/sci/ - Science & Math

FIRST FOR DEPOTS

you can do it

>>11715738
Based and refuel-pilled

Demo-2 tomorrow looking unlikely due to sea states

>built a Sputnik in 1970
>built a Soyuz in 2003
>built a Salyut in 2011
>working to build a Mir during the 2020s
What are they accomplishing here?

>>11715731
These suits look way cooler in concept than in person
>>11715750
Strange soft docking. Could you transfer crew through a soft dock or is it just for fuel

>>11715747
*deorbit

>>11715756
it's for internal propoganda purposes
>>11715731
marginal cost meaning per launch or production?

>>11715757
The Soviets used an inflatable airlock at least once.

Canada does alot in space for it's size. More countries should aspire to be like Canada.

>>11715775
Only enough room for 1 arm

>>11715757
>Strange soft docking. Could you transfer crew through a soft dock or is it just for fuel
The soft dock is for crew. A hard dock is for fuel.

>>11715785
Nice, I found that photo on wikipedia right before you answered. It’s really cool stuff. By any chance do you know when the first demonstration of orbital refueling is planned to take place? I know SpaceX has huge interest in it as well as NASA

>>11715827
Technically it took place years ago with Soyuz/Progress refilling the ISS with hypergolics.

But, the first big-scale demo will be next year with Starship. I’m confident in that.

>>11715827
room temperature hypergolic squeeze bag refueling: Soyuz/Progress refueling ISS and I think MIR
cryogenic ullage settling refueling: Starship next year

>>11715827
NASA had a fairly solid plan for involved space missions.

>I know SpaceX has huge interest in it as well as NASA
SpaceX will most likely start practicing orbital refueling within the year of SS+SH finally reaching orbit. NASA seems interested, but it's hard to tell if the interest is genuine or a planned excuse to farm grants.

>>11715871
Damn will starship be ready by then

>>11715874
it'll be ready when it's ready, and then they'll do the refueling tests
step two happens immediately after step one but there's no schedule

MARS WHEN?

How many people will be on the first crewed starship missions? They plan on sending 4 in town on their first manned mission to Mars, including 2 cargo and 2 crewed. Do they really plan on sending 100 per ship? Or even 50?
What will that look like logistically, with training and launch? We’ve only sent what, 4 people into space at a time at most? I’m not doubting SpaceX at all but I’m just wondering how they’re going to make that jump from launching Bobendoug to the ISS to only a few years later hurling a few dozen people in the same vehicle all at once, just a few years later

>>11715925
Seven at a time on Shuttle

>>11715925
I’d think they wouldn’t send 100 people for the first scientific expeditions. That’s a colonization load.

>>11715756
>>11715762
>"OI, we can space too, china numba one, hoi hoi hoi hoi"
TL;DR: Entire history of the Chinese space program.

>>11715937
>>11715957
So how many are we looking at? 5-10 per ship?

>>11715925
50-100 is a ways out.

I think at this point a crewed landing in 2026 is possible but challenging 2024 feels way harder to achieve now.

WHENS LUNCH?

>>11715967
In about 15 hours

>>11715963
I'm thinking twenty but it could be more

>>11715963
I’m guessing twenty but I may be entirely wrong. It’s basically still conjecture.

>The Atlantic writes an entire article to say "don't use manned use crewed"

>>11715985
I Hope Jim says manned on purpose tomorrow.

>>11715985
But there aren't any womyn in the crew?

>>11715985
Imagine caring about so little and being deprived of struggle to such a degree that you complain about terminology.

>>11715985
when are we getting the first ma'amed flight

>>11715985
Meanwhile they just laid off 20% of their staff, so clearly this tripe isn't attracting an audience.

>>11715993
You're assuming their gender.

>>11715999 (checked)
To be fair, nearly every company is laying off people due to the economy getting wrecked by the quarantine.

>>11715967
16 bongs, 32 bings.
I tried to post the launch thread as soon to t-24hr on the dot as possible, but the captcha reset on me right before hitting post. Darn!

>>11715967
20:33 UTC

>>11716007
I feel like it will hit bump limit well before launch
>inb4 sticky

Why hasn't ESA developed it's own capsule?

>>11716022
The French are to blame, somehow, id imagine

>>11716022
because ESA doesn't give a shit about having their own capsule and are perfectly happy to buy rides on US and Russian capsules

>>11716022
They did, but abandoned it when Soyuz seats were sold for much cheaper price per-seat than the European alternative.

>>11716022
I don't think manned spaceflight is a priority for them outside of ISS visits, they barely are able to put together a service module for SLS

>>11716022
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automated_Transfer_Vehicle
Man rated but never used for crew

>>11716036
because it's only upmass, not downmass

>>11716041
"In November 2008, ESA ministers budgeted for a feasibility study into developing a re-entry capsule for the ATV, a requirement for developing either a cargo return capacity or a crew version of the ATV.[90] On 7 July 2009, the ESA signed a €21 million study contract with EADS Astrium.[91][92] The ARV effort was ultimately discontinued after completing the B1 stage due to fiscal constraints resulting from the Late-2000s financial crisis.[93]"

Thanks, Obama.

>>11715731
>marginal cost of Falcon 9 is $15 million
CHRIST that's cheap. If he had said back when they were building the first F9s that he wanted to eventually crank them out for $15 million a pop, people would have laughed at him.

>>11716057
I believe they have also said that the cost of filling a F9 up with 60 Starlink satellites is less than the cost of flying the satellites in the first place

>>11716058
It had better be if they want it to scale up to Starship cadence for the full constellation.

>>11716057
This is for a brand new rocket, right?

Jesus, $50 mil for a reused booster flight means SpaceX has to be getting some fat margins out of it.

>>11716070
no, I think that's reused everything

>>11715731

So with all of this alleged progress in physics and the faggots on /sci/ and in academia sniffing their own farts, why is space flight still conducted via archaic technology from the 13th century?

Why haven't you brainlets with your string theory bullshit and total lack of understanding of the mechanisms of gravity and even inertia developed anything better?

>>11716076
2nd stage, yo. They have to make those fresh every flight.

>>11716077
stfu nigger, that's just how it works
that's just how everything works

>>11716077
>Why haven't you brainlets with your string theory bullshit and total lack of understanding of the mechanisms of gravity and even inertia developed anything better?
Why haven't you? The "archaic technology from the 13th century" works well enough for space travel in the same way a bucket ,archaic technology from prehistory, is good enough to hold water.

