/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12693533
Ha ha rocket factory goes brrrrrrrr

>>12693533

>>12693533
>no astronaut will ever ride it
but a gayfish might

>>12693533
how many kabooooooms in a row, now?

>>12693533
You're right, only musk drones will. And they will pay for the privilege to do so.

>>12693533
why do you shills keep posting pics of the MK1 model that never flied and was just to show the ship's size?

>>12693896
>that never flied
was it sub-standard?

>>12693912
It was literally just a metallic envelope to show people what size the future ship would have.
It didn't have engines, had shitty soldering done in an experimental way, it was just shit.
Good to decorate a party tho.

>>12693927
why have his testing prototypes gone back to blowing up?
are they structurally sound?
why do they spew smoke from the seams?

This thing is an embarrassment, no astronaut will ever ride it

>>12693945
>why do they spew smoke from the seams?
Oof, gave away your retard nature with that one.

>>12693945
>why do they spew smoke from the seams
anon, I...

>>12693945
>why do they spew smoke from the seams?
You cannot seriously believe this.

>>12693951>>12693974
>straight to REEEEEEEEEEE!!
thats take off. I mean landing.

why would you get in a spaceship where the inner shell is sealed, but the outer shell isn't?

That pic of yours isn't even the same thing, thats one stage sitting on top of another stage sitting on top of another stage.
Those stages separate so there is no hermetic seal between them, there doesn't have to be..

I think yous already know this and are using deceit to cope.

>>12694000
>steam is smoke
Anon I...

>>12694000
that's not smoke brainlet, it's ice powder leaving the cold metallic surface

>>12694000
>>That pic of yours isn't even the same thing, thats one stage sitting on top of another stage sitting on top of another stage.
>Those stages separate so there is no hermetic seal between them, there doesn't have to be..
Absolute retard; the "steam/smoke" (it's neither) in >>12693951 is not coming out of any seam at all. The staging has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'll give you a hint, the rocket is full of liquid oxygen.

>>12694000
Actually a retard hahahahaha

>>12694002 >>12694012 >>12694014
>muskfags REEEEEEEEE!!!
its a cheep sheetmetal tin-can.
and the external shell is not vacuum seal, nor is it ever likely to be.

smoke, steam what the fuck ever.
its a tin can that dissipates stress over its body length successfully by flexibly in the sheetmetal joins.

your showing examples of condensation over an entire length of metal surface >>12693951 but the pic here >>12694000 and this one is specifically only from the seam along only one join.

there is no consecrations coming of the rest of the metal surface area.
condensation comes from the metal-surface area and its proportional to the surface-area.

>>12694002 >>12694012 >>12694014
>muskfags REEEEEEEEE!!!
its a cheep sheetmetal tin-can.
and the external shell is not vacuum seal, nor is it ever likely to be.

smoke, steam what the fuck ever.
its a tin can that dissipates stress over its body length successfully by flexibly in the sheetmetal joins.

your showing examples of condensation over an entire length of metal surface >>12693951 but the pic here >>12694000 (You) and this one is specifically only from the seam along only one join.

there is no condensation coming of the rest of the metal surface area.
condensation comes from the metal-surface area and its proportional to the surface-area.

>>12694059
>the external shell is not vacuum seal
uhmmm... yes?
at least the parts where the tanks are, that is exactly the part that gets cold and causes air moisture to freeze into ice

>>12694059
>smoke, steam what the fuck ever.
You really don't know what it is, do you? This is funny.

>>12694079
>uhmmm... yes?
>at least the parts where the tanks are, that is exactly the part that gets cold and causes air moisture to freeze into ice
so all this is a better idea than it being hermetically sealed so there is no ice?
isn't the cryogenics itself better off inside a vacuum so as to not add the additional risk of chunks of solid ice vibrating about the place inside the vessel?

>>12694095
>hermetically sealed so there is no ice?
lmao keep digging your hole.

>>12694094 >>12694100
>realized I avoided the smoke by making a worse problem with ice chunks smashing around inside.
>I don't know how to answer cause I realized how stupid Ice smashing around would sound
>put on a poker face and get abusive like always
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!
>mommy still loves me in spite of being obviously stupid.

>>12694125
Dig deeper boi

>>12694095
there is no ice inside anon, as there's very little moisture

>>12694100
make the inside into a vacuum; the hermetic sealing keeps the inside a vacuum.
if there is no water-molecules, then there is no ice.

also, an noble/inert gas specially chosen to not cause problems by freezing nor boiling may also be a universal solution to fill in this cavity.

so as to not cause the atmosphere to crush the vacuum-tin-can while in the atmosphere.

>>12694163
>no intelligent argument.
>REEEEEEEEEE!!!

>>12694182
so little moisture that it broke thru a weak joint >>12694059
this is on all the explosive landings so far.

>>12694221
>bro just turn the whole rocket into a vacuum flask, because... just do it bro!
I hope you speak Mandarin because if you keep digging at this rate you'll find yourself in China.

>>12694225
you're a fuckn despot attempting to blind yourself to engineering fuck ups..
take your head out of your ass, you fuckhead teenager.

grow up, or fuck off.

>>12694221
>so little moisture that it broke thru a weak joint
anon... are you actually retarded or only baiting us?
kys

>>12694259
>>so little moisture that it broke thru a weak joint
it came thru a specific joint/seam>>12694059, and was not condensation from the length of metal surface area as is >>12694015

>anon... are you actually retarded or only baiting us?
>nothing intelligent, so REEEEEEEEE always works for me.
>REEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!
you're worthless.
so is musk

>not giving up is an alien concept to OP
ngmi

>>12693533
Tintin did it! Tintin flew one to the moon

>>12694000 >>12694059 >>12694277
>it came thru a specific joint/seam, and was not condensation from the length of metal surface area.
Why is the heat conduction between the cryogenics and the structural framework so concentrated along this narrow joint/seam?
If there are other support-points fastening the cryogenics to the framework structure then why are they so well thermally-isolated from the metal framework, but this one location isn't?

