/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11191336
What's the abort-mode on that water tower?

So much for the tinfoil can reaching orbit first.

>>11191345
I wouldn't be so sure

>>11191344
Does this count?
https://youtu.be/LNkmwrTjKuo

>>11191351
remember that one launch where the Pad 39A tower sprung a big leak?

>>11191359
No, actually. Go on.

>>11191365
it sprung a big leak and was shooting water across the grass near the pad
the launch was completely normal otherwise

boards.4channel.org/sci/thread/11190465#p11190800

>>11191359
>>11191365
>>11191368
It was the Arabsat 6A Falcon Heavy launch

What are some good books about rocket design, aerospace engineering, interplanetary and interstellar space travel, space colonization, terraforming, space habitats, and hypothetical alien life?

>>11191382
No.

>>11191385
Oh wow. They're lucky the leak was near the top of the tower. If it'd been lower, they might have run out of sound suppression water prematurely, which could've damaged the pad structure.

>>11191394
>No.
Sure kid.

>>11191336
>>11191385
Am I the only one who prefers the grey utilitarian look of 39B to the weird mishmash of 39A?
SpaceX did a decent job prettyfying the Fixed Service Structure, but even with the fancy crew arm and cladding, it's still very obviously the Shuttle FSS.

>>11191389
Ignition!
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://library.sciencemadness.org/library/books/ignition.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi7g6z6zZXmAhXdHzQIHU3MAI4QFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw1bHBHKmTywnPB3fHoY7Cyc

>>11191394
Never give him a (you), report and ignore.

>>11191379
What are you trying to link anon?
Let's see... >>11190800

>>11191389
How to design the basics of your own small engine: http://risacher.org/rocket/

A database on historical spacecraft and some of their parts: http://www.astronautix.com/index.html

The ultimate hard science-fiction author's handbook: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/

Have fun!

>>11191409
that link fucking exploded rip me
just google "ignition book pdf"

>>11191417
Yeah, google and their tracking links, it's a pain in the ass when you just want a link to paste.

>>11191406
I prefer 39B over 39A because I like my umbilical towers having curves (and a little bit of a stoop).

>>11191382
>Is every country on Earth faking their deep space missions?
No. Such a conspiracy would need to be so large that it would've been exposed decades ago. This conspiracy would also require various countries that are fierce enemies to work together in a manner that would've been impossible (Ex: USA and USSR). There are also many private companies, individuals, and organizations that have placed things in space or have paid others to do it for them, and somehow they didn't notice anything strange happening?

As for the "evidence" in the video. Random flakes of material (such as ice) form and fly off in space frequently, especially in the sunlight where the evaporating ice pushes the material around. The evidence presented isn't very compelling either. What about leaked documents explaining how to "fake" space? What about the engineers who would have to be in on it exposing the whole thing? What about the fact that getting to space is very much possible and thus there is no need to fake it?

What could be done to make the general public less apathetic to spaceflight?

>>11191502
Start killing them from space.

Why are we wasting money on (((spaceflight)))? Is space even real?

>>11191502
More media depicting space travel, more discussion of space in the media in general, plus a massive push to inform the public about space as well as to increase NASA's budget.

>>11191513
>"I believe that I can be of 'assistance' on that."

>>11191502
Militarize space. Cold war with China. Make it us vs. them

>>11191593
There's hardly any money spent on space

>>11191649
>hardly any money
You mean like the $21 trillion that was missing from Pentagon?

>>11191653
You got a source on that, or did you roll some dice for that number?

>>11191653
That went 'missing' on other projects.

>>11191502
Space religion.

>>11191649
>>11191653
I mean there’s plenty of money spent on space by the military e.g. spy satellites, the NRO is said to have the biggest budget of the US intelligence agencies. What there’s relatively little money being spent on is specifically space exploration, because there’s no practical, near-term military use for anywhere further out than GEO.

>>11191674
So basically Elon Musk and his bootlickers?

>>11191680
think bigger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpMSNW15p4

>>11191439
>No. Such a conspiracy would need to be so large that it would've been exposed decades ago.
Assumption.
>This conspiracy would also require various countries that are fierce enemies to work together in a manner that would've been impossible (Ex: USA and USSR)
Russia and the US currently occupy the ISS together, so...
>There are also many private companies, individuals, and organizations that have placed things in space or have paid others to do it for them, and somehow they didn't notice anything strange happening?
Satellites aren't the same thing, they're just on weather balloons anyway.
>As for the "evidence" in the video. Random flakes of material (such as ice) form and fly off in space frequently, especially in the sunlight where the evaporating ice pushes the material around.
Ice would require water. The "ice" always leaves in an upward direction too.
>What about leaked documents explaining how to "fake" space?
You just do it underwater.
>What about the engineers who would have to be in on it exposing the whole thing?
Ever heard of NDAs?
>What about the fact that getting to space is very much possible and thus there is no need to fake it?
Still waiting for commercial spaceflight...

>>11191707
>Russia and the US currently occupy the ISS together, so...
Russia is not the Soviet Union, anon

>>11191720
Not the point - they are apparently enemies but work together when it comes to space. Russia even send US astronauts up to the ISS in their rockets.

>engaging with the conspiratard

>>11191751
Go play with your rockets, the real scientists are talking.

>>11191732
>Russia even send US astronauts up to the ISS in their rockets.
And charge us more for it each time, ruskie fucks. But I agree with
>>11191751
it's never good to give shitposters attention.

>>11191707
>Assumption.
No, conspiracies do better at hiding when there are as few of people in on it as possible, but spaceflight is very well employed. NASA alone has over 17 thousand people, many of them are specialists who wouldn't be fooled by trickery.

>Russia and the US currently occupy the ISS together, so...
True, but the Soviet Union were very antagonistic against the US, especially during the height of the Cold War, and likewise for the US. If the conspiracy is real then all the US needed to do to stop the Sputnik panic that gripped the nation was to release the research that would expose the satellite as fake, but they didn't.

>Satellites aren't the same thing, they're just on weather balloons anyway.
No. Satellites can't be balloons. Satellites have been tracked visually by many independent people and none of them noticed anything suspicious? Plus, the speed of which satellites move across the sky would be far too fast for balloons.

>You just do it underwater.
Where are the documents then?

>Ever heard of NDAs?
And those don't work on disgruntled engineers who lost their jobs due to NASA down-scaling. They don't work on people who are at their death bed. They don't work on people who think they're above the law or are seeking glory for exposing possibly the largest modern hoax. Plus, the Soviets had their moon program exposed despite years of them hiding it.

>Still waiting for commercial spaceflight...
Have you not been keeping track of spaceflight? Commercial spaceflight has been around for years. SpaceX is a famous example. Rocket Lab is a fine example too.

>>11191767
commercial spaceflight has been around since like... 2008

>>11191777
Longer if you count companies like Ariane and Boeing.

>>11191779
no, I do not count governmental welfare leeches like Ariane and the USGov MIC

>>11191787
Then what about Iridium?

>>11191345
>SLS
>flying
Maybe once or twice, but since it doesn't reuse its parts, it'll be retired after those flights. And that's AFTER the beer can flies to Mars.

>>11191767
>Commercial spaceflight has been around for years. SpaceX is a famous example. Rocket Lab is a fine example too.

Commercial space flight has been around since 1965 in some regards, since that’s when the first commercial payload was launched into space. The first launcher developed primarily for launching commercial payloads was the Ariane 1, it’s first launch was in 1979. Many people consider the hallmark of commercial space being launch vehicles primarily developed by companies and not the government, the first rocket to be developed in this manner was the Conestoga 1, back in 1982...

>>11191502
Trick Joolywood into making more space movies, like shilling Söy Wars more. The spaceflight companies can then just make ships that look like ships from the mentioned series. Ideally, thw numales would then invest more in space than (((interracial pornography))), killing one bird and raising another to glory with one stone.

>>11191794
a satellite constellation is not a rocket launch
military rockets have been launching commercial payloads for a while, the first was in 1965 apparently with Intelsat I, which launched on a Thor-Delta D

>>11191816
>a satellite constellation is not a rocket launch
True, but it does count as commercial spaceflight.