>>11716077
Noticed that we're still burning hydrocarbons in combustion engines for cars?
Go be retarded elsewhere.

>>11716070
Everything Elon does is about diverting more money to Mars colonization.

>>11716087

The combustion engine is actually a much more recent piece of technology that rocketry, which literally was developed by accident by some retarded Chink mystics looking for an elixir for immortality.

>>11715750
an orbital refueling depot would be the biggest thing for space exploration. My only qualm is that fuel should be manifactured on the moon from the h20 present their and ship to near earth orbit.

>>11716086
>Why haven't you?

I could barely get through Calculus I. Why haven't the faggots with PhDs in math and physics made any progress since the 1970s?

>>11716092
>that rocketry, which literally was developed by accident by some retarded Chink mystics looking for an elixir for immortality.
The rocketry the ancient Chinese used is much different than the rocketry which carried men to the moon. You're over simplifying things.

>>11716092
The rocket engine of today is a tad more complicated than the "engine" you're referring to.

>>11715832
thats not exactly a fuel depot thats just sitting in space.

>>11716100
Besides computers, technology has been stagnant since about 1974

>>11715992
god i hope so too, fuck these PC sjw mofos

>>11715985
people are really really petty about language now.

>>11716100
>Why haven't the faggots with PhDs in math and physics made any progress since the 1970s?
1. Because I wasn't born back then, I can only do things now.
2. Things have advanced since then, new fuels, new manufacturing techniques, new engine cycles, but...
3. They're probably not as advanced as you wished for because space flight was effectively sent into a dark age after Apollo
Read some more.

>>11716076
No, the second stage isn’t reused. Only the booster is.

>>11715964
>>11715963
>>11715957
>>11715925
People again ignore the fact that even if starship works perfectly there is zero equipment made for a Mars trip. No hab, no water equipment, no air filtration, no fuel production, no concrete production. Hell Musk himself said you would need an entire starship loaded with solar panels to power fuel production. 2040 maybe, not 2020's.

>>11716105
I don't understand this retarded take doomer teenagers parrot. It's a special kind of myopic, suburban insulation that will lead someone living through the greatest boom in technological advancement the human race has ever seen to think "technology has been stagnant since about 1974". It really is impressive that not just one, but many people unironically repeat this garbage take.

>>11716100
we've made a lot of advances in materials and modeling since the 70s, but it's still the same basic principles but understood better
>>11716114
Yes, "everything" in this case is first stage and fairings

>>11716116
>No hab
Use the Starships lmao.
>no water equipment
With the right LZ you just dig chunks of ice out of the ground and melt them.
>no air filtration
"plants"
>no fuel production
Sabatier process, SpaceX is looking at developing that on Earth.
>Hell Musk himself said you would need an entire starship loaded with solar panels to power fuel production
That's not a problem given how many Starships will be made, although I still think at some point he's going to need to convince FAA, DOE, and DOD to let him put nuclear reactors on Mars-bound ships so there's power available during dust storsms.

>>11716116
>it takes twenty years to buy that shit
nigger

>>11716116
If we're lucky, we're going to see a lot of shit get sent up in the 2030s with maybe a small scientific station in the mid to late 2030s. Large scale? 2040? 2050s? I doubt I'll be around for it.
May as well ship cunts like me who are in their mid 40s+ and have little to live for here to build the shit to be honest.

>>11716090
sigh im gonna cry in advance when biden wins and guts space force and the artemis accords to say fuck you cuz orange man bad.
Everyone knows its coming.

>>11716127
shut the fuck up you fucking retard, it doesn't take twenty years to take known technology and make something useful
any timeline longer than about five years is literally just daydreams

>>11716130
ok retard

>>11716112

Apollo has nothing to do with anything.

I'm talking about new physics-based propulsion systems that have been theorized but not even remotely investigated in practice.

Things like the Alcubierre drive, shit, even nuclear powered rockets have been built and tested in the 1960s..

>>11716131
I don't think you understand the glacial pace at which this shit moves at. How about you stick around for a couple more years and find out, kid?

>>11716105
Additive manufacturing, high density electrical storage, hypersonic flight, and certainly a number of other technologies have all seen significant developments in recent years. In many ways, the technological explosion of the 20th century was largely the result of applying the scientific advancements of the 19th, which saw a lot of obvious solutions to problems arise. Now that the easy stuff is well understood, development in most fields is slower and more iterative, but it’s not accurate to call it stagnant.

>>11716116
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2018/08/update-on-that.html
In August 2018 Bechtel Corporation, Caterpillar Inc, Schlumberger, and other companies had a secret meeting with SpaceX to discuss mars developments.
There will be hardware.

>>11716130
>he doesn't know spacex is literally thanks to Obama pushing commercialization of space

>>11716116
>there is zero equipment made for a Mars trip.
lol you can't be serious

>>11715992
Same, Jim is a god I believe he will

Virgin released a video about their first flight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNJib8lJY1E

>>11716133
because it's all fusion shit that's little more than napkin scribbles at this point or tinfoil hat hoaxes
chemical rockets work
>>11716134
no, you're thinking of the last 50 years of oldspace swamp, where it's been nothing but "we'll do something interesting in twenty years" daydreams and no real plans until they roped an international group into making Space Station Freedom

>>11716150
Wait and watch, kid. Everything drops into the swamp.

>>11716136
Thanks, I forgot about this
>>11716151
okay, enjoy your pessimism

>>11716150
>because it's all fusion shit that's little more than napkin scribbles at this point or tinfoil hat hoaxes

False.

>>11716160
ah yeah, right
Nuclear fission stuff, which is either politically unfeasable or also so destructive that it's impossible to use for anything but interstellar missions

>>11716150
We've built fission rockets anon,in the '60s. They had double the ISP of chemical rockets back then and we could probably build them lighter and more powerful now.

Fusion is not that far behind if the current efforts of the uni of washington and MIT are taken into account. An SFS Z-Pinch fusion rocket is completely possible within 20 years or less, or something using a small HTS tokamak.

>>11716160
Nerva was fission-based.

>>11716167

And?

>>11716116
>People again ignore the fact that even if starship works perfectly there is zero equipment made for a Mars trip

Make it lol
Not that difficult.

> Hell Musk himself said you would need an entire starship loaded with solar panels to power fuel production.