This narrow joint/seam can't be the only support point for the cryogenics, there must be more;
If there are more, then why is this one so poorly thermally insulated/isolated compared to the others?

>>12693533

It would still be useful if they can make a fully reusable heavy lift launcher for cargo.

>>12693533

>>12693533
You are an embarrassment, no women will ever ride you.

>>12694906
>>12696181
kek

>>12693912
It was hollow, had no tanks or engines. It was a sheet metal mockup to show its size to investors.

>>12694000
This is a vent valve, all ships have it. There are also 3 vents around the egine skirt releasing lox when the engines are pre chilled

>>12695467
The tanks are part of the hull, the condensation happens just there because only there is the fuel, they do not load it fully with fuel just for those tiny hops. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DKycyWcxWTcY

Needs to be more pointy.

>>12693533
seethe harder Bezos

>>12693533
fuck off

>>12696521
>The tanks are part of the hull
deliberately designed to lose thermal-energy.
https://sciencing.com/canned-air-cold-5157676.html
>The reason the container gets cold after being used is due to a process known as adiabatic cooling, a property of thermodynamics. A gas, initially at high pressure, cools significantly when that pressure is released
The container wall is directly exposed.
whatever!!

>the condensation happens just there because only there is the fuel level
the fuel-level is separately identified.

why do people keep using pictures of Mk1 when it's three years old by now
>>12693535
this

>>12693896
uh they wanted to fly it but it turns out Mk1 was a giant turd and you need a little bit more infrastructure than they had down there at the time

>>12696208

>>12696506
the outside surface and the tank walls are the same piece of sheet metal, anon
Mk1 had tanks, they even filled it full of liquid nitrogen to pressure test it (it blew up because it was a piece of shit)

>>12696512
>This is a vent valve, all ships have it. There are also 3 vents....
three dots!! wut? instead of a consistent full unbroken straight circular shape ring-joint/seam?
>....around the egine skirt releasing lox when the engines are pre chilled
Perpendicular at "this specific" length of the rocket shaft; 3 piddly-perpendicular-dots (not-continuous-ring)?
3 "dots"...???
3 "dots"...the whole time >>12696718 >>12695467 >>12694000 >>12694059 ?

>>12693533
>This thing is an embarrassment
New sponsorship opportunity
rebranding

>>12693533
Didn't stop this piece of shit.

>>12693533
>This thing is an embarrassment
>>12696978
>Didn't stop this piece of shit.
>>12696964 How thick is the tin-work in spacex shuttles?

>>12696978

>>12697013
>>12697057

>>12697069

>>12697079

>>12693533 >>12696964 >>12697013
>This thing is an embarrassment
>>12697089
>SpaceX sheetmetal spaceships
>falls over & go KABOOOOOOOOM!!
>crushed under its own weight
https://youtu.be/ogbQ8oldlmw?t=3
https://youtu.be/ywBV6M7VOFU?t=117

>>12693533
if no astronaut wants to ride it i will take their place no questions asked

Is this the /sci/ version of console wars?

>>12697116
So uh remind me, how many people have died on Starahip so far?

Because the Shittle has 14 confirmed kills, the most of any crewed space vehicle.

>>12697128
So uh remind me, how many people have spaceX pt into space so far?
Because the spaceX has done "comparatively" nothing at all with any crewed space vehicle so far.

>>12697153
Oh, you're just legit retarded, nvm.

>>12697178
Oh, you're just sucking on a retard's tin can cock!! nvm.

>>12697125
kek

>>12693734
Two so far. Falcon 9 took five tries

>>12696725
sexy, cant wait to see the whole belly covered in non bullshit, uniform tiles unlike space shuttle, which was a nightmare puzzle with uniquely shaped tiles which were complicated to replace and to quality check

God, it's hideous bros

>>12696728
you baboon, they could not fly it because it was a hollow sheet metal mock up without engines or plumbing. they built it for a presentation to impress investors with its size

>>12696741
mk1 was that thing they quickly welded together for the unveiling, you mean SN1, mk1 was cut to pieces and sold for scrap, it never saw a test stand. at the time mk1 was built they had not even the infra structure in place to build tanks

>>12693945
Because the front fell off.

Why do certain people go to such lengths to spread FUD about Starship development?

>>12698218
They're just contrarians shitting on SpaceX because its popular and making people angry by shitting on popular things is the only personality they have and the only attention they get.

>>12693533
They just refurbished an old grain silo. This tin can is going nowhere.

>>12693533

>>12698218
>spread FUD
As opposed Musk's bullshit promises? Soiship has already been extensively debunked exposing Musk as a charlatan and you Musk chuds as fools

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDYt-phUAxY

>>12698218
it's SLS developers flooding this board (and others) to keep their rice bowl

>>12697153
SpaceX has put six people into orbit so far
>>12697789
there will probably be at least a few custom tiles, it's a compound shape that requires more than just one or two
>>12697795
>>12697804
Yes, they actually pressure tested it and it blew up
https://youtu.be/3nTSubYzQOM

>>12699162
>six people into orbit so far
>merely a lift-off into low-orbit randevu to off-load passengers onto a pre-existing living-quarters already in orbit.
>end-of-mission<
successful hand-off...
check.