>>11191806
>Conestoga 1
a failure, I believe
the first successful orbital commercial launch vehicle developed by a company and not a government was the Falcon 1 in 2008
thanks to the NSF forums for having this argument early today so I can crib all of their research

>>11191821
>I believe
>the first successful orbital commercial launch vehicle developed by a company and not a government was the Falcon 1 in 2008

Close, but no cigar. You omitted two crucial words: liquid fuelled. The actual first commercially developed launch vehicle was Orbital Sciences Corporation’s Pegasus rocket.

>>11191832
I excluded launch vehicles cobbled together out of solid rocket motors bought from military rockets

>>11191834
>implying blah blah kestrel blah blah NASA technology blah blah

>>11191837
Is kestrel literally a collection of bits and gubbins off of an ICBM like Pegasus? We could totally push it down the line to Electron, because Merlin and Raptor were developed from FASTRAC and the Integrated Powerhead Demonstrator respectively.

>>11191834
At this rate, I don't think there will be a "purely private" space company any time soon due to how pervasive the military/government was in the early days of spaceflight.

>>11191834
>>11191851
>Orion is a series of American solid-fuel rocket stages, developed and manufactured by Alliant Techsystems (now Northrop Grumman Innovation Systems). They were originally developed for use as all three stages on the Pegasus rocket.

>>11191502
We don't need public support. We need to move away from that and focus on the real problem. Democracy. Pluralism. It never works. Disregard the masses and do it anyways.

>>11191767
>No, conspiracies do better at hiding when there are as few of people in on it as possible, but spaceflight is very well employed. NASA alone has over 17 thousand people
How many of those 17 thousand would actually need to know it was fake?
>many of them are specialists who wouldn't be fooled by trickery
Even if they believed it was fake, they wouldn't be authorised to express this to the mainstream media since they work for a government agency. Most people who work at NASA do nothing of importance anyway.
>True, but the Soviet Union were very antagonistic against the US, especially during the height of the Cold War, and likewise for the US. If the conspiracy is real then all the US needed to do to stop the Sputnik panic that gripped the nation was to release the research that would expose the satellite as fake, but they didn't.
The war was all smoke and mirrors, both countries discovered that space wasn't actually what they thought it was, and that it couldn't be flown to. But they had to keep the lie going so there wasn't civil unrest.
>No. Satellites can't be balloons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URNu7Ez9h4U
>Satellites have been tracked visually by many independent people and none of them noticed anything suspicious?
Not possible if they are that small and as far away as we are told.
>Plus, the speed of which satellites move across the sky would be far too fast for balloons.
Nope, they've probably been designed to float in a jet stream.
>Where are the documents then?
Probably stored somewhere very securely.
>And those don't work on disgruntled engineers who lost their jobs due to NASA down-scaling. They don't work on people who are at their death bed.
How do you know if you don't know what the NDAs contain? NASA is compartmentalised, only a select few will know for a fact it's fake, everyone else will be working on things that aren't fake. The mainstream media is also on NASA's side, they won't report anything that could seriously damage them.

>>11191874
>We need to move away from that and focus on the real problem. Democracy

>>11191880
Go back
>>>/x/

>>11191890
Gladly. /x/ has higher IQ than /sci/ anyways.

>>11191891
don't let the door hit you on the way out

>>11191336
wow guys cant wait to go for for epic elon musk and work overtime!
but it's ok cause it's for the heccin epic space! so cool!

Which spacecraft do you think has/had a great paint-job/color-scheme/skin-color? As big of a sucker I am for the classic Apollo black-and-white checkered look, that dash of red on the ROMBUS (and some other concept spacecraft) really catches the eye.

>>11191926
I'm quite fond of gold leaf.

>>11191926
ceramic tile black was a good look for the STS
the stainless steel on Starship and Super Heavy is going to look really really good after reentry
is the electron painted? it's a good looking rocket
>>11191939
titanium nitride coating on a starship

>>11191767
>They don't work on people who think they're above the law or are seeking glory for exposing possibly the largest modern hoax. Plus, the Soviets had their moon program exposed despite years of them hiding it.
There have been examples of people almost whistle blowing during the first Apollo mission. Gus Grissom would talk to reporters complaining about how inadequate the spacecraft was, and ended up hanging a lemon in it. He then burned to death. Thomas Baron was a quality control and safety inspector who wrote a report exposing the complete incompetence of the how the Apollo mission was going. He was in the process of expanding his report from 55 pages to 500, yet died instantly with his family after a "train hit his car".

After that, NASA didn't seem to get hardly any criticism from their staff, and of course ended up landing on the moon multiple times. Amazing!
>Have you not been keeping track of spaceflight? Commercial spaceflight has been around for years. SpaceX is a famous example. Rocket Lab is a fine example too.
Oh it has, has it? Where can I buy a ticket?

>>11191941
>is the electron painted? it's a good looking rocket
I think they just leave it in the black of it's carbon-fiber body.

>>11191945
yeah, that was my thought as well but I didn't want to make that claim without being able to back it up

>>11191941
>golden Starship
Mein gott
>>11191943
Weren't you leaving like half an hour ago? Fuck off already.

>SpaceX closing the Coco Florida site
>Can't make the Florida ring segments the right shape
>Laying off all staff in Florida, while the Robert's Road site is still a dirt patch
>Boco Chica building a whole new nose cone, none of the existing hardware to be reused

Elon, I...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAXo1FdywLE&

>>11191951
>Weren't you leaving like half an hour ago? Fuck off already.
Just report and hope that the mods are awake. That last bit of his post is a clear sign that he's not paying any attention.

>>11191957
I always do

>>11191954
I really really really hate this guy he's just so ugly

>>11191951
>Weren't you leaving like half an hour ago? Fuck off already.
That was an imposter.

>>11191968
Oh okay
fuck off already

>>11191972
Can /sci/ summon a succubus? I don't think so.

>>11191954
Is this guy legit? he's got a lot of info that I've never heard before
>Plasma arc welding
wtf Batman
>skipping X-Ray inspections
skipping proper QC is always a fucking mistake
>>11191975
yeah, give me a hundred bucks, a costume shop and two hours and I'll summon a succubus for you

>>11191975
Potentially.
https://zerohplovecraft.wordpress.com/2019/10/22/god-shaped-hole/

>>11191975
No, and neither can /x/ because they're make-believe.
Fuck off already.

>>11191954
Remember all those people saying starship would be Artemis?

>>11191991
*beat

>>11191987
You really don't believe /x/ exists?

>>11192004
you cannot prove that /x/ exists

>>11191972
No I will not leave. Stop swearing or I'll report you.

>>11191991
>>11192003
Yeah. I had my doubts, but it would be neat if it happened.

>>11192006
nigger

>>11192010
Reported for being a cracker.

>announcing reports
Mods come do your fucking job and sweep this faggot into the trash already

>>11192032
>barking orders at the mods
The only one going into the trash is you, you entitled worm.

>>11191947
Here you go. Electron is naturally black.
https://twitter.com/rocketlab/status/867523393624522753?lang=en

>>11192075
>all black
Nice
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcg6wekmCRA

>>11192005
You cannot prove that space exists.

>>11191943
>Where can I buy a ticket?
https://www.virgingalactic.com/join-us/ (waiting list)
https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
https://www.rocketlabusa.com/book-my-launch/

>>11192165
https://himawari8.nict.go.jp/
The Himawari 8 satellite tracks the weather in the Pacific region near Japan. It returns data on the weather patterns in places that are vastly far apart from each other with incredible accuracy. This would be hard to fake with solely ground equipment due to said distance.

https://twitter.com/astroguyz/status/1133054332650381317
Starlink has been spotted by many people on the ground. The satellites' positions and movements match what SpaceX have announced. These objects also move much faster across the sky than even the SR-71 can so there is no way they can be balloons in the sky.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBjLNcPRHrw
The International Space Station has been photographed by many people and their images match the description of the station, not only that but their photos also match the given position and direction given by NASA. This video also demonstrates how fast something has to move to be in orbit, which is impossible to reproduce with balloons or other aircraft.

These examples demonstrate positions far above the Earth, traveling at speeds which is impossible in an atmosphere, and obeying mechanics that are only possible in space. There's countless more examples of space from a wide range of sources which would be incredibly difficult to all fake together with impeccable consistency for decades.