Solar panels are a very well understood and mature technology. Not a serious development cost

> 2040 maybe, not 2020's.

Nah 2020s

>>11716130
That shambling senile corpse is not going to win the election. Trump isn't very eloquent or well-spoken, and he tends to ramble, but on a debate stage with Joseph "Corn Pop" Biden, he'll slaughter. It's going to be physically painful to watch- nobody should put a man with Alzheimer's through that kind of situation.

>>11716134
>I don’t think you understand the glacial pace NASA moves at

Lol

>>11716166
fusion has been "completely possible within 20 years or less" for the last 60 years

>>11716166
Yeah, fusion designs are going to be great when they happen but I'm not going to hold my breath. Just going to be a heavy, expensive and complicated ion engine.

>>11716138
ummm no...
reagon was for commercializing space long before obama. Trump is trying to accelerate this, dude even dumb joked about wanting to put a trump hotel on the moon, but you know he was side eyeing that bitch.

>>11716197
reagan didn't do fucking shit though, the Obama admin was the one that canned constellation and forced NASA to go the private route

>>11716180
It took more time than expected in large part because of a lack of funding and an unfortunate shift to tokamaks in most serious research. Had fusion not fallen into a sad rabbit hole of strained budgets and an obsessive focus on the tokamak, it could have no doubt reached break even a few decades ago. MHD instabilities were a bitch. The tokamak is only now truly viable that effective HTS tape can be created-the SFS Z-Pinch has been viable for decades, due to its complete lack of superconductors of any kind. It fills me with a grim sadness that had the initial Z-pinch experiments carried on playing with the concept for a few more years instead of chasing after tokamak or stellarator designs,we would have had this thing many years ago....

>>11716147
Lol who fucking cares

>>11716203
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html

sure buddy

>>11716180
>>11716183

Not even fusion propulsion will get us even close to the speed of light.

We need new physics based propulsion systems that will attain or exceed the speed of light to cover any meaningful distances.

>>11716215
>exceed the speed of light
Good luck with that.

>>11716215
>exceed the speed of light
yeah that's fake news, reality just doesn't support such dreams

>>11716007
>16 bongs, 32 bings.
And how many boeings?

>>11716225
none, the boeings mixed up their bings and bongs

Why doesn't NASA buy a bunch of FHeavy launches and build a moon transfer vehicle and lander in earth orbit?

One launch sends a lander with science payloads.

One launch to get modified second stage with extra large tanks into orbit.

One launch to get the human lander docked to the moon rocket.

Last launch for a Dragon2 with an enhanced service module to dock to the rocket with the lander.

Then they go to the moon. The oversized second stage is jettisoned and flung towards the sun. The dragon2 and enhanced service module stays in orbit. All astronauts land on the moon. They do their science shit. Then the lander takes them back to the Dragon2.

>>11716215
>Not even fusion propulsion will get us even close to the speed of light.

0.2c is sufficient for interstellar travel and fusion engines are capable of hitting that.

>>11716214
>The head of the Nasa has said Barack Obama told him to make "reaching out to the Muslim world" one of the space agency's top priorities.
What the actual fuck? That has to be a quote taken out of context.

>>11716219
>yeah that's fake news, reality just doesn't support such dreams

Okay doomer.

>>11716228
heheheheheh

>>11716231
read the article you idiot, it was some throwaway PR thing. the main thrust of it is that Obama shitcanned cuntstellation

>>11716231
What’s bad about that? Lots of money in the Arabian peninsula

>>11716057
Where are you getting that info from my dude?

>>11716229
Mostly because SLS contractors are spread across too many Congressional districts.

>>11716238
Obama had a Muslim convert running the CIA. He was dead serious about it.

>>11716230
We'll need to use jupiter or Saturn as a fueling station. To get the sufficient hydrogen reaction mass needed.

>>11716244
most recent Elon Musk interview

>>11715906
fixed (^:

>>11716248
What are you pushing, Earth?
No, all you need is water from comets and icy moons to split to get all the hydrogen you need. Besides, by the time it would make sense to harvest gasses from any of the giant planets, we'd be starting off with Uranus and Neptune, because they're much easier to extract from.

>>11716248
Thats centuries away. We’ll just teleport through subspace by then.

>>11716228
kek

>>11716244
Do you suffer from brain damage?

>>11716229
Because NASA is contracting SpaceX to develop a lunar variant of Starship instead.

>>11716260
CEASE

>>11715731
scrubbing intensifies

>>11716275
Yes. I was just expecting a link or something. I'm not really keeping up enough with interviews and stuff.
>>11716254
Thanks, I'm gonna look that up.

Is it possible to replace sugar in rocket candy with some kind of rubber based glue and have the mixture still work as a solid propellant?

>>11716299
I recommend margarine, unsalted. Also melt it and resolidify it to get rid of the water content.

>>11716260
Based

>>11715756
Russia's last five consecutive interplanetary probe attempts were failures. They had back to back Soyuz issues. Great works about half the time. Cargo dragons large breathing hatch can pass a modular equipment rack and return it to ground which Soyuz and progress can't do. The wheels have been coming off the Russian program for years. With only Soyuz for ISS access it turns the station into a single point of failure operation with loss of access if Soyuz were grounded which isn't too unlikely in the future considering the present state of the Russian program.

>>11716358
Fregat, not great, fookin spellcheck.

>>11716358
Birthing hatch, fuck.

>>11716365
berth

>>11716365
>Birthing hatch, fuck.
Lewd.

>>11716365
DRAGON
CLOACA

>>11716365
So that't where new dragons come from

>>11716365
>Elon's Musk

>>11716365
Is Dragon a monotreme?

>>11716434
Dragons are fire breathing egg layers.

>>11716246
once musk gets starlink up and running, NASA and congress can kiss his ass. He literally wont need them anymore. SLS will be abandoned as musk likely pumps all this NOI into lunar and mars bases essentially becoming peter weyland.

>>11716392
>>11716434

>>11716469
Watch a Democrat majority federal government try to nationalize starlink.

>>11716472
The US government doesn’t nationalize things. No idea what sort of communist country you’re from

>>11716481
Well, not yet anyways.

>>11716481
They nationalized the railroads during ww2. Plus municipal fiber services are gaining popularity, and some Democrats keep harping about rural broadband.