>>12696181
100% intentional

LIVE

Live Nerdle Cam(1) https://youtu.be/Ky5l9ZxsG9M
Live Lab Cam(2) https://youtu.be/sAhDLJEEGhE
Live Sapphire Cam(3) https://youtu.be/DqKf-GfQ6CA
Live Predator Cam(4) https://youtu.be/tBZUHgpCdkM
Live Sentinel Cam(5) https://youtu.be/n5ozYnVQahE
Live Launch Pad Cam(6) https://youtu.be/Z72Au8Px7mM
Live SPI Pearl Beach Cam(7) https://youtu.be/agmFDeP5u_w

>>12699269
it's about as much as the shuttle ever accomplished lol

>>12699134
>Musk's bullshit promises?
not if he outsources!!

>>12693533
Yeah no shit its a fucking prototype test article

>>12693533
>mfw brits will have their empire back with new mars colony

>>12699558
>as much as the shuttle ever accomplished
>kept 5 astronauts alive 17 days, 15 hours and 53 minutes before returning them safely to Earth.
STS-80 Columbia Nov. 19 - Dec. 7, 1996 -- Mission duration 17 days, 15 hours, 53 minutes, 18 seconds.
https://www.fai.org/news/20-years-ago-nasa%E2%80%99s-space-shuttle-breaks-world-record-longest-time-space

>Space Shuttle mission accomplishments
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Accomplishments
have included:
Spacelab missions Including:
Science
Astronomy
Crystal growth
Space physics
Construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
Servicing missions, such as to repair the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and orbiting satellites
Human experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
Carried to low Earth orbit (LEO):
The Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
Components of the International Space Station (ISS)
Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
The Long Duration Exposure Facility
The Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
The Earth Radiation Budget Satellite
The Mir Shuttle Docking Node
Carried satellites with a booster, such as the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) or the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), to the point where the booster sends the satellite to:
A higher Earth orbit; these have included:
Chandra X-ray Observatory
The first six TDRS satellites
Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System) communications satellites in one mission
A Defense Support Program satellite
An interplanetary mission; these have included:
Magellan
Galileo
Ulysses

>>12699630
sometimes all you need is a taxi, you know?

>>12699681
>sometimes all you need is a taxi, you know?
.....and leave the jobs that need big-boy-pants to the grown-ups.

>>12699134
>I'M GONNA DEBOOOOONK

>>12693945
>why do they spew smoke from the seams?

Glad to know I'm talking to an expert here who's opinions have any fucking weight

>>12696181

This thing is an embarrassment, no astronaut will ever ride it

>>12700444
Checked, this shitty thread is saved.

>>12700445
Senator Shelby will hijack it on the test stand. Mas rambling about Alabama jobs. As he flies off and explodes.

>>12700441
>spew smoke from the seams?
talking about video-evidence >>12697079

see previous chat-chat >>12694000 >>12694059 >>12694095 >>12694125 >>12694221 >>12694277 >>12695467>>12696718 >>12696826 >>12696964 >>12697013 >>12697079 >>12697116

>Glad to know I'm talking to an expert here who's opinions have any fucking weight
>I come with same teenage poker-face Trolling without evidence nor further inquiry...
>shitpost.
cheers

>>12700748
that's a vent, you can see it spewing out of that during the tanking sequence
there's a closeup shot of it somewhere but I don't have it, it's decidedly a vent (with a valve and everything)

>>12693533
>This thing is an embarrassment
>>12700754
>that's a vent,
it pushed it off axis
it then broke & remained full-on until KABOOM.
it pushed it off center
*navigation-failure

>>12696512 the valve was already raised in discussion about ring/seam >>12696826
>>12696826 theres a ring (not "dot") >>12696718
when the vent came on the ring/seam area was probably brittle/sticky, valve stuck open.
*navigation-failure
relocate valve away from ring/seam area >>12696718.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDYt-phUAxY&feature=emb_logo
SpaceX does not follow the same stainless/aluminum booster construction-methods as other manufacturers whom have excellent performance record.
SpaceX is attempting to do this using sheetmetal, and failed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw

>>12700895
no, the engines pushed it off axis, dumbass
they had an engine failure (it didn't start and then puked its guts out) which is why it crashed into the ground

>>12693533
In few years you will feel like a complete retard.

>>12693533
>LOL Tesla is a joke will go bankrupt soon
>LOL SpaceX is a joke will go bankrupt soon
>LOL Falcon9 will never land

Aren't you people tired of getting BTFO?

>>12700901
>they had an engine failure
didn't say "engine failure", I said leakage.
>(it didn't start and then puked its guts out)
yes, it did re-start >>12697079
>which is why it crashed into the ground
it "held" the same fixed body-angle.
(locked in place by vent-thrust)
it was clearly regulating both thrust-vectoring & thrust.
held angle to landing.
fell over
crumbled/ruptured under its own weight.
tin-can go !!KABOOM!!

>>12700930
they tried to start two engines
only one engine started
that's why it crashed
do not question my wisdom again

>>12700930
>fell over
>crumbled/ruptured under its own weight.
>tin-can go !!KABOOM!!
why do they use the same ACME rockets that fall over and blow up in W.E.Coyote's face?