Space is real.

>>11192190
I don't understand how people can "not believe in space" when you can literally look up, see a satellite, and fucking put your coordinates into heavensabove and it'll spit out exactly what you just saw, and when you'll see it next, with perfect accuracy.

>>11192211
Shit, just get one of those ISS tracker apps and look up at the right time, these retards never have an explanation that doesn't involve holograms or some shit. They deserve to be viciously mocked at every turn for their chosen ignorance.

>>11192211
Thinking and breathing at the same time is hard for some.

>>11192215
It's better to come at it from the other direction. Get them to explain what "satellites" are, in a way consistent with observations you can make with a cheap pair of binoculars.

>>11191943
I know I shouldn’t reply, but...
>Thinking NASA killed off Gus in the Apollo 1 fire and took all that bad publicity (and a near-cancellation of Apollo) just to hide the fact that he said a cramped capsule is cramped
>Not thinking it was the issues that he literally talked about that led to his death
I think we need to mount a search party for a missing brain here

>>11192227
They'll probably just double down on the hologram idea, and if you ask for proof then they'll probably cite Blue Moon, MK Ultra, or some episode from the Simpsons.

>>11192231
Up that anon's ass is the first place I'd check.

>>11192211
Gee it's almost like the whole game is to get you to engage with something completely inane for as long as possible.

>>11192247
His ass is where he pulls his conspiracy fantasies from, that would be the last place where his brain could be apart from his skull.

>>11192248

>>11192184
>https://www.virgingalactic.com/join-us/ (waiting list)
Can't buy a ticket, has been delayed year after year, and doesn't even reach space.
>https://www.spacex.com/smallsat
Not for humans.
>https://www.rocketlabusa.com/book-my-launch/
Not for humans.

>>11192303
>not for humans
So? Are you legitimately too stupid to put a camera in a box?

>>11192303
Why does it specifically have to be humans? Can't build a simple smallsat with a camera to transmit images?

>>11192308
>Are you legitimately too stupid to put a camera in a box?
Of course he is, he's arguing that space isn't real.
Stop feeding morons.

>>11192231
Gus said much more than that. He basically said the spacecraft was incapable of going to the moon. NASA showed the replacement astronauts that they weren't fucking around, you're dead if you speak out of line. You conveniently ignore the point about Thomas Baron, too.

>>11192317
Take your meds faggot

>>11192308
>>11192310
I think we know what commercial space travel means, you imbeciles. I'm going to email spacex and rocket lab now to see if they will launch a camera into orbit for me, what will they say?

>>11192323
Get a higher IQ, faggot.

>>11192331
They'll tell you to take your meds faggot,

>>11192317
>Gus said it couldn’t go to the Moon
>Died on the launch pad cause it was so shittily designed
Oh gee it’s such a mystery why he died. You also didn’t answer as to why they decided to kill him and get much more bad pr than just letting him reeee

>>11192331
>I think we know what commercial space travel means, you imbeciles
If you mean that it must be human travel then you're going to be disappointed as even government backed human spaceflight doesn't go far apart from Apollo. However, the points about small sats are still valid. Anyone with enough money can put a camera in space on a commercial rocket which would blow apart the supposed space hoax conspiracy.

>I'm going to email spacex and rocket lab now to see if they will launch a camera into orbit for me, what will they say?
I'll speculate that they'll send you brochures about their price plans and would ask details about your satellite so they can find a way to fit it in their rides. There's probably a waitlist as there are currently more smallsats than there are launches available.

>>11192339
Simpletons like you often perceive geniuses as being crazy.

>>11192353
You're trolling and it's boring.

>>11192340
The bad PR didn't matter back then, it was never going to be cancelled because it was a battle against the Soviets, and a way to honour the wish of the assassinated Kennedy.

Don't you think the replacement astronauts would be much more hesitant to publicly disparage NASA?

Same question would apply to the replacement of Thomas Baron.

>>11192369
Go away

>>11192369
>The bad PR didn't matter back then, it was never going to be cancelled because it was a battle against the Soviets, and a way to honour the wish of the assassinated Kennedy.
Wait. Didn't the conspiracy include the Soviets? Why is it suddenly not including them? If they're not in on it, then why didn't they call out the US on the fake moon landings?

Uh oh. The SLS program is building this at 39B.
SpaceX better watch out!

>>11192376
Looks like a jellyfish.

>>11192349
>If you mean that it must be human travel then you're going to be disappointed as even government backed human spaceflight doesn't go far apart from Apollo.
Pretty pathetic, don't you think? Spaceflight technology should be far more advanced than it was in the 60's.
>However, the points about small sats are still valid. Anyone with enough money can put a camera in space on a commercial rocket which would blow apart the supposed space hoax conspiracy.
You're assuming that, it's not specifically stated by them that they allow cameras as payload.
>I'll speculate that they'll send you brochures about their price plans and would ask details about your satellite so they can find a way to fit it in their rides. There's probably a waitlist as there are currently more smallsats than there are launches available.
I expect they'll reject it on the grounds of it being a contravention of spying laws.

>>11192375
The conspiracy is whatever anon needs it to be in order to 'refute' a post. Consistency is irrelevant.

>>11192358
>>11192372
Please leave.

>>11192331
They'll probably tell you to read the payload user's manual. You'd have to make your box safe to launch, compatible with the rideshare bus, and have it not immediately become uncontrolled space debris. Then you'd need to go through the FCC for a broadcast license so you can talk to it. And that's about it. Good luck.

>>11192385
No

>>11192376
>>11192378
OH SHIT

>>11192380
>Pretty pathetic, don't you think? Spaceflight technology should be far more advanced than it was in the 60's.
No. Not every field progress at the same time. Also if you actually looked at the history of spaceflight then you'll know that it was hampered by government apathy after Apollo and little commercial interests for a long time.

>You're assuming that, it's not specifically stated by them that they allow cameras as payload
Why wouldn't they? They've got nothing to hide in space.

>I expect they'll reject it on the grounds of it being a contravention of spying laws.
Which laws are you referring to?

>>11192392
>NASA is building a FUCKING RING GATE

>>11192375
>Wait. Didn't the conspiracy include the Soviets? Why is it suddenly not including them? If they're not in on it, then why didn't they call out the US on the fake moon landings?
Yes it did include the Soviets, but not to the public's knowledge. The tax paying Americans didn't want Apollo cancelled as they wanted to beat the Soviets. NASA knew killing the loudmouths wouldn't be an issue.

>>11192393
You are replying to a disingenuous shitposter.

>>11192380
>it's not specifically stated by them they allow cameras as payload
Formosat 5 was launched by a Falcon 9 and is literally just a bunch if cameras on a satellite bus.

>>11192376
The fuck is that?

>>11192405
see
>>11192394
it's a protomolecule structure used to create ring gates

>>11192405
LH2 tank. They need another because SLS Block 1B will guzzle hydrogen.

>>11192408
Oh neat, I hope it doesn't explode.

>>11192411
Unless the ULA snipers fuck up big time I doubt this one is exploding.

>>11191707
>Russia and the US currently occupy the ISS together, so...

Of course, the ISS was built in the 50’s.

Oh wait it wasn’t kill your self.

>>11191880
>The war was all smoke and mirrors, both countries discovered that space wasn't actually what they thought it was, and that it couldn't be flown to. But they had to keep the lie going so there wasn't civil unrest.

Wow I really love this claim presented with absolutely zero evidence. I believe it utterly despite no proof existing.

>>11192416
>kill your self.
Seconded

>>11192408
cool

that's a lot of hydrogen

>>11192387
We'll see, liar.

>>11192435
Stop shitposting here, you've got /tv/ for that

>>11192393
>No. Not every field progress at the same time. Also if you actually looked at the history of spaceflight then you'll know that it was hampered by government apathy after Apollo and little commercial interests for a long time.
That's not how human nature works, we should be advancing in spaceflight like everything else.
>Why wouldn't they? They've got nothing to hide in space.
Their behaviour suggests the opposite is true.
>Which laws are you referring to?
International Space Law

>>11192403
What photos has it taken?