Starlink works as hyped, and prints money. The BernieDems will see it as an easy target. Free Gov't internet. That also let's them have direct access to your web browsing history. Which if you haven't noticed. The government is trying to get warrantless access to you internet history.

>>11716472
imagine going back in time and telling JFK, yeah bud by 2020 your party is going to be trying to shut down man going to space.

KYS all phoneposters

>>11716523
>Nooooo stop using an incredibly common piece of technology to use the Internet

>>11716481
>>11716495

The US gov doesn't need to nationalize things as long as they work and make money because they already have close ties with the important business for strategic interests. Google, facebook, amazon etc and the silicon valley in general cooperate closely with the intelligence community, Starlink will be subject to the same treatment when it's up and running because they will have data to share.

Your internet history is basically already accessible if you don't take the appropriate measures. Berniedems will never win because the other dems would prefer a guy like Trump 100% of the time and the bipartisan system is locked toward the preservation of the status quo and the interests of the ruling class. And even if they were elected the radical democrats would just struggle to make college and healthcare free during 4 years before being outed after ending with a half assed result and they would encounter too much resistance doing anything like a nationalization of a well working space business

>>11716523
> KYS all phoneposters

if youre not typing this from a dialup 14.4kbps modem on an intel 386 with matching crt monitor youre a poser

This is just day dreaming right?
The whole starship thing?
I so want it to work but deep inside me I feel like I know its not happening

>>11716540
okay its bud, maybe the real space program was all the friends we made along the way

>>11716534
>The US gov doesn't need to nationalize things as long as they work and make money because they already have close ties with the important business for strategic interests. Google, facebook, amazon etc and the silicon valley in general cooperate closely with the intelligence community, Starlink will be subject to the same treatment when it's up and running because they will have data to share
This. On top of that, The Army is already contracting for bandwidth on Starlink and the Air Force has used the existing Starlink satellites to test new datalink systems in live fire exercises. I give it 5 years before they contract Musk to use the same efficient production and launch methods to make Brilliant Pebbles and affordable reality.

>>11716540
there's hardware in Texas
if it's a daydream, it's one that Elon's spending probably low double digit millions on right now

>>11716549
I'm not worried about the structures, but aerodynamics/flight control isn't that easy as it appears.

>>11716540
Kys doomer schizo lol

>>11716553
Yes it is. We know how to fly rockets by now.

>>11716553
Neither is propulsive landing and recovery of Falcon 9s but here we are.

>>11716546
>>11716546
honestly im worried about space force. We all damn well know anything the military touches, technology gets accelerated ten fold. we literally went from biwing planes to jet fighters in the span of 10 to 20 years thanks to the miitary.

>>11716553
it's literally the shit skydivers have been doing for a hundred years now, and they can afford to burn more than a few prototypes in the atmosphere above Texas getting it right

>>11716558
>thanks to the miitary
Thanks to ongoing world wars. There are no ongoing world wars.

>>11716558
that sort of stuff is in the past, all they know how to do nowadays is throw massive amounts of money at it and people caught on that they can just suckle on that teat
luckily, wealthy industrialists who just want to change the world still exist
wish they'd unshackle Tory Bruno so he can join Elon in the race

>>11716556
>>11716557
Not worried about superheavy, but starship.
Reentry and landing of lifting body from orbit very different from landing suborbital falcon 9.
So much variability in the coefficients and CFD doesn't get it right.
I def want it to happen but don't see it happening this year.

>>11716540
Its happening alright. Consider it done.

>>11716564
>skydiver

Sky divers don't do Mach 25.
Shit's crazily coupled in some Mach regimes, you want to roll right? You have to yaw left first.
And they've been changing the aero every 6 months, means they haven't quite figured it out.
Wish they would fly subscale starship models on falcon and do some reentry tests rn.

>>11716578
They'll probably just do full-up reentry tests

>>11716578
>Wish they would fly subscale starship models on falcon and do some reentry tests rn.
Why do that when starship is cheaper than stage 2 of F9 alone?

>>11716568
>>11716568
technically speaking, what if musk or some mad rich billionaire built a completely self sufficient base on the moon or some other planet and then said fuck you guys im not coming back to earth...what if anything could earth do except bitch about it.

I mean once this space shit opens up, you know there are going to be some crazy cults on other bodies. Youll probably have an orbiting station off the coast of saturns rinks inhabited by cult monks who worship saturn and there is literally nothing anyone can do about it because space is so god damn huge.

>>11716589
Who cares what they do as long as they’re not attacking anyone else?

>>11716589
>technically speaking, what if musk or some mad rich billionaire built a completely self sufficient base on the moon or some other plane
That would be less a base and more of a country. Everything from farms to pharmaceuticals to cutting edge microprocessor fabrication happening off world will take centuries, I suspect.

>>11716590
yeah but you cant do that shit on earth unless you want to get waco'd

>>11716589
>could earth do except bitch about it
They can launch a nuke at him.

>>11716592
why would you need a microprocessor fabrication in a space base station?

>>11716592
>It’ll take centuries even though you could establish small-scale industry in one Starship launch

>>11716598
Spacecraft, space stations, satellites, factories, hospitals, etc. need computer parts. If you can't provide them on your own from raw silicon, you're not self sufficient. Even farming is going to be much more efficient if you can automate.

>>11716599
>even though you could establish small-scale industry in one Starship launch
Per day for a year, maybe.

>>11716610
>If you can't provide them on your own from raw silicon, you're not self sufficient.

Silicon is some of the most common shit in the universe.

>>11716610
yeah its called bringing backups. but i doubt off worlding microchips will take centuries

Shit I'm nervous bros

>>11716615
Nanometer scale semiconductor fabs not so much.

>>11716618
>"lol just bring backups"
Again, that implies external dependence. So long as Earth is required for any critical good, nothing in space is self sufficient. That's the cutoff that will take centuries. Local industry and farming will start right away once crewed ships arrive on Mars, but it's a long, long way from there to self sufficiency.

>>11716590
The IRS would care.

>>11716634
>The IRS cares about non-US citizens doing things beyond the US

No

>>11716639
>American billionaire creates a moon base using the assets and personnel from his American company
>decides he’s now an independent national entity and no longer has to pay taxes
>the United States government is okay with this
“No”

First they changed "manned" to crew.
Now they don't want to use the term "maiden" launch.
Why are journalists redefining English?
https://twitter.com/Free_Space/status/1265388390553436160

>>11716116
More importantly, I'm pretty sure once the ol' Muskey will start seriously preparing to send people to Mars gov't will invent some overly cautious regulations because "hurr ebil capitalist cant be sending people to their death durr" that will delay things for another decade

>govt: send starship to Mars and return it successfully 100 times in different windows
>Elon: no problem *sends all 100 in one go*
>govt: nooo you can't do that reeee

>>11716652
yeah but what would the US government do. waste 200million dollars just to send him a message?