>>12700950
all rockets are like that, anon
let me go find a picture of that Atlas that crumpled like tin foil
>>12700930
retard

>>12700950
at least Starship blew up in flight and not on the pad lmao
somebody better tell the Air Force that the Atlas will never work

>>12700950

>>12694000
>>12694059
>>12695467
Responding to absolute smoothbrain retard because I don't know how to recognize bait.
Frost only collects on the outside where cryogens are touching the walls, and since Starship is only tanked like a tenth of the way for 10 km hops the only places that it actually does so is at the bottom of the main tanks. The "seam" you are describing. Who would have guessed it's humid in South Texas and that superchilled LOX/Methane can be cold through 4 mm of steel???
>smoke out the back
Whenever Starship is about to fire its engines it has to run the fuel through its engines to cool them and prevent flash-boiling during startup (which explodes the engines.) Literally every time there's huge vapor clouds pouring off the rocket it's valves venting to accomplish some purpose or another. I honestly can't imagine having such a childlike view of the world to think otherwise

>>12701020
>absolute smoothbrain retard
his inability to format a post coherently is really hurting him in his ability to be taken seriously, huh

>>12701020
>engine failed cause shit wasn't happening.
>reasons unknown.
why didn't the engine restart, exactly?
Does telemetry say all those valve things didn't cause the problem considering how cold 4 mm of steel gets in humid South Texas.

>>12700967 >>12700967 >>12700964
>vetting?
why mention this?

>>12701056
only SpaceX (and the FAA I guess) know

>>12701056
This time around it's just Raptor that failed for whatever reason. Tank strength had nothing to do with the SN8 failure, btw, but whatever...

The problem Raptor could be seen choking and sputtering moments before the crash. Since the flame wasn't green we know LOX pressure was good (Engine not have to cannibalize own injector plate), but other that it's anyone's guess. My theory is that there was some sloshing in the CH4 header tank which caused that one Raptor to suck in a bubble, which borked the fuel-rich preburner and fucked up the engine. It's something the addition of simple baffles would solve if true.

>>12701082
>choking and sputtering
so its not valves, but magic bubble in spite of this tank is designed specifically to prevent exactly that?

>>12701107
maybe?

>>12701107
I said I suspect the choking and sputtering was because the fuel-rich preburner got fucked up. My theory goes like this:
>Starship SN9 cuts flaps to reorient for landing burn
>Temporary sloshing in CH4 header tank (the one between the two main tanks) sends a bubble through the downcomer
>Bubble mainly goes into only one engine, either highly damaging the inducer/impeller or the turbine on the fuel-rich preburner
>With a fucked up preburner that can no longer deliver high pressure fuel to the main chamber, Raptor begins to sputter and starve
>no useful thrust is produced
>here comes the concrete

>>12701110
>NOOOOOOO YOU WRONG!!!
>NOOOOOOO YOU childlike view DUMBASS!!
>maybe? we just don't know?

>had no access to telemetry.
Glad to know I'm talking to an expert here who's opinions have any fucking weight

>>12701128
>I said I suspect.......
yes, very nice narrative explaining why Musk didn't make this rocket bubble-proof inspite of making a big deal about it.
nice story.
cheers.

>>12700955
how many anon are you samefagging?

>>12701142
???
I said it's an idea. It probably wasn't a bubble. Clearly Raptor or the Starship header tanks need improvement. Who am I defending here?

>>12701135
FYI, certain fonts have connotations attached to them. Try something other than red Arial and you might come off as less of a tinfoil hatter. As long as it isn't bold Impact. Might I recommend a vintage Comic Sans MS or Papyrus?

>>12701150
>???
>I said it's an idea.
your cock busting thru the monitor earlier said otherwise.
>It probably wasn't a bubble.
did you take time to actually think it thru?
>Clearly Raptor or the Starship header tanks need improvement.
>Who am I defending here?
Someone whom is willing to abandon industry standard and suppose he can do an even better job using sheetmetal.
This problem is unfixable.
it will never be considered reliable for public use.
>>12701153
>FYI, certain fonts have connotations attached.....blah....blah......blah............
psychosis-party schizophrenia pattern-recognition puts GIGO word-salad into fully "on" position.
samefag

>>12701170
I said it was my idea, I'm mostly wrong a lot so my idea is probably wrong.

And chill out there sport, it's a taiwanese basket weaving forum about spaceships on the internet

>>12701181
>And chill out there sport, it's a taiwanese basket weaving forum about spaceships on the internet
CHECK

>>12701186
You got me, you win!

>>12693533
Dialate, tranny

>>12701149
I am these three posts >>12700955
>>12700964
>>12700967
which is the only time I've posted more than once in a row or more than once in a reply to the same person

reminder that the "KABOOOM" tard is a single redditor unsuccessfully trying to force a meme
stop replying to him

>>12702597
but it's so easy to reveal his retardation and redditry

D

Inside the rocket motor, what is the combustion energy driving off of besides the compressed air and the pressure of the fuel flow? Is their jet or needle valve with like a backplate to scoop the explosions and drive the vessel like constant bullet back being perpetually driven? What part of the rookit takes the direct hit for purpulsion?

Do rear thrust rockets make as much sense in the air as a rear wheel drive car in snow?

>>12697187

>>12702569>>12702597 >>12702606 >>12703291
samefag
you're the same suck on musk cock, every thread.
this isn't the spaceflight general.
you're the only one supporting musk.
only obsessed losers come to these threads to defend spacex.

>>12702569>>12702597 >>12702606
samefag
you're the same suck on musk cock, every thread.
this isn't the spaceflight general.
you're the only one supporting musk.
only obsessed losers come to these threads to defend spacex.

OP who pays you to post here? I need a second job. Trust me when I say I'm capable of retardation the likes of which you have never seen. I will be an asset to your organization.

>>12693533
>This thing is an embarrassment, no astronaut will ever ride it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw
Musk is willing to abandon industry standard and suppose he can do an even better job using sheetmetal.

This problem is unfixable.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDYt-phUAxY&feature=emb_logo
SpaceX is attempting to do this using sheetmetal, and failed.
it will never be considered reliable for public use.

>>12703538
>SpaceX is attempting to do this using sheetmetal, and failed.
https://youtu.be/cDYt-phUAxY?t=417

>>12703469

>>12703538
what is so hard for literal autists to understand about fast prototyping?