>>11192394
>Nasa manages to create a stable connection to another solar system
>It‘s beyond Neptune for no reason and only SLS can deliver a few kilograms to it once every two years

>>11192416
Russia and the US are apparently enemies you complete moron, yet work together.

>>11192421
It's even dumber to believe the propaganda.

>>11192472
>>11192476

>>11192279
This learn it, report move on

>>11192441
Get out creep, no one here believes space is real.

>>11191954
I knew I saved this for a reason...

>>11192765
>spacex insidier leaks elon having an autistic fit of rage about his mexican welders failing to weld properly on a nigger rigged, swaying platform out in the wind
>he closes florida site and fires all staff in revenge as those were the only ones that got graham cracker froyo flavors that day

i found a site that has 360 degree views of the VAB
the content is modern (the views can't be more than a few years old - they're post-Shuttle) but the web design as a whole is stuck in the 90s
http://nasatech.net/ntVAB_PAGE.html

>>11191336
>>11192827
Also, in the spirit of the OP, here's the one of pad 39B

http://nasatech.net/ntSubPad39B_PAGE.html

>>11192820
>he closes florida site and fires all staff in revenge as those were the only ones that got graham cracker froyo flavors that day

The mention of Froyo actually gives away that leakanon works at SpaceX’s factory in Hawthorne, I’ve heard other SpaceX people talk about how getting free Froyo is one of the main perks of working there. I think leakanon can be considered 99% credible at this point, considering HeartofGold showed screenshots of him and Chris B talking about SpaceX wanting to get hold of leakanon’s IP address and because all his predictions about the Cocoa site shutting down and prototyping moving solely to Boca Chica have come true so far.

i am still sad, they are shutting it down.
it will probably take about half a year to see the first starship fly considering they can improve building speed.

when do you guys think the first mission to mars will happen? by now i really doubt 2022/2024 but 2024/2027 should in my opinion be possible for uncrewed and crewed missions respectively

>>11191406
I find SpaceX's disorganized, hermit crab-like takeover of 39A to honestly be a little bit depressing in terms of what it says about this country's commitment to NASA and manned space exploration in general.

The pad that launched Saturn Vs and the shuttle off of a massive crawler transporter is now hacked to pieces and launching a glorified Atlas V successor off of repurposed railroad hardware with a tacky Property Brothers-style renovation of the grand old shuttle service structure. It just lacks the ambition and focus that 39A/B once had. It just drives home the point of how stupid it was for NASA to retire the shuttles without a successor ready to replace them.

SLS is a festering dumpster fire and is even more depressing to think about than what happened to 39A, but at least 39B has some grand, oldspace dignity to how it looks.

>>11192765
>>11192929
>HEY EVERYONE LOOK, it's an insider! Do you really work for SpaceX?! Can you prove it to me? Please tell me specific information that will give you away. I posted this on NSA as well and now the media wants to talk to you XD. I can be your spokesman if you want!
>Insider gets fired
>OMG WOW, how was I supposed to know this would happen? What do you mean SpaceX and Tesla doesn't allow people to leak information about their projects and that is why you never see it happen and Elon can do things like the Cybertruck unveiling?

HeartofGold is such an audacious faggot. Even severe autism isn't a good enough excuse for it.

>>11193061
ok boeing

>>11193063
>Insider gets fired

There’s no evidence of this, SpaceX wanted HoG’s IP address because they thought he was the leaker, when in reality he was just X-posting. Chris told them the information came from 4chan so it’s probably false and that’s where the story ended. Unless SpaceX asks Hiro for leakanon’s IP I’m pretty sure nothing is gonna happen.

>>11193064
Oldspace could have been god-tier. Imagine if NASA had been given the budget to upgrade/replace the shuttles as needed and treat them like the prototypes that they actually were, treating the basic design like Russia treated the Soyuz, as little more than a form factor to tinker with. Something like Shuttle 2 w/ crew escape and kerolox SRB replacements coming into service in the mid-90s instead of Endeavour, while Columbia, Atlantis, and Discovery all go to museums, with Shuttle 3 entering service in 2010-2015 and adding flyback liquid boosters and a recoverable external tank, all while continuously upgrading the TPS and the SSMEs to further simplify re-usability.

It's not Starship, but today, we could have been a hell of a lot closer what Starship offers if it wasn't for Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama.

>>11191707
>Ice would require water
No dumbass, ice requires any liquid. When exposed to vacuum, a liquid will pass its triple point and flash a decent chunk of its mass off as vapor while the rest stays behind as a solid, aka ice. During SpaceX launches this ice is frozen oxygen, which is coming from a few small purge lines about the engine.

>>11193072
>A multi-billion dollar company is unable to find the IP of someone despite the information being posted on a site that now exists to sell information as 4chan was previously ran at a loss for years before the new owner came, without the advertisement structure changing.
>Hiroyuki Nishimura would protect someone's IP if offered money for it despite being caught red handed selling information before which led to 2channel revolting against his ownership of it and leading him to buy 4chan. He has also DDoSed the websites of his competitors, showing strong moral character.

Surely you cannot be this naive. Do you think you're truly anonymous as well?
>just X-posting
Motherfucker, this isn't Reddit. Stop defending your actions when you created this situation in the first place, likely because you wanted attention on NSF.
In before:
>I'm not HeartofGold, I just keep posting the same thing in defense of him every time it is bought up. He dindu nuffin!

>>11193077
Thank you politics.

>>11191617
Unironically this would do the job

>>11193148
not him but if USA keeps pouring gas on this HK shit we will be in a "cold war" with china very soon.

>>11192475
let's be honest here, if somebody manages to build a real wormhole teleport thing, it better well damn be out by Neptune
fuck having that much energy barely contained in the inner solar system

>>11193072
and let's be honest if you aren't posting from a proxy in Moldova when you leak info like that you aren't doing it right

>>11193077
external tank could never have been recoverable, they would need to swap to a different propellant and put it in the payload bay for that
basically, you'd just end up at Starship

>>11193183
Leakanon may be retarded, but at least he was acting in good faith and he risked his job to give us information we didn't have access to.

On the other hand, HeartofGold2030 fucked us all over so he could gain recognition on another website filled with irrelevant boomers. It's obvious to anyone that they would trace the information if it was accurate and that SpaceX would find out about it. Really, it's indefensible and we lost a good source for absolutely nothing.

>>11193077
>>11193184

>>11193195
yeah, Leakanon is a true hero
you realize that HeartofGold has an account on NSF and you can go spam him with PMs if you want?
make sure you use a proxy :^)
>>11193196
I want to see an animation

>>11193196

how is closing florida supposed to make starship development faster? what are they going to do about the shitty welding in texas?

>>11193222

>>11193230

>>11193229
my thoughts:
Florida is receiving pushback from government regarding testing prototypes in KSC
moving the Florida prototype to KSC by truck and barge requiring the closure of a highway is a massive pain in the ass and probably not worth it if they won't even be allowed to test them there anyway
the Florida site was just a convenient way to put pressure on the Texas government to allow SpaceX to get away with basically whatever they wanted

>>11193233
>Daniil, what if we take Soyuz and build spaceplane around it?

>>11193229
>how is closing florida supposed to make starship development faster?

Idk, more people working on a single prototype, instead of being split between two?

> what are they going to do about the shitty welding in texas?

Robot welding machines according to leakanon

>>11193245
I believe the design was more of a biconical capsule/lifting body hybrid than a pure spaceplane akshually...

>>11193251
they HAD robotic welding machines at the beginning, but they quit using them
probably had troubles getting everything lined up properly for the robots to be consistent
if they can get the stacking consistent with all that new hardware down there they can go back to robotic welding
they REALLY need to be X-Ray testing their welds

Pedo Guy BTFOed.

>(Reuters) - The British cave explorer who sued Tesla Inc’s (TSLA.O) Elon Musk for branding him “pedo guy” in a tweet has narrowed his defamation case against the electric car maker’s chief executive, and is no longer seeking damages for an emailed suggestion he might be a child rapist.
>no longer seeking damages

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-musk-lawsuit/musks-defamation-trial-over-pedo-guy-tweet-is-narrowed-idUSKBN1Y327Z

Roscosmos has displayed the Soyuz MS-10 capsule outside their headquarters as a monument to the life-saving inflight abort.