>>11716658
They're called the enemy of the people for a reason.

>>11716664
The US government probably spends $200 million a year on toilet paper. They absolutely would drop a rock on a colony that tried to rebel.

>>11716658
“A ship is always referred to as ‘she’ because it costs so much to keep one in paint and powder.”

I can't believe SpaceX are using drywall as their reentry insulation for Starship

>>11715731
A question for SFG, who the hell will end up crewing all the starships? How will they be recruited, what will the qualifications be (obviously any and all answers would be speculation).

>>11716652
>leave behind a few cargo starships filled with gravel in retrograde orbits
>try to pull something and they open hatches
>you want access to space at all?
>"No"

>>11716684
Presumably a less picky version of NASA’s astronaut selection criteria (due to heavily increased personnel requirements). Science personnel would probably be provided by NASA or whatever other customers want scientists on Mars, but the main crew would likely see lots of former military pilots with a focus on test flight experience and advanced degrees in engineering.

>>11716684
its 2020 and we live in a world now were saying crewed instead of THE FUCKING OBVIOUS MANNED is now a thing.
based on this information i presented above who the fuck to you think with be recruited?
its probably going to be all colored homos and trannys who have a degree in gender intersection theory

>>11716696
they need boots who can turn wrenches, not fighter jocks and nerds

>>11716684
>>11716696
Do the crew even need to do anything, aren't they technically passenger?
Isn't this thing automated like Ariane?

>>11716706
youre going to need people who at least know how to fix shit incase shit goes sideways.
so likely people expertise in electronics, computing, chemicals engineering and physics.

>>11716684
Astronauts, engineers, scientists, preferably people with military background I would guess, at first they will be Americans but then other nations implicated with space may send people. This kind of project will set a precedent for outer space international law and politics so depending on the US policies it will be in the second phase either a big majority of Americans with an operation shadowed by the government or either a multinational crew with many states cooperating to oversee this. I'd prefer the latter, I don't see the thing as a free capitalist venture happening there's too much power and critical technologies at stake.

>>11716652
>“No”

Yes. Your assets are no longer subject to US taxes if they’re not on US soil and you aren’t a US citizen. I wouldn’t keep paying taxes to the US government if I moved to fucking Italy.

>>11716663
The Greens will bitch about the carbon footprint. Then try to tax away all "non essential" launches.

>>11716707
There is never a crew present when satellites get placed in orbit. I don't think you are giving the advances in technology the credibility it deserves.
All this rocket is for,is the delivery of personal to the ISS and bring them back again. They've relapsed the satellite with a pod that hold passengers. Its not like NASA will be able to use this to carry out maintenance on hubble.

>>11716701
I use manned to refer to the entire starship's population. I use crew to refer to the ones controlling it.
>its probably going to be all colored homos and trannys who have a degree in gender intersection theory
Nah, not with SpaceX.

Good morning everyone

>>11716701
>its probably going to be all colored homos and trannys who have a degree in gender intersection theory

Please stop watching YouTube

>>11716696
>>11716707
So what should I do if I want to have a shot at operating one of these things in the future?

>>11716720
The us government can tax their citizens working abroad for foreign companies.

People aren't allowed to be stateless by international conventions. So you have to be a citizen of somewhere. A country is only a country if other countries recognize it.

Musk goes to New Cape Tow and tells America to fuck off. The USA refuses to acknowledge the nation as one. Continues to treat musk and his earthly assets as american.

>>11716739
>People aren't allowed to be stateless by international conventions. So you have to be a citizen of somewhere. A country is only a country if other countries recognize it.
Technically, but there are lots of stateless people, especially in Southeast Asia.

>>11716739
>People aren't allowed to be stateless by international conventions. So you have to be a citizen of somewhere.

Monaco can into space

>>11716731
>It is delay day*
ftfy

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/05/26/op-ed-the-nasa-bargain-behind-spacex-launch-demo-2.html

>>11716750
quiet fool, you'll jinx it

>>11716495
>trying to get
The only internet history of yours mine and everyone else here they don't have is the stuff you looked up on a used laptop you paid cash for, used at a location not tied to you and avoided your normal browsing habits, and also stuff before 1995 or so. Also China, Russia, and anyone else who really felt like it has all that stuff too, since the shadow broker guys didn't get their 100,000 bitcoins or whatever.

Is there an updated weather forecast yet?

>>11716180
hasn't helped that it received a pittance of the funding it needed

>>11716802
Funny how the funding curves for pretty much every retarded sci fi fantasy tech that never had a chance at working looks exactly the same. People tend to give up burning their money after even the most fanatically retarded retards come to the sad realization that their fantasies were just that - fantasies.

>>11716802
That graph doesn't account for the money we convinced Russia they should spend while our embedded spies funneled their results back to us.

>>11716807
Kys doomer

Was that SpaceX documentary worth watching?

dubs and it blows up

>>11716826
you're a terrible person and you deserve the luck you clearly have

>>11716826
not today

Guys, it's just falcon 9 launch, we had tons of them before, it's not like this one has more chances to fail because there are human on board.

>>11716837
It's an unproven F9

If chips can fly rockets so can man.

>>11716807
Watch this and be amazed at your own retardation:

https://youtu.be/L0KuAx1COEk

He even talks about ITER being retarded because of the grant money requiring a frozen design literally a year before mass production of the materials required for it to be a meaningful machine came to market. And then he proposed a much less retarded design that can be built with said materials.

>>11716852
take your meds schizo

>>11716739

>>11716870
Hey I remember posting that video to /sci/ for the first time lol. Good shit

>>11716706
>automated
because anything that is automated is inherently perfect
>>11716724
>There is never a crew present when satellites get placed in orbit.
Getting to orbit is one of the easiest things to automate, it's all knowing where you are and how you control the thrusters.
Trying to lay out a bunch of solar panels on Mars to power a Sabatier process, and then getting the result into a tank, with nobody there to assemble your shit properly, and way too long of a comms delay to just use a telepresence robot, that's hard.
>>11716845
>unproven
That's NASA's problem for requiring a brand new rocket (and capsule) for every launch.