>>12704063
>Musk will build real engines for public reliability certification after playing with his fast prototyping sheetmetal tin-cans
>fast prototyping?
wut?

>>12704060
>samefag has come full circle

why do the discord trannies obsess over spaceX so much?
is it because they don't like Musk?
like why on earth would anyone interested in space or technology attack someone who is putting their money into new and exciting things?

>putting their money into new and exciting things?
as long as industry corruption doesn't alter certification standards, this type of pied piper charlatans will never be a problem.

>>12704083
haha that was my 2nd post and the first (you) replied to, retard.

>>12704181
>I'm a confessed samefag & thinks even NSA tracks me!!
>schizo psychosis full circle bipolar

>>12702958
the combustion chamber in the center of the nozzles here is where the explosion happens
this pushes on the front of the combustion chamber, pushing the rocket forwards
then it pinches in, which squeezes the flow out the back of the engine (like putting your thumb over the end of a garden hose except with more math) and then the bell at the end is some weirdness with supersonic fluids (it pushes on the bell a little bit)
but most of the push is at the base of the combustion chamber

>>12702958
forgot my image

>>12703538
are you thunderf00t or the common sense cuck?
you will never be an engineer
so stfu

>>12704250
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw
fuel-tanks retard.
https://youtu.be/cDYt-phUAxY?t=417
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0fG_lnVhHw

Get a load of this botposter

>>12704277
>samefag suck on musk cock REEEEEEEEEE!!

>>12693533

>>12704259
this guy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-FGwDDc-s8
is a communist trying to ideologically shit on Elon because he's a billionaire
he doesn't give a damn about the solidity of rockets or engineering problems to be solved.
His PRIMARY, SECONDARY and N-TH goals are to shit on Musk because he's a billionaire, white and successful.

>>12704320
>putting their money into new and exciting things?
as long as industry corruption doesn't alter certification standards, this type of pied piper charlatans will never be a problem.

when are they going to give up the act and just use schaubergers work publicly
is it because they have a monopoly on the fuel of these things?

>>12704325
plus he's shilling for Aaron Sorkin so fucking much without reason...
I bet one testicle that the common sense skeptic is a communist jew.

>>12704234
that doesnt look effiecnt. why? is this new tech? "tried and true" tech?

>>12704329
who
what?
>>12704341
what doesn't look efficient to you here?
the sheet and stringers construction for the outside is a time-proven rocket construction method (the third lightest method, after balloon tanks and milled isogrid) and the inside is just a standard bulkhead + thrust puck with three engines
you need to clarify your confusion

>>12704234
what would a bellow do to expanding gas if given resistance? like a 2stroke motor but not for cooling. more for capaciting backpressure. would that acquire more lift?

>>12701128
are impeller stages 1+2 displayed in the wrong way or am i retarded?

>>12704332
reliability performance must be proven for public transport certification; snide remarks are irrelevant.

>>12704349
please draw your hypothesis
the answer is probably no
>>12704360
eh give it time, there's no plans to put people on the exploding grain silos anytime soon

>>12704361
first time i seen one. would need to learn rookit motors first.why are rockets always dicks from the ground? what about center evacuated cones launched from planes? like vemannas but spiraly like a bullet and the o[perators contain in a gyroscopic bubble cab like missile commanders pods minus duh bungies.

>>12704383
the penis is the optimal shape for fucking reality

do they have magnetic suspension bearings at science places?

>>12704361
>there's no plans to put people on the exploding grain silos anytime soon
Musk isn't planning on breaking the law & going to prison...
wow!! no shit sherlock!!

>>12704448
killing people with your rocket doesn't break the law
see: virgin galactic
if you're in a rocket launch you know the risks

>>12693533
Nope, but they will fly in Shuttle 2.0

>>12704459
>carcinization but for spaceplanes

>>12704450

>The Virgin space plane test Flight on December 12,2020, Did Not Reach Space as Planned, as the Rocket Motor Did Not Fire Due to the Ignition Sequence not Completing.
more armature-hour
how many public deaths do you think it it take before further tightening of industry regulations?
Companies like Virgin will only serve to strengthen industry standards.

>>12704468
no, wrong
I'm talking about the October 31, 2014 crash where the spaceplane broke up midflight, killing the pilot and injuring the copilot

>>12704482
>its 1 and counting.
jeez, give it time bro!!

>>12704482
>its 1 and counting.
jeez, give it time bro!!

https://youtu.be/imkdz63agHY
yeah there's no way a human would ever ride a deathtrap like this, right???

>>12704542
Does musk forget to vet his tanks or has he learnt like everyone else since before color television was even a thing?

>>12704542
>deathtrap like this
early liquid oxygen loading system prototype developed problems.
*last century
https://youtu.be/KWExql1xCsM?t=105

>>12696725
wew that's looking nicer than I expected

>>12693533
>his thing is an embarrassment
>>12704692
>*last century
Companies using sheetmetal fuel tanks for payload delivery has been carried out decades before this design was superseded.

Musk hasn't even begun the necessary decades of consecutive successful launches before he's even anywhere close to what are now old-farts toasting away to memories of the last century.
*SpaceX has gone full space-rockets retro!!

>>12696978
this may be a hot take but I thought space shuttles were kinda cool

>>12704192
speaking of schizos

>>12706619
>can't help myself!!

>>12705110
>Musk hasn't even begun the necessary decades of consecutive successful launches
He doesn't need decades because hes sending them up with such frequency. Falcon 9 in 10 years has already almost surpassed the amount of launches the shuttle made and the shuttle had 30 years of service

>>12705110
lmao, SpaceX is resurrecting outdated shit & offering that as the future of space tourism.
Fark, I thought he was pioneering new technologist but hes just investing in putting tourists in cargo barges.
he's as fake as the chinese whom steals the secrets of others and just fancies it up for sale.