>>11193229
simply, it doesn't
they ran into a problem which was to be expected when trying to weld a rocket in a field.
i don't believe for a second that the events of the last week were anything other than e setback, even if they decided to not fly the Mk1 before it blew up.

We should send crabs to space

China has successfully tested the hydrolox-powered second-stage for their new Long March 8 launcher, it’s designed to be cheap and eventually reusable using VTVL. The rocket is first scheduled to launch in 2020, I assume in an expendable configuration.

>>11193299
China numba 1

Job opening

Job obening

>>11193317
I'm in, the USG Ishimura provides unprecedented comfort and the pay is good.

>>11192317
So the response to someone saying your device was unsafe was to...sabotage the device and have it kill them, proving them right and causing a huge investigation?

>>11193319
I agree, recently got a Job as an engineer there

>>11193299
>Amazon Third Party Seller Falcon Heavy with an Ebay Special ACES upper stage
Actually kinda hot desu

>>11193317
sigh, it's viral advertising for some shit isn't it?

>>11193369
I mean it’s actually only a medium-lift launch vehicle designed to launch 7 tons to LEO and 2.5 to GTO, which is roughly equivalent to a Soyuz. Furthermore, my Chinese source says I’ve fucked up: when I heard it used the LM-3’s 3rd stage for it’s 2nd, I automatically assumed they meant the LM-3B’s hydrolox 3rd stage, but it actually uses the LM-3A’s hypergolic 3rd stage (2xYF-24). The core-stage is powered by 2 YF-110s (staged combustion kerosene) so it’s got more in common with the Atlas 5 than the FH. The most interesting thing about the design is that the side-boosters don’t detach (pic-related).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vp9WuZzmMlU

>>11193408
Thats actually super cool

>>11193430
It’s definitely unconventional...

>>11193432
if they can land it all they'll have a shitty falcon 9 competitor
are those side boosters solids?

>>11193408
>The most interesting thing about the design is that the side-boosters don’t detach (pic-related).
Most rocket designers are allergic to doing anything that cuts into the payload capacity, so it's nice to see the Chinese are doing something different. They're probably doing it so they can recover more and to improve the hover capability of the rocket when landing.

Something I didn’t know until today: Hall-effect thrusters actually erode when firing. The more powerful the thruster, the greater the rate of erosion is. NASA are aiming to build thrusters that can last over 10,000 hours of firing time.

>>11193435
>if they can land it all they'll have a shitty falcon 9 competitor

It’s actually quite a bit smaller than the Falcon, more of a Soyuz competitor honestly.

>are those side boosters solids?

I asked but my Chinese source doesn’t know. I’ve seen some renders with solid and some with liquid.

>They're probably doing it so they can recover more and to improve the hover capability of the rocket when landing.

I believe your right, someone told me it was due to ballast: making the vehicle as heavy as possible before landing; because the lower the TWR, the easier it is to land. Also, there is the perk of recovering more of the spacecraft. Personally, I believe the LM-8 wasn’t originally planned to be reusable and the weird design is just a result of the Chinese trying to adapt an already in development LV with boosters into something reusable.

>>11193408
>boosters that don't detach
>hypergolic 2nd stage on a staged combustion kerosene first stage
>VTVL boostback WITH THE BOOSTERS ATTACHED

>>11193222
Is this what happens after dolphin sex?

>>11193450
I love it when a plan comes together

>>11193471
>boostback burn, reentry
>deploy fins, slow to hover
>gimbals this way and that for several seconds
>hovers over dissident's home before dropping like a stone on it

>>11193478
>not boosting back to Hong Kong to land in some protesters

>>11193478
>>11193481
next generation of chinese first stages will have additional explosives build in

tfw your space agency's next-gen rocket is obsolete before it's even released due to being fully expendable

>>11193515
>new vehicle re-design features eight side-boosters
>they're actually MIRVs for targeting multiple dissidents per launch

>>11193521
It's literally Ariane 5 Part Deux.

>>11193521
why are the ariane 6 boosters so short anyways?

>>11193530
the ariane V was quite successful though

>>11193530
I mean they claim to have halved the launch cost so I guess that's something

>>11193536
>why is A6 using short boosters
it's a throwback to the original evolution of the Thor-Delta and Atlas families

>>11193536
>why are the ariane 6 boosters so short anyways?
I think it's because the Ariane 6 uses the Vega first stage as the boosters to reduce overall program complexity and they're short to meet Vega requirements. DESU I think it's a neat idea.

>>11193539
but those were more along the lines of "shit, we need something to get this off the ground" and not designed that way. With a hydrolox first stage I'd have thought that boosters with longer burn time would be very beneficial, just like with the SLS.

>>11193542
Didn't know that. To bad those are not constructed in segments then.

>>11193544
my running hypothesis is that the Europeans are generally incompetent, with rare exceptions

>>11193521
>tfw your space agency's next-gen rocket is obsolete before it's even released due to being fully expendable

That’s not really true considering it undercuts the Falcon 9’s price for GTO missions because of dual berthing, you can launch a satellite to GTO for only $45 million on an A64.

>>11193530
It’s main selling point is that it’s significantly cheaper to build than the A5 ($90 million vs $165 million). Furthermore, it has a restartable upper-stage, which allows for direct to GEO launches.

>>11193556
>direct to GEO
literally space littering

>>11193548
it's just more burocracy than even the US with different countries fighting each other tooth and nail just for the fun of it. Same as with their defense projects

>>11193538
>>11193556
That is a significant improvement. Hopefully they'll meet that goal and bring in some good competition in the new age of cheaper rockets.

>>11193560
wut

>>11193564
>Hopefully they'll meet that goal and bring in some good competition in the new age of cheaper rockets.

Ariane 6 is mostly considered a transitional vehicle while Arianespace mess around with a bunch of VTVL prototype rockets such as Callisto and Themis, which are powered by their new Prometheus engine, a cheap methalox/hydrogen gas generator.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_(rocket_engine)

https://spacenews.com/france-germany-studying-reusability-with-a-subscale-flyback-booster/

>>11193556
how the fuck is the ariane V that expensive?

>>11193586
I think it's because it's built like the SLS. With different parts being built in different places (in this case different countries), and then transported to and assembled in entirely different places. I could be wrong though.

>>11193585
the prometheus engine is depressingly unambitious.

>>11193594
At least it's something. I think the Shuttle has made every launch provider who aren't SpaceX or Blue Origin to be wary about reusable launchers. Give them time, they'll come around.

>>11193586
>>11193591
You are correct that Ariane 5 is built by lots of different companies, from different countries but I think the main bank breaker here isn’t actually this, but the manufacturing processes used to build it.This is because Ariane 6 is built using the same horizontal integration method, but ArianeSpace have managed to halve the costs compared to it’s predecessor just by changing up the manufacturing processes involved.

>>11193594
I mean Vulcain isn’t particularly ambitious either but it works well, the Europeans have never been ones to push the engine envelope with rockets.

>>11193556
>you can launch a satellite to GTO for only $45 million on an A64.
Explain

>>11193564
direct to GEO launches put the upper stage in a graveyard orbit above GEO
this is littering, that object will be up there forever until we go and get it
launches that put the upper stage into GTO can deorbit the upper stage

>>11193556
>That’s not really true considering it undercuts the Falcon 9’s price for GTO missions
The Falcon 9 price is only what it is now because they have no competition. If Ariane 6 undercuts them, I believe SpaceX has more than enough margins to lower their prices even more to retake the throne instantly.

>>11193622
Don't forget about the USAF demanding extra cash from SpaceX per launch as "insurance". If that gets dropped then SpaceXs profit margins increase further.

>>11193616
>>11193608
It's not just about pushing the envelope. At some point the engines that are supposed to power your future launch vehicles should be technologically on par with shit that was forgottenly laying around in a soviet warehouse for half a century. What justification is there, with the budgetary means of an EU institution, to set engineering goals below technologies that were shown to be achieveable, reasonably cheap and far superior?