>>11716837
Think of it this way: we get to see an actual manned abort.

>>11716116
You think the Starships will be just to look pretty on the surface?

>>11716826
Dubs and weather will cockblock it

>>11716826
Quads and Boing goes bankrupt

>>11716701
I would have maybe used crewed if it weren't pushed by nolifes at NASA et al, so now I just use manned.

Everyone ITT *is* going to see this when it comes out, right?

Dubs and the sniper bullet goes through the rocket without damaging anything important

>>11717161
What is the movie even going to be about? It's not like there's much you can do in the ISS besides science experiments

>>11717106
rolling

>>11717168
alien: isolation
except it's scientologists

uh oh...

>>11717187
>Regarding Demo-2, there will be a meeting this morning at around 10am ET to discuss weather off the Florida coast. Big concern is rain and seas if an emergency abort is required shortly after launch. With a tropical storm likely forming off South Carolina, prognosis is not good.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1265610263828598784

>>11717168

Could probably do a regular movie with vfx for 98% of the film and insert a few real space scenes as a marketing/go to space ticket for cruise gimmick.

>>11717187
Knew it, launch date will probably be moved to the weekend

get it together shitlords

>>11717208
Apollo 13 did just fine with Vomit Comet time for the weightless scenes. This really sounds like "it's in space because we can!"

>>11717238
>This really sounds like "it's in space because we can!"
Yes.

>>11717236
I did not know all the 5 space journalists I followed were SJWs

>>11717238
Vomit Comet requires you getting slammed against the side of an airplane for hours. Cruise is getting old, does he really want to endure that?

>>11717187
AAAAAA
fucking weather

>>11717241
Nearly all of them are left leaning. We need some right wing space journalists.

>>11717249
Anybody right wing isn't smart enough to that though.

>8:41 EST
>45th hasn't even done an updated forecast yet
Yeah, prepare for scrub

>>11716215
Being able to produce antimatter efficiently enough would easily get us to some ridiculous speeds and break free of the rocket equations tyranny.

>>11717258
Are you retarded?

>>11717359
I'm not right wing, so no.

>>11717364
Tell me exactly why being a leftist automatically makes you smarter?

>>11717356
Antimatter takes energy to produce, it's not like something you dig out of the ground. It's an energy storage, not a source.
The only advantage it has is that the extreme amount of energy required to produce it becomes a very small amount of matter. But it will also blow up with almost anything, so good luck keeping it bottled up.
It's a meme.

>>11717364
>>11717258
Cool I haven't realized if you don't support trannies and "white man evil", you aren't smart enough for spaceflight. Maybe you should look up who Wernher von Braun was.

>>11717249
There's no major interest in such things among the right wing.

can nonwhites fuck off from these threads. Its a white mans day.

>>11717364
based

>>11716845
By that logic, every rocket used prior was unproven.

>>11717384
Where did I say bottle it up? You produce it in space and use it straight away by magnetically accelerating the charged particles produced. My comment specifically says getting more efficient at producing it. Even at 0.0001% efficiency it would be an incredibly viable propulsion method.

It's the densest fuel possible completely negating the rocket equation. 100kg of noble gas could get you too Alpha Centuri.

Energy isn't hard to come by in space, we can solve that easily, hauling around a shitload of mass is the problem.

>>11717405
I don't see why there wouldn't be. I see more lefties opposing space travel because "HURR DURR WE CANT DO SPACE TRAVEL BECAUSE AFRICAN CHILDREN ARE STARVING"

>>11717410
>You produce it in space
From what? It's not magic, it takes a lot of energy to make antimatter, because you're doing E=MC^2 in reverse.

>>11716671
Rockets are definitely phallic though.

>>11716684
Depends on the mission.

>>11717418
>I don't see why there wouldn't be.
Doesn't really intersect with the pressing issues that right wing groups form themselves around. The socialization process for space journalists skews leftward, and the types of organizations with a dedicated space branch also skew leftward. Then the sort of person who would produce content with a right focus would be unlikely to try to make their way in those spaces.
> I see more lefties opposing space travel
The rightwing equivalent to that would be "why is the GOVERNMENT wasting money in this impractical area?"
NASA enjoys strong bipartisan Congressional support, but very little of that support comes from intrinsic interest in space.

>>11716684
Alyssa Carson
her

>>11717491
I could see why there would be few journalists with a right wing bent when it comes to space (especially considering there are few right wing journalists in the first place), but I don't see why right wingers wouldn't be interested in space in the first place.

>>11717496
>Alyssa Carson
Her ears are adapted to space, she can move in zero gravity flapping them.

>>11716701
I wonder how feminists who speak romance languages deal with the fact that every single word in their language is gendered

>>11717513
I don't even think she's got a STEM degree. Are those space camp things a real way to be astronaut ?

>>11717527
No

>>11717519
Its like watching a contortionist

>>11717527
>Are those space camp things a real way to be astronaut ?
Her astronaut training only cost $3,500 so I doubt it...

>>11717536
>>11717532

But she's pushed as the first human on mars ?
It's PR fake nooz or nepotism and PR stunt ?

Possible Rocket Lab employee in the Demo-2 thread, but I don't think they have Froyo so I don't know how to confirm it.
>>11717298

>>11717519
Honestly in English you can just switch words to neuter an appellation in order to mean it concerns men and women, it's rather easy and it should be uncontroversial imho. Space travel today is not like ocean shipping from the past where the crews were overwhelmingly masculine so it also kind of make sense to change manned to crewed. I speak french and let me tell you everything is gendered from the pronouns to the conjugation of the verbs, so the feminist thing for neutering the language is to add an "e" most of the time with parenthesis to create neologisms, I get the language is a living thing but this is forced and really not pretty, sometimes I wish we had a third gender like in German so we wouldn't have this.

>>11715731
SFG/ STATUS...GO

>>11717519
language gender != gender gender

In linguistics, gender is just another term for category.

Shotwell says they’ve hired 900 in the past 6mo

>NASA defunded
>spaceflight funded by the US government put in the hands of a narcissistic billionaire rather than for the benefit of the general public
I am excite but we really do live in the worst timeline.

>>11717687
Do we have infos on their background ?