>>12706667
>Falcon 9 in 10 years has already almost surpassed the amount of launches the shuttle made and the shuttle had 30 years of service
How many successful shuttle launches in 30years?
How many successful Falcon 9 launches so far?

Did you tally up Falcon 9 explosions and try to pass them off as successful launches?

>>12706677
Yup, Musk is a sham and the true purpose of FakeX is to secure military contracts

>>12706685
>How many successful Falcon 9 launches so far?
If Wikipedia is up to date then 108 full mission successes with another launching tonight.
>How many successful shuttle launches in 30years?
Throughout the program, the Space Shuttle had 135 missions, of which 133 returned safely.
>Did you tally up Falcon 9 explosions and try to pass them off as successful launches?
Nope

>>12706713
>the true purpose of FakeX is to secure military contracts
shit!! thats actually genius!

>>12693533
I hope you're wrong, would like to see boots on another planet one day.

>>12706727
Hes so wrong its ridiculous, starship will do orbital tests this year and its testing is gou incredibly well

>>12706717
Why are you comparing the NASA shuttle to a booster rocket instead of the SpaceX starship?

>>12706746
Because the shuttle and the falcon had the same role where the starship has a different role. Also the starship is in development still has not flown yet.

>>12706753
>Because the shuttle and the falcon had the same role
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Accomplishments
The shuttle was multi-function versatile as its supposed to be.
It did more than just haul cargo.

How much of the 7month trip to Mars will the public be kept safe by this Falcon 9 marvel?
How big a shit am I supposed to give about the first day of travel?

NASA has successfully launched over 200 crewed flights

>>12706782
>The shuttle was multi-function versatile as its supposed to be.
>It did more than just haul cargo.
Falcon 9 started flying people to the ISS last year. I don't understand

>How much of the 7month trip to Mars will the public be kept safe by this Falcon 9 marvel?
>How big a shit am I supposed to give about the first day of travel?
What does this even mean

t. different guy

>>12706797
Space tourists live inside Falcon 9?
what interplanetary vessel will my ass be sitting in?
why are you peddling a launch platform?

>>12706651
your buttmad sustains me

>>12706835
>I'm a schizo attention seeking whore
>Its the only way I can contribute

>>12706819
>what interplanetary vessel will my ass be sitting in?
Starship

>>12706850

>>12706864
>Starship
Will you sell Falcon9's reliability to me as if it was Starships reliability?
Do you agree Starship is an entirely different vehicle that has an entirely different role?

Can you still promote Starship the same way you do using Falcon9's reliability?

>>12706898
>females hate me
>I jerk off to this instead

Anti-SpaceX Troll seething BTFO

>>12706864
>Starship
Will you sell Falcon9's reliability to me as if it was Starships reliability?
Do you agree Starship is an entirely different vehicle that has an entirely different role?

Can you still promote Starship the same way you do without using Falcon9's reliability?

>>12706899
What are you even talking about, I haven't promoted anything. You are really hard to follow

>Will you sell Falcon9's reliability to me as if it was Starships reliability?
No, because they're different rockets

>Do you agree Starship is an entirely different vehicle that has an entirely different role?
Yes

>>12706903

suck on musk cock openly announce their schizophrenia.

>>12706916
>What are you even talking about, I haven't promoted anything. You are really hard to follow
this >>12706667 >>12706717 was a deliberate attempt to sell Falcon9 as a shuttle thru equivalency.

instead of sticking to shuttle -vs- starship.

>>12706917
>I defend my schizzo to the last
>its all I have

>>12706928
Those aren't my posts. And what's the point of talking about shuttle vs Starship anyway, when it's not even finished yet. That anon was pointing out that it doesn't take decades to get the same amount of launches, because it will fly way more frequently, just like Falcon 9 has done. I believe the shuttle needed six months of refurbishment between each flight, and the launches were quite expensive so it didn't fly a lot. I think the shortest a Falcon 9 rocket has spent between two flights is one month. Starship is aiming to be even more rapidly reusable, but we'll see how it goes as it gets closer to completion

>>12706951
>Those aren't my posts
yet carried on his argument for him.....
>the rest of what I said
no one cares about your impatient compulsion with prototyping.
at the end of the day, he must prove all this shit he reckons.
do that and I'll give a fuck.

>>12706951
why are you comparing the refurbishment time of a launch platform with a space shuttle?

>>12706978
>why
cause he's a deliberately deceitful cunt who will still uses the same bullshit even after being called out on it.

>>12706978
Did you miss the part where I wrote

>t. different guy

>>12706978
Why not. They both have a part that flies it into the air, and a part that is used only once. They're just reversed between them, with the shuttle the second stage landed and with Falcon 9 the first stage lands. I'm sure you're not forgetting about the huge ass rockets that took the shuttle up

>>12707008
>Did you miss the part where I wrote
Did you miss the part where continuance is equivalency

>Why not.
cause my 7month trip to mars isn't inside Falcon9.
>thinks others give a shit about my definition

>>12707029
Your seven month trip isn't inside a Space Shuttle either

>>12707035
>a Space Shuttle either
its not in Starship?
is it in a different flying dildo?