>>11193621
it's in a basically non decaying graveyard orbit at low velocities with little to no collision risks. It's a non issue and even if it isn't required someone can take it down once the price of payload to LEO drops significantly if they absolutely want to. Even shit in far lower graveyard orbits is a non issue as long as it isn't causing massive amounts of debris like the reactors of the soviet TOPAZ reconnaisance sattelites leaking NaK coolant.

>>11193585
>gas generator
>100t thrust
>100 bar chamber
It's literally just a Methamerlin

>>11193636
it's literal trash in literal space
it's littering

>>11193638
and there's a zero chance of it causing any problems, so why worry?
Space hippies can get fucked. Day of the airlock when?

Why don't asteroid mining firms cut their teeth on satellite salvage? It's literally small asteroids that are already highly refined and near earth.

>>11193647
>zero chance of it causing problems
screencapping this post

>>11193648
Because you don't have to deal with the physics of being in Earth orbit when you're at a real asteroid?

>>11193544
To be fair, the SLS really benefits from more and more fuckhuge SRBs because the RS-25s are so expensive and you therefore want to minimize many there are on the core.
Preliminary SLS designs kept bouncing between 3 and 5 RS-25 engines for this very reason, with 3 being the cheapest but worst-performing and 5 being the best-performing but the most expensive. The ultimate choice of 4 was a compromise between cost and performance.

>>11193617
Due to it’s impressive payload to GTO (10 tonnes), long fairing and unique payload shroud (SYLDA) Ariane 5 can launch two big GTO satellites at a time (dual-berthing). By flying two payloads on one vehicle, ArianeSpace can halve the launch price for each customer and still make a single launch worth of revenue. Ariane 6 will also have this ability. Therefore, whilst a single A6 launch may cost $90 million, a dual-berthed launch would cost roughly $45 million for each customer. This estimate isn’t particularly accurate, as the bigger satellite of the pair is usually charged more and the smaller passenger which is enshrouded gets a cheaper deal.

>>11193667
>fancy direct to GTO multi payload vehicle
>as the market is shifting to LEO megaconstellations

>>11193663
>Preliminary SLS designs kept bouncing between 3 and 5 RS-25 engines for this very reason, with 3 being the cheapest but worst-performing and 5 being the best-performing but the most expensive. The ultimate choice of 4 was a compromise between cost and performance.

The performance gain of adding an extra RS-25 would be extremely marginal considering the SRBs produce 70% of the thrust.

>>11193637
I believe that’s the point, replicate what works and improve on it.

>>11193657
I thought the vogue was capturing asteroids and mining them in orbit.

>>11193648
they probably will
asteroid mining like most people imagine it is a meme anyway, at least in the near future.
the only real advantage of real asteroids compared to old satellites would be the fact that asteroids are a fuckton bigger than those and considering their composition could yield more ressources.

>>11193681
It's still really good at that niche, though. And it's not like we've stopped launching GTO satellites, the market's just slowed.

>>11193691
>asteroid mining like most people imagine it is a meme anyway, at least in the near future.
are you telling me scrappy belters with thick accents and salvaged ships aren't real

>>11193695
won't it slow considerably more? What do we really need GEO sats for? TV (that's gonna die), communication (will most likely get shifted to LEO constellations due to higher bandwidth and lower latency, except for some military shit) and earth observation (which will probably further shift to LEO).

>>11193681
Just because it excels at GTO launches doesn’t mean it’s limited to them, the big fairing is useful for other applications. For example, Ariane 6’s first customer will be OneWeb:

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/03/05/oneweb-announced-as-customer-for-inaugural-ariane-6-launch/

>>11193708
>>11193710
Big yeets like James Webb, positioning satellites, various military networks; it's got a future. Maybe not as bright as Starship, but literally no existing launcher compares to Starship. Compared to Falcon Heavy, it's pretty competitive. Hell, it'd make a perfectly good Europa Clipper launcher.

Talking of Ariane 6, it’s design is a lot more innovative and unconventional than I first thought...

>>11193682
You'd be surprised. An extra RS-25 would give it like 5 or 10 extra tons of payload.

>>11193710
sure, but with that it enters back into the market where it as lots and lots of competition.

>>11193714
military GEO sats and deep space scientific missions are rare though. But sure, for those it's great. Galileo is pretty much finished, there won't be many of those going up

Hey, wait, how much would Ariane 6 benefit from bigger, more efficient boosters? Because 3× Prometheus boostback reusable boosters would actually be a good stepping stone, and I think it would massively improve performance

>>11193710
>Ariane 6’s first customer will be OneWeb
>OneWeb
It's not like they have a lot of options. If they use SpaceX or BO, they're handing their competitors millions of dollars.

>>11193728
a lot, like everything with an underpowered hydrogen center stage

>>11193731
>Ariane 6 core stage
>4 flyback boosters
>costs significantly below $90M (booster reuse)
>SLS tier yeeting capacity
The more I think about this the more I like it

>>11193739
Oh, and if you made the boosters big enough and burn them long enough, you could air-light the center core and turn it into an oddly configured second stage instead of a sustainer. Then you could use a larger nozzle, for even more efficiency...
>Ariane 6 Heavy to the Moon for $90M

>>11193728
>Hey, wait, how much would Ariane 6 benefit from bigger, more efficient boosters? Because 3× Prometheus boostback reusable boosters would actually be a good stepping stone, and I think it would massively improve performance

Prometheus boosters are actually a future upgrade that’s being considered.

>>11193730
If they use SpaceX or BO, they're handing their competitors millions of dollars.

Somebody please tell OneWeb that then, because they’ve already booked 5 New Glenn launches...

>a lot, like everything with an underpowered hydrogen center stage

I think your missing the whole point of the sustainer engine design. Furthermore, the “underpowered” design is what makes Ariane 5/6 so good for GTO launches.

>>11193747
Prometheus boosters make my Ariane 6 the big Ariane 6

>>11193747
The hydrogen core is great for efficiency, but burning it from launch is wasteful. If you ignited it in flight, you'd be able to use a larger nozzle. You'd need longer burning boosters, but Prometheus boosters could do this. Big Prometheus flyback boosters and a larger nozzle, air-ignited core would dramatically increase payload to superheavy lift levels, while DECREASING total costs (because flyback boosters)

>>11193746
>I think your missing the whole point of the sustainer engine design. Furthermore, the “underpowered” design is what makes Ariane 5/6 so good for GTO launches.
I'm not missing the whole point of the sustaine engine design. It is still underpowered, even if that'sd by design. If you can get it to speed faster you reduce gravity losses significantly

>>11193747
>Somebody please tell OneWeb that then, because they’ve already booked 5 New Glenn launches...
They are aware of that, which is why New Glenn was selected after Arianespace, Soyuz and even Virgin Galactic. They're not willing to put all their eggs in one basket but clearly prioritize launch providers they are not competing with.

What other possible reason would explain why they haven't considered SpaceX despite being the cheapest option? If you're going to champion Ariane 6, OneWeb is a terrible example.

>>11193648

No demand for component materials in orbit.
Price of recovered sat materials higher than what you'd buy on earth.

You put in money and get less or none back.

>>11193780
>What other possible reason would explain why they haven't considered SpaceX despite being the cheapest option?

I know why they’ve decided to pick everyone but SpaceX, it’s because Greg Wyler (OneWeb’s CEO) and Elon have a troubled history with each other(Greg originally proposed them building a satellite constellation together, but Elon is too autistic for deals and compromises so the negotiations fell through) and the former hates the latter.

>>11193811
Remember the fun legal brief where SpaceX questioned whether OneWeb "would accept Starlink satellites in any orbit"? Good times.

A break from all this Ariane 6 talk:

NASA has discovered a disgusting skid-mark on the Moon’s surface with their LRO imaging probe. I wonder who it belongs to?...

https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/goddard/2019/vikram-lander-found

>>11193759
But then you'd have to make the engine air-startable, which impacts design and performance significantly.

>>11193833
POOED

>>11193833
>poo on luna

>>11193854
hello, yes, europe? it's 2020 now, "air starts are hard" was an acceptable excuse in 1957, it's 63 years later, you can fucking air start your engines

>>11193833
Superpower by next month

>>11193870
You misunderstand. It's not that they couldn't make an air-startable engine, it's that air-starting would impose certain design limitations that would result in a significant loss in efficiency.
For example, the original plan for Ares I was to use an air-started SSME. Turns out that the tolerances on the start-up sequence were so tight that starting it anywhere but the ground wasn't feasible.