>>11717679
and "man" as in "mankind" isn't gendered, but that doesn't stop them from complaining about it

Shotwell interview... “hopefully we don’t have to hire a million people running around in little white vans fixing or installing (Starlink) user terminals)”

>>11717690
>NASA defunded
When did this recently happen?
> for the benefit of the general public
When did that ever happen, especially for crewed spaceflight?

>>11717690
As opposed to narcissistic politicians.
Crazy billionaires aren't subjected to the election cycle and the endless need to erase the previous guy's legacy. At least billionaires, while not capable of multi generational projects, can at least have lifelong projects, which are much better than what you can get from a government nowadays.

>>11717690
There's no way NASA is going to be defunded. It's too popular.

>>11717690
Putting something in public hands is the best way to ensure something is done as slowly, inefficiently, and expensively as possible. Get over it.

>>11717690
You should do some reading https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170008895.pdf

IF YOU LISTEN CAREFULLY, YOU CAN HEAR THE MASSIVE CRYING FROM EVERY BOEING EMPLOYEE, SPECIALLY THEIR C E O.


BOEING BTFO.
RUSSIANS BTFO AND SEETHING.
CHINESE COPYING THE TECH.
NASA MONEY ROLLING OUT.
CONTRACTORS ACCUMULATING.
TWITTER FAGS NOWHERE TO BE SEEN.
SHELBY RUNING IN CIRCLES. WATCH OUT, HE'S GOING TO SAY THE N WORD.
JEFF WHO SIMPLY IMPROVING HIS OLOROSCOPE TO REACH URANUS DISTANCES.
MARIACHI MUSIC IS GETTING LOUDER!!!

so, the bunch of people anon warned us about, they finally arrived

>>11717632
Today's froyo flavor is Boeing employee tears.

>>11717704
Not him and I think his post is bait but it's not necessarily true, but sometimes it's the opposite. It depends on the primitive accumulation of capital, the competitiveness of a sector, the geopolitical interests, the market, the constitution, laws and institutions of a country, and many other things. We're at the dawn of the private space conquest era because public enterprises created the necessary conditions required during the cold war with incentives that had more to do with prestige and domination rather than economic profit, and as often with war the public hands were by necessity relatively efficient and fast.

>>11717739
Imagine being a century-old company, and getting BTFO hard by a guy who smoked weed on Joe Rogan's show

mfw space x destroy the ISS

>>11717835
this is the reason they're launching from the absolute furthest point away from the ISS

Latest from the 45th.
Not looking good.

>>11717885
>a fucking coin toss
Yikes

>Anyone who followed the space shuttle program will remember a lot of scrubs due to poor weather.
>The space shuttle did not have a launch escape system, but more than half of missions scrubbed at least once due to weather.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/05/spacex-may-launch-today-but-weather-is-a-huge-concern/

>>11717914
Shuttle was nothing but a long line of scrubs and the odd launch.

state of burger nutrition

>>11717998
>caring about nutrition when you're about to usher in a new stage of human spaceflight

Did anyone else find his posture distracting throughout that entire interview..

>>11717998
>last meal
>not two pints of mint icecream

god damn i am fucking hyped

>>11717690
Would you bitch and moan if the guy who cures cancer and makes the cure available with no patent is also a narcissist?

>>11716125
>dig chunks of ice out of the ground and melt them

>>11716214
Did he ever consider not bombing muslim countries, to make them feel good?

Well the UAE is on board with space now, maybe it did some good after all?

Countries in the Middle East should create space forces so we can finally have a space war.

>>11718236
>space war

>>11718004

>Boeing Co (BA.N) said Wednesday it was eliminating more than 12,000 U.S. jobs, including involuntary layoffs of 6,770 U.S. workers as the largest American planemaker restructures in the face of the coronavirus pandemic.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-boeing-jobs/boeing-laying-off-6700-u-s-workers-with-thousands-more-planned-idUSKBN2332EP

hopefully boing becomes good after this, but i doubt. notice that talented employees are being axed instead of the retarded executives.

https://youtu.be/p4ZLysa9Qqg?t=594

>"What I will tell you, this relationship has been sufficiently meaningful that we are now looking at how we do all our business models."
This coming from Jim is a huge deal.

>>11718591
>160k total employees
Fuck me. They could have just laid off every third fuckin shoe shiner

>https://html5-player.libsyn.com/embed/episode/id/14585237/height/360/theme/standard-mini/thumbnail/yes/direction/backward/

Gwynne Shotwell podcast interview on Starship launcher.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rjb9FdVdX5I

Also livestream if people didn't catch it

How long will the ISS have 5 crew for? Until demo 2 returns? With 5 astronauts aboard they'll be able to get alot more work done.

>>11718854
Next Crew Dragon will have 4 astronauts. 3 NASA/1 JAXA later this year. Hopefully success today.

>>11718897
The ISS will have 6 crew from then on?

>>11718936
Who knows, but they'll have much more activity for sure.

>>11718936
Yes. It was always supposed to but Soyuz wasn't able to carry as many people as the Shuttle.

Is this the better thread for actual discussion of the launch. The sticky is filled with tourist shitposting

>>11718965
I'd say so. Stickies always move too fast to have any actual discussion outside of reacting to the stream.

>>11717690
Private interests act to the benefit of the general public.

Hope these t-storms clear out, looks like there's a lot in the area. Super cloudy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAgnJDJN4VA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mD6pbCSeWLs

>>11719152
>The Girl From Ipanema
Incredibly based.

>>11719108

Is the sticky full?

>>11719203
It's the ultimate elevator song.

>>11719220

>>11719256
The more I see it, the more I prefer the worm

>>11719256

>>11719330
The pics of these will be PRIME /sfg/ meme material

>>11719330
>>11719362

>>11719330

>>11719415
The template.

>>11719421

>40% favorable
Is Trump on his way?

>>11719437

>>11719558
He retweeted the launch stream a minute ago so he's at least paying attention. Not sure where he is physically.

>>11719558
Yeah,he's on his way. I think Fox 10 Phoenix has a vid of him boarding Air Force 1.

>>11719572

hey does anybody have that image of all 3 selected lunar landers to scale?

Wow Elon, great way to send everyone off

>MOVING OFFSHORE
>CURRENTLY ERODING

Weather looks like its getting better now.

FUCKING RAIN!

>>11718004
I'm pretty sure it was just the angle of the camera

What's with the guys in gimp suits

>>11720612
ninja bodyguards

>>11720612
Ninjas watching for snipers.