>>12707046
r u ok bro

>>12707059
u r a cuck bro

>>12707004
>cause he's a deliberately deceitful cunt who will still.....
and he's a samefag

>>12706782
>The shuttle was multi-function versatile as its supposed to be.
>It did more than just haul cargo.
What did it do? Supply the ISS, launch satellites, bring crew to leo and help build a space station. The falcon does the exact same thing
>How much of the 7month trip to Mars will the public be kept safe by this Falcon 9 marvel?
The falcon 9 is not going to mars and neither is the space shuttle.
>NASA has successfully launched over 200 crewed flights
Not in the space shuttle or any other 1 platform

>>12707120
What do you mean by samefag. I've posted in this thread more than once, yes

>>12707130
>The falcon does the exact same thing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Accomplishments
Accomplishments

Space Shuttle missions have included:

Spacelab missions Including:
Science
Astronomy
Crystal growth
Space physics
Construction of the International Space Station (ISS)
Crew rotation and servicing of Mir and the International Space Station (ISS)
Servicing missions, such as to repair the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and orbiting satellites
Human experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)
Carried to low Earth orbit (LEO):
The Hubble Space Telescope (HST)
Components of the International Space Station (ISS)
Supplies in Spacehab modules or Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules
The Long Duration Exposure Facility
The Upper Atmosphere Research Satellite
The Compton Gamma Ray Observatory
The Earth Radiation Budget Satellite
The Mir Shuttle Docking Node
Carried satellites with a booster, such as the Payload Assist Module (PAM-D) or the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), to the point where the booster sends the satellite to:
A higher Earth orbit; these have included:
Chandra X-ray Observatory
The first six TDRS satellites
Two DSCS-III (Defense Satellite Communications System) communications satellites in one mission
A Defense Support Program satellite
An interplanetary mission; these have included:
Magellan
Galileo
Ulysses

Please prove falcon does the exact same thing
Falcon9 has not done everything the shuttle has, bro.

>The falcon 9 is not going to mars and neither is the space shuttle.
exactly, so banging on about Falcon9 is better than the shuttle is irrelevant rambling
>Not in the space shuttle or any other 1 platform
has SpaceX matched NASA?
or should I suck SpaceX cock as though it has?

>>12707156
yes, we know
you're famous.

>>12707172
I'm not sure why it's meant to be weird to post more than once. That's not a very good way to have a conversation

>>12707172
your whats weird, go converse to any other anon except me.

>>12707177
thankyou
good bye

>>12707183
sorry, this >>12707183 was meant for >>12707177

>>12706819
>Space tourists live inside Falcon 9?
See pic related
>what interplanetary vessel will my ass be sitting in?
Starship
>why are you peddling a launch platform?
Because its the platform the Kickstarted a new spacerace and is still the best currently.

>>12706915
>Can you still promote Starship the same way you do without using Falcon9's reliability?
Why would I? SpaceXs reliability is what is being peddled, starship is very similar to the falcon and the software is the same.

>>12706928
Those are my posts and the falcon platform is equivalent to the shuttle. You must be a butthurt oldspace employee.

>>12706962
>do that and I'll give a fuck.
You said this same shit about the falcon 9 then the falcon heavy and now you are saying it about the starship. You have zero argument.

>>12707004
>>12707120
Kek its funny watching you attack him over my posts

>>12707171
>has SpaceX matched NASA?
In 10 years spacex has done more than NASA has in 50 years with spaceflight

>>12707240
>>Space tourists live inside Falcon 9?
>See pic related
thats public tourism, is it?
>>what interplanetary vessel will my ass be sitting in?
>Starship
then don't sell Falcon 9 reliability as if its the "entire" mars trip reliability
>Because its the platform the Kickstarted a new spacerace and is still the best currently.
Because you're an obsessed zealot and think everyone is as seduced as you are.

>>12707247
>starship is very similar to the falcon and the software is the same.
maybe wait bragging about that until starship stops exploding.

>>12707255
>You said this same shit about the falcon 9
no, I didn't.
I thought making another launch platform was so old news that even musk couldn't fuck it up.

I wasn't even on 4chan back then.

>>12707261
done anything interesting or you just counting the same kind of action multiple times and calling it a comprehensive list of different things?

does the same few basic things many times over.
nothing more

>>12707250 >>12707258
they are your posts, samefag.

>>12707171
>Please prove falcon does the exact same thing
>Falcon9 has not done everything the shuttle has, bro.
All of the things you just listed are the same things, its a launch vehicle to the ISS either carrying people, cargo or parts of the station up to LEO it also puts satélites into earths orbit. The falcon 9 is fulfilling that exact same role, the falcon 9 sends people, cargo and satellites to orbit or the ISS, the falcon heavy has been selected with building an ISS in lunar orbit (gateway) and has already launched a heavy payload (a tesla) to space. The falcon platform has also accomplished propulsion landings and rapid Reusability. If we give this platform the same lifespan of the shuttle it should outperform its service record 3 times over.
I don't care if the shuttle was your favorite, it just wasn't that good.

>>12707261
>In 10 years spacex has done more than NASA has in 50 years with spaceflight
how many planets has spacex explored?

>>12707171
Almost every sattelite deployment could have been launched on a Titan/atlas/delta and zero G experiments could have been done on a space station like the ISS, MIR, Skylab, or Station freedom had funding for freedom not been sucked away by the shuttle, or Skylabs life extended by still using apollo lmao
Some of those experiments could have easily been done in apollo and soyuz capsules, and not canceling the Saturn V for the shuttle would have given feasible access to the Moon

The meme sattelite repair wouldn't be necessary if sattelites like Hubble weren't fucked up by lowest bidder shit build quality, an errors made by low quality engineering

>>12707295
>shuttle has achieved
Spacelab missions Including:
Science
Astronomy
Crystal growth
Space physics

Servicing missions, such as to repair the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) and orbiting satellites
Human experiments in low Earth orbit (LEO)

How many space-walks has spacex performed?