>>11193811
Why did a failed business venture generate so much resentment to the point that Greg Wyler is willing to risk the success of his business just to stick it to Elon Musk? It appears that Wyler is the more unreasonable of the two and he seems to believe he was the originator of the satellite internet constellation despite it being an idea that was already in use for decades before he even thought of his system.

>>11193919
Wyler is a satellite industry veteran, who seems like a generally stubborn and salty individual that probably holds grudges for a long time. Whilst Elon is an autistic visionary with a passion for micro-management. It’s understandable why the partnership between these two very different and strong personalities fell through in such a dramatic fashion, Elon probably threw a fit when Greg tried to downsize his utopian satellite architecture to make it more realistic.

>>11193947
I mean Elon's old Tesla business partners seem to hate his guts too. I get a feeling he's just not the cooperative type.

https://twitter.com/NASA_Orion/status/1201620720146669568

“Bring out the gimp!”

>>11193954
Understandable, but not wrong since Elon was THE major contributor to the company and had forced some of the others to resign due to bad management

>>11193947
Apparently the scope of the constellation was in dispute, but Wyler also wanted SpaceX to fund it, which at that point made OneWeb's role very questionable as Musk already didn't feel they were up to the engineering task. From my perspective, that's totally justified. Any ventures with other companies is just another point of failure you have little control of. Vertical integration seems to work great for highly effective companies like SpaceX and Tesla.

I've also heard online gossip about a dispute regarding how one of them treated their wife while having dinner but I doubt that will ever be made public even if it's true.
>>11193954
>I get a feeling he's just not the cooperative type.
Would you be? I'd run away screaming before working with a company like Boeing or some of the other old space companies.

>>11193991
>Elon flipping tables after CRS-7
>The whole Pedo Guy incident
>Thinking working his recent college grad employees to death is a good thing
>Trying to meme his way to Mars
>Constant whining about other contractors disguised as “banter”
>So many incidents of fucking with Tesla’s shareholders I can’t even recall them all
Yeah I wonder why nobody wants to keep doing business with him

>>11194032
>1 person with failing business model and a personal grudge is "nobody wants to do with elon"

>>11194032
Clearly most of it is Elon Musk refusing to do business with other companies rather than the inverse. SpaceX moves the most weight into space, has the most launches, and has no problems finding clients.
>Thinking working his recent college grad employees to death is a good thing
That is actually good thing. It's the only way SpaceX and Tesla can get the best talent, people who actually want to be there, rather than those who just want it on their resume and a cushy job. It isn't a jobs program like over at Boeing. There are plenty of other engineering jobs if you want to sit at a desk all day and do nothing.
>So many incidents of fucking with Tesla’s shareholders I can’t even recall them all
Generally, the vast majority of his shareholders supported his decisions and his pay structure that will give him tens of billions of dollars if Tesla succeeds. It's the Wall Street investors that get upset at him and bears, of course. It's easy to make a case against his personality, but business wise, there are very few people who could do better.

>>11194032
>Elon flipping tables after CRS-7
While unprofessional I don't think it's a huge deal.
>The whole Pedo Guy incident
That was retarded.
>Thinking working his recent college grad employees to death is a good thing
That is how Mercury, Gemini and Apollo happened.
>Constant whining about other contractors disguised as “banter”
He successfully proved in court that corruption was costing him contracts.
>So many incidents of fucking with Tesla’s shareholders I can’t even recall them all
I only remember the prediction (that they exceeded) that the SEC didn't like.

>>11194062
>He successfully proved in court that corruption was costing him contracts.
Did anything else happen from that other than the government shrugging and saying "whelp, that's unfortunate"?

>>11194072
Supposedly airforce was forced to be more transparent but who knows.

>>11194062
>That was retarded.
Let me play devil's advocate. It was a natural reaction to having someone spit in his eye after pulling people off SpaceX projects in order to help try to save kids trapped in a cave. It was thrown in his face after the media latched onto a single comment a diver made despite the comment being erroneous, since the sub would have worked within the cave system. I would have been enraged as well. It's poor taste to make the dispute public but I see where he was coming from since he was right about the sub in the first place but wasn't given a fair shake.

He also received information he thought was valid from a private investigator that did state the diver was a pedo, which is why he doubled down on it. I supposed he learned his lessons because that was the last of his fuck ups, at least for now.

>>11194087
>lasts of his fuck ups
If musk is human, it ain't over yet. Humans make mistakes all their life, those mistakes are highlighted even more for higher stakes/risk investments.

>>11194087
>It was a natural reaction to having someone spit in his eye
Being upset and angry would be natural reaction. Accusing him of being a pedo was retarded. Someone like Elon has no excuse not to know he'd be leaving himself wide open to a strong libel case.

>He also received information he thought was valid from a private investigator that did state the diver was a pedo
Didn't that happen after he made the accusation? In any case that's 10x more retarded than the fact he called him a pedo in the first place.

I like Musk be he can be a fucking genuine idiot sometimes.

>>11194087
>been working for days to try to save the children
>not getting much sleep, incredibly stressful, little progress
>infrastructure completely overloaded, pumps barely able to hold the water level despite throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it
>just lost a friend you've been working with for years, drowned while trying to squeeze through a small passage
>got to drag his corpse out
>don't even know what to tell his wife and children, but no time to think about that since the kids in the cave may drown/asphyxiate at any point
>some random tech billionare shits over your efforts and says he'll just build a cave submarine like from fucking osmosis jones
>tell him to fuck off
yeah, what a faggot, how dare he insult musk

>>11194155
>some random tech billionaire shits over your efforts
I'll take "things that never happened" for $500 Alex.

>>11194155
He's not the divers. He's just an expat who happen to speak English.

>>11194114
>Didn't that happen after he made the accusation?
I don't know if that was confirmed or not but we do have to separate out his first comment, calling him a "pedo guy" with his later comments to Buzzfeed and saying "I bet you a signed dollar it is true", which were likely made after he was fed wrong information regarding the diver. The first comment, may not be libel anymore than if he called someone an idiot. It's distasteful and he should have known the media would have a field day with it, but I don't think it's libel. Usually there has to be malicious intent to defame someone's reputation and not just name calling. Seeing as the diver is no longer seeking any damages, he may not have much of a case. Much of the dispute around this was drummed up by Tesla bears but in reality, even if he loses a few million, that's nothing. It's like 1/10000th of his net worth and doesn't effect any of his companies. It's a nothingburger.

>>11194155
the guy musk called a pedo wasn't on the dive team, he was an advisor at best

>>11194176
I feel like a lot of the frustration was because they teams were working there day and night and some billionaire from across the world goes “lmao I can do this” and tries to help but has no idea of the situation. I’ve forgotten too much to remember which side started shitting on the other first but the pedo thing was definitely uncalled for - the fact that Elon hired a private investigator that fed him false info is just more hilarity into the mix

>>11194176
>>11194185
Oh well, thought it was a diver. Still, to do more than just think "fuck that guy" and move on is almost zucc tier autism

>>11194155
>>11194155
>been working for days to try to save the children
Wrong. He was one of the first people on site but he didn't do anything. It was John Volanthen and Rick Stanton discovered the boys and led the cave diving team. You don't know their names because the media allowed Vernon Unsworth to take all the credit. The water got so low because of the pumps, they just walked the kids out on a stretcher.
>infrastructure completely overloaded, pumps barely able to hold the water level despite throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it
The pumps worked as intended and actually saved the day.
>just lost a friend you've been working with for years
They literally did not know each other.
>got to drag his corpse out
That wasn't him. It was other members of the diving team he wasn't apart of.
>>some random tech billionare shits over your efforts and says he'll just build a cave submarine like from fucking osmosis jones
He already built the sub and they sent people into the cave before hand to make sure it would work. The sub would have worked well if the water levels didn't drop. It was designed to be like a stretcher with life support, which would have been better than gearing the kids up in wet suits and pulling them through the water.