>>11720527
MAGA

>>11720612
They are russian special forces

>>11720612
Protection from the virus?

>>11720612
Oh you mean these guys?

>>11720612
Günther Wendt is no longer the head of the crew, so standards and design has deteriorated

ARIGATOU GOZAIMASSS

Does anyone have the webm of that Russian cosmonaut sitting in a Soyuz, talking about life on Earth and saying it's his last flight?

>perfectly clear day
>now gigantic evil thunderstorm is coming directly to stop launch
Maybe G*d is trying to tell us something about Elon...

>>11721095
Or maybe it's just Florida and tropical hurricane season?

THE SHATNER

>>11721197
Both can be true...

>>11721223
OMG! Is that real?

>>11721095
God is fake

>>11721095
Elon doesn't give a fuck about G*d. He will launch.

12 year old single malt on standby.

>>11721296
how did they make him do that???

>>11721223
based bill
https://youtu.be/lul-Y8vSr0I?t=52

FUELING HAS STARTED

>OneWeb filed to launch 48,000 satellites
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2020/05/spacex-and-oneweb-seek-licenses-to-launch-78000-broadband-satellites/

lol wtf thats even more than starlink

>>11721907
>DOING A WET DRESS REHEARSAL WITH THE PAYLOAD ON TOP

R I S K Y

>>11721926
Arent they bankrupt?

>>11721907
Not yet. T-35 minutes.

>>11721943
Yes, unless they suddenly announce they've been bought out by amazon or something this is a joke, massive expansion of planned capability when they're struggling to keep the doors open.

>>11721943
Yes, it says the rationale is to increase the value of OneWeb for people who want to buy the bankrupt company, while also devaluing competing systems and proposals. No idea how that makes sense, but that's the logic. It says Starlink did a similar thing.

>>11722027
Oh it looks like they file the application for a ton of sats so they can hog up the orbits so other competing systems are denied those orbits.

>>11721943
Elon is going to establish an open internet and jews are willing to pay anything to stop it

>>11722068
> OneWeb did not ask for a change in its orbital altitude of 1,200km
Don't see how they would crowd out future development by keeping everything in the same orbital shell.

I want a separate sound channel with all the burble from inside the dragon.

thanks, Scott

>>11722510
REEEEEEEE WEATHER

>scrub
HAHAHAHAHA

Launch abort started.

Weather: 1
America: 0

>2020
>still dont have rockets that can launch in any weather
the soviets were doing it 70 years ago

Fuck

boo
https://youtu.be/_O1hM-k3aUY?t=10

FUCK THE RULES JUST LAUNCH NIGGA

it hurts just a little

laughingshelby.nat

I wasn't going to 4chan or anywhere else for that matter for a while - did the water tower finally fly or hop or whatever? Or did that one implode as well?

>Lost $25 trying to catch a TSLA pump after launch

I am never going to financially recover from this.

>>11723177
no, it seems like they've slowed their testing schedule approaching DM-2, probably for publicity reasons, but it's still on the test stand as far as I know

Do they seriously expect to be able to colonize mars if they can't launch in inclement weather?

>>11721926
Just fuck my night sky up famalam

>>11722985
The problem is more that if the crew needed to abort, they would be landing under weather conditions that would make successful recovery risky.
Outside of that, launches routinely get scrubbed for weather.

>>11723224
Neat, thanks. Guess I'll get to see whether it pops after all.

Demo-2 2nd launch attempt launch thread will be up at T-~10 hours or so. T-0 is 3:22 PM EDT / 19:22 UTC on the 30th (Saturday!).
See you there, lads. Weather can be fickle.

>>11722985
Well, US was doing it too with Saturn V and others during the space race. But it was a different time. And that rocket didn't give a shit about lightnings hitting it.

>>11723233
They knew the risks when they volunteered.

>>11722985
The Falcon 9 is too long and thin to risk it.

so is lightning strikes they're worried about or some weird static building up in the tanks or?

>>11723336
>>11723233

>>11723336
Lightning strikes plus the possibility of having to fish a capsule abort out of a tropical storm.

scrubbed?

>>11723377
As usual when it comes to launching the Scrub 9.

>>11723226
Those things have nothing to do with eachother.

>>11723603
What I'm saying is they are going to have to take a lot more risks when colonizing mars that they don't seem to be willing to risk.

HAHAHA ABSOLUTE STATE OF GLOBETARDS THIS QUITE A CONVENIENT EXCUSE YOU GOT

>>11723629
This is a NASA mission, not a SpaceX Mars mission. NASA sets the rules here.

>>11723665
True.

Do Americans really? >>11723646

>>11723708
Apparently the CIA promotes flat earth to muddy the waters.

>>11723716
Flat earthers are 95% glowniggers and 5% bible thumpers uncomfortably aware that proving Genesis wrong on evolution, cosmology, the shape of the Earth, etc. undercuts the message of original sin and thus of Christianity.

>>11723733
Does it even say anywhere in the Bible that the earth is flat? Don't they realize early Christians believed the earth is round?

>>11723629
You play by NASA’s rules when launching their dudes

>>11723749
>Does it even say anywhere in the Bible that the earth is flat?
It's heavily implied by Genesis iirc.
>Don't they realize early Christians believed the earth is round?
Early and medieval Christians were actually more flexible on interpreting the Bible as allegory than modern fundamentalists are. You can thank Martin Luther and his memelord friends for changing that.

>>11723749
It's that "firmament" thing they keep harping on about.

Thread theme
>https://youtu.be/FrLequ6dUdM

what kind of weather conditions will starship and superheavy be able to launch and land in? I heard that the falcon 9 is so fragile is because it continually became longer and longer without becoming wider which makes it super vulnerable to strong winds.

bob over here crossing his legs and getting comfortable

>>11723785
literally anything

>>11723749
Who cares about a foriegn religion. European people should be worshipping the old gods, not that abrahamic slavery.

>>11723226
the next one is going to be much thicker and so be better to launch in inclement weather

>>11723785
there's optimistic predictions that it'll be able to launch in anything but it keeps getting longer and it has those big fins

>>11723785
SN4 survived a direct lightning strike so probably anything. Bigger, wider, stainless steel rockets are more resilient than skinny composite-alloy ones.

>>11723824
Fins make it better dummy

>>11723935
no they don't