the 6

https://vimeo.com/338361997
choo choo it’s the starlink train

>>10670112
Another video https://youtu.be/D2XPjOs5qYQ

>>10670015
alzrit here u stinkin git i dont carez who iz wron or whoz iz right but i gonna stick a fukin grot up ur azz if u kep on being unroky panzy

>>10668078
I think the thrusters are mounted eccentrically so they still line up with the COM.

If you’re in Europe go outside and look up in 90 min or whatever

>>10670066
middle 3 in-line so that they can fire just the center one
outer three midway between the legs

>>10670112
Holy shit it's Galaxy Express 999.
Elon you beautiful bastard.

>>10670175
Where would I have to look?

>>10670216
here's the TLE http://www.satobs.org/seesat/May-2019/0193.html

should be roughly accurate. sorry for pic, 4channel thinks it's spam

if you're in the US there are a couple observation opportunities coming up tonight; t; 11:36 PM EDT + 4:30 AM

>>10670205
Who said they would ever fire "just" the center one?

>>10670220
Thanks, didn't know TLEs were out. It's cloudy as shit here though. I wonder how long it will take for that constellation to break up and if I'll get another shot at observing them tomorrow

why are the chinese so slow to develop their space program?

>>10670288
Probably because they've started from scratch long after NASA and they don't have a space race to speed things up.

>https://twitter.com/Marcin_Loboz/status/1132070509246652421
enjoy the remaining days of clear night skies that we have left

>>10670225
Which tool is that? Can you check India?

>>10670175
Once these huge constellations are close to full deployment they're going to look really cool at night, but they'll probably look even cooler around dusk and dawn.

>>10670424

>>10670460
Thanks a lot!
Are those in local time?
Also can you check Chennai and Hyderabad for my friends? (Will there be a large différence within a country?).

>>10670471
download Gpredict or PreviSat or something and do it urself. Plus it'll be up on heavens above soon I'd imagine

>>10670473
Thanks

new

>>10670502