>>11193883
>inb4 the methane fuel comes from gas released by all the poo

>>11194202
didn't it take like two weeks to get the kids out?

>>11194197
The fake pi was a fraud and he volunteered for the job, and support sequentially fired soon as musk found out he was a fraud.

Must might have just kept to bickering if not for the pi volunteering. But w/e the case, it was stupid if Musk to respond to a private citizen's diss, even on live tv.

>>11194211
Something like that, but I think the delay was because they wanted to pump the water out rather than try to take them diving through the whole cave system. They ended up pumping out more than a billion litres of water.

>>11193317
You can tell it's fake because they don't require previous experience

>>11194265
being a glorified oil rig worker and getting turned into a necromorph doesn't require prior experience

>>11194265
>Entry level job
>5 years of experience
>Masters degree preferred
>Pay is competitive
>Must be very flexible with work hours
>3.9 out of 4.0 GPA minimum
>Fluent in Mandarin both spoken and written
>Must be willing to travel and pay for own travel expenses
>Will be paid in exposure and experience
Am I missing anything?

While we are addressing the disinformation surrounding the cave incident, it should be mentioned that the leader of the dive team wanted Elon Musk, SpaceX, and Boring to continue working on the sub. They also had another company make a backup inflatable pod in case the sub didn't work. Also, The Thai government appreciated the effort.
>Richard Stanton, leader of the international rescue diving team, also urged Musk to continue construction of the mini-submarine as a back-up, in case flooding worsened
>The pods were designed, fabricated, and tested in one day before being flown to Thailand
>Elon Musk was later awarded a Member of the Order of the Direkgunabhorn by the King of Thailand in March 2019 for his and his team's contributions to the rescue mission.

>>11194265
>looking for a team of smart and dedicated people to crew the first manned Mars mission
>must have 5 years experience living on Mars

>>11194299
You forgot the PhD in Marsology.

>>11194284
>must provide own PPE
>no responsible for bodily harm and/or exposure to SVHCs and ionizing radiation
>bring your own food or make use of our companies program to buy onions red, green or yellow based rations below market value during your mission

>>11194284
Starting at $9.50 an hour.

>>11191880
>Not possible if they are that small and as far away as we are told.
Hmmm, if only there were tools available to the public designed for the specific purpose of tracking things too small or far away.

>>11194313
fuck /pol/, now it's impossible to reference a cult movie because they spammed the shit out of soч

>>11194333
>Blaming /pol/ instead censorship by staff members who try to subvert discussion on topics they don't agree with.

Absolutely reprehensible. Also, it was mostly /fit/ that sparked the soi meme.

>>11190426
Just wondering if there's any suggestions on the code. Haven't had a chance to show this to anyone else who would have the knowledge to improve it.

>>11193617
Money can be exchanged for goods and services.

>>11191502
Happy meal toys

>>11194566
Done

>>11193440
Yes, the erosion happens because you have ions travelling at several dozen km/s slamming into the parts, which deposits enough energy to melt and vaporize a tiny bit of the metal.

>>11193536
>why are the ariane 6 boosters so short anyways?
So that they can 'save money' on launches that only need 2 boosters.

>>11193682
>the SRBs produce 70% of the thrust.
Only for liftoff to T+ 2:00 or so, which is the point in flight where Isp matters least.
For the rest of the ~9 minute burn to orbit, the core stage will suffer from gravity losses with only 4 engines and a low TWR for pretty much the entire burn. Adding a fifth engine increases dry mass by reduced gravity losses to the point that, as >>11193722 mentioned, the performance gains would be significant. That payload to LEO increase also directly corresponds to an increased delta V to yeet the upper stage with even if it's only carrying a light payload, because as I mentioned, total core delta V goes down but the actually useful fraction of delta V goes up.

>>11193591
Not only that but it originally was designed to launch the Hermes Spaceplane. So naturally that drove up a lot of costs on the Ariane 5.

how the FUCK does anyone (bar Amazon) think they have an actual chance of having a commercially successful satellite constellation when going up against Space X?

Serious question. It seems ludicrous to even try.

>>11195102
Because launching satellites (the thing SpaceX has an edge in) is only a small part of operating a successful constellation. Go read up about the complex infrastructure and licensing issues constellations face...

>>11195413
No, they also have first movers advantage of literal years

>>11195458
What do you mean? Over Amazon and Telesat sure, but OneWeb have already launched 6 test satellites and their first production batch of 35 is scheduled to launch in January. So it’s not much of an advantage, especially when you consider the differing architectures.

>>11195477
Oneweb has 0% chance of competing

>>11195480
You're clearly not actually interested in hearing why others can compete.

>>11195480
Where’s your evidence for that? They’ve raised billions in fundraising and have numerous licensing deals with corporations, foreign nations and other service providers. SpaceX may have a lead when it comes to hardware deployment, but OneWeb are definitely ahead when it comes to regulatory issues. OneWeb is also using a less risky business strategy where they sell bandwidth as a third-party to other entities, whilst Starlink is more focused on the individual consumer directly buying the service. Don’t make bold assumptions about something you don’t understand, constellations are complicated and I barely understand some of the ins and outs...

>>11195505
>>11195510
One Web architecture I'd going to be already 3-5x+ more expensive. Lower volume + lack of vertical integration + lack of self run rocket + inefficient rocket (compared to SpaceX).

Plus there's licensing issues and their primary investor(softbank) might bail out due to financial pressures as they've lost a billion with of investment last year on oneweb alone.

also spacex is already in the pants of the military, where they're testing internet on C130's or whatever.

>>11195518
Forgot to point out Oneweb is currently sued by their licensee/investor for ownership issues.

>>11195522
That’s just Intelsat, OneWeb and SoftBank have moved to dismiss the lawsuit.

>>11195518
I’m pretty sure SoftBank aren’t going to bail, if their planning to invest another $500 million into OneWeb...

>>11195539
They've bailed out on weworks, so they can do it again.

>>11195542
WeWork was a disaster on an unparalleled scale, it’s more of an exception than a rule. SoftBank’s CEO lost $6 billion...

“Send out the gimp!”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVS99gcgWM&feature=emb_title

>>11195561

>>11195552
There's also Uber and doordash, which are quickly being seen as empty valuations. I don't think oneweb had a chance. Between Bezos' Kuiper and SpaceX's Starlink, the market will dry up in the US. SpaceX's first mover + Amazons' vast resources will kill smaller competitors.

>>11195572
Also there's no inherent/special advantage of oneweb over the spacex/amazon. That's the main issue.

>>11195572
>Between Bezos' Kuiper and SpaceX's Starlink, the market will dry up in the US. SpaceX's first mover + Amazons' vast resources will kill smaller competitors.

OneWeb seems to be aiming for a more global customer base though, instead of focusing primarily on the US like Starlink. I believe the 3 surviving constellations (if the math behind the business case for mega constellations is sound, which is a big if) will be OneWeb, Starlink and Kuiper. This because their strategies and customer bases differ enough so they don’t significantly overlap: OneWeb is primarily focused on corporations, service providers and foreign customers. Starlink seems to be primarily focused on the individual consumer and the continental US, with some additional interest from the US military. Kuiper is the one with the most solid business case IMO, as Amazon itself is a massive customer due to it’s need to beam data at high-speed for stuff like AWS, Kuiper enhances Amazon’s already booming business.

>>11194333
>>11194356
Testing this shit, I have been away from 4chan for awhile and if it's gone that far I'm out.
onions

>>11195595
>OneWeb seems to be aiming for a more global customer base though
Everyone is aiming for global base. SpaceX will just a good chunk of the US base.

>>11193833
poo in luna

>>11194333
newfriends can't sѹpost
>>11194356
also it was a /g/ mod getting anal aches that caused the filter to happen

>>11195595
Starlink is aiming minimum viable product at the Continental United States, but V.2 is aimed squarely at selling trans-atlantic and trans-pacific backbone

>>11195729
I guess /g/ is finally good for something then

V A P O R W A V E

>>11195729
Did someone say onions?

Nice blag by fellow redditor
https://gereshes.com/2019/12/02/main-branches-of-astrodynamcis/

New Thread:
>>11195851