>>12707265
>thats public tourism, is it?
Yes
>then don't sell Falcon 9 reliability as if its the "entire" mars trip reliability
If ford creates a reliable 4 door sedan why is it some massive leap to assume the truck they are developing looks promising?
>Because you're an obsessed zealot and think everyone is as seduced as you are.
No you are the obsessed zealot that cannot handle change. NASA shit the bed and SpaceX is doing incredible things. Its not hard to acknowledge their success.

>>12707303
>could have been done on a space station therefore we'll not credit them with this.
>attempt to hide all space-walk achievements.

>seee, spacex is better.
ok m8.

>>12707310
>>12707314
SpaceX would never had needed to exist is NASA didn't cancel apollo, kept their momentum by building the moon/mars/earth ferry network, and actually pursued more radical concepts like DC-X or Venturstar in the 80s/90s

The shuttle was a time sink, waste of money, death trap that blocked development of larger programs
They even fucked up the original shuttle design, which was basically just a starship lmao
Paying 1-2 billion dollars a launch when cheaper infrastructure already existed isn't an achievement, it's a failure
They never needed the shuttle at all, they could have used something else

>>12707311
>Yes
did I see an advert in the paper telling me that we the public can by seats?
>If ford creates a reliable 4 door sedan why is it some massive leap to assume the truck they are developing looks promising?
did the trucks blow up too? or is promising an excuse for selling it like was already a good product?

>acknowledge success
I whole heatedly acknowledge Falcon 9.
I've never stated anything against it.
you make assumptions cause you're the zealot.

>>12707324
>NASA didn't cancel
what does NASA have to do with government funding its aerospace giant?
you mean politicians, right?

>bad mouths the shuttle
how many shuttle have blown up in total, all of them?
how many starship have blown up in total, all of them?

which do you think will have the most crashes recorded in history?

>>12693533
Interesting Wording, OP.

>>12707345
Of the 5 shuttles made 2 failed
Congress/NASA failed to push for better programs lmao
I don't know how starship will perform, it's still a dinky prototype doing test flights, and might fail to even reach production/use, the space shuttle was fully in service when it failed, IDK why you're trying so hard to defend the shuttle when better alternatives existed while it was in service

>>12707289
I'll list my messages for you

>>12706797
>>12706864
>>12706916
>>12706951
>>12707008
>>12707035
>>12707059
>>12707156
>>12707177

>>12707278
>I wasn't even on 4chan back then.
Then go back

>>12707371
>Of the 5 shuttles made 2 failed
so starship has already equaled the shuttle!!!
>Congress/NASA failed to push for better programs lmao
did NASA give itself money by its own authority?
does some congress advocating NASA equal the majority of voting congress?
it was politicians whom voted a majority no, hence politicians cut off NASA.
>I don't know how starship will perform, it's still a dinky prototype doing test flights, and might fail to even reach production/use
now you're being honest.
>the space shuttle was fully in service when it failed.
as if starship won't do the same thing.
>IDK why you're trying so hard to defend the shuttle when better alternatives existed while it was in service
defend the shuttle?
I'm merely stating the shuttle is safer than starship will ever be.

the shuttle is retired as it should be.
starship will never become its replacement.

>>12707395
>Then go back
make me.

>>12707272
>until starship stops exploding.
SN8-SN11 are a group of prototypes not meant to be fully successful, just like SN5-SN7. The only reason you get to rag on them is because they are doing their R&D phase in the open. I'm not bragging about starship I'm just stating that there is no reason to believe they won't create it.
>>12707284
>does the same few basic things many times over.
So just like the space shuttle? I love how your list of accomplishments included the research the astronauts did while up on the ISS as if it had anything to do with the launch platform.

>>12707408
>SN8-SN11 are a group of prototypes not meant to be fully successful, just like SN5-SN7. The only reason you get to rag on them is because they are doing their R&D phase in the open.
how many shuttles blew up during its prototyping stage?
>I'm not bragging about starship I'm just stating that there is no reason to believe they won't create it.
sure, I'm just saying anyone stepping foot on mars will never return to Earth still alive.

>>12707423
Why will starship fail? Why will people stepping foot in mars never return to Earth still alive?

>>12707408
>So just like the space shuttle?
how many space walks?
how many repair jobs in space?

>>12707423
>how many shuttles blew up during its prototyping stage?
How many shuttle boosters did they discard during normal operation?

>>12707439
>How many shuttle boosters did they discard during normal operation?
this is irrelevant as I have already acknowledged Falcon9 as the best launch-platform humans have ever conceived.

that fucka even flies itself home.. and parks.
no more bringing the launch platform into debate, we're exclusively debating the reliability of starship and its sheetmetal fuel tanks making a trip to mars and back without blowing up.

>>12707297
Scheduled to visit the moon in 2022, the moons surface in 2024, Jupiter and its moon Europa in 2024 and has stated that mars will be visited either in the 2022 window or the 2024 window

>>12707451
>none so far
>I'll now brag as if our future mission will all work 100% guaranteed
>ok<

>>12707310
>spacex has achieved
>ommercial crew missions Including:
Science
Astronomy
Space physics
And a spacewalk
It also has achieved propulsive landing, parachute landing and cheap reusability. It continues to get contracts and made the nation spaceflight independent again.
Why do you defend NASA when they were given a real plan to get to mars by 1995 and did nothing? Sounds like you are an oldspace zealot

>>12707330
>did I see an advert in the paper telling me that we the public can by seats?
Not in the paper but on television. The man who bought the seats is a civilian.
>did the trucks blow up too?
Why are you focusing on the landing? The most important part of those flights was achieved. Its like you've never been part of a R&D program. Do you think them testing the fuel tanks to failure is a bad thing as well?
>I've never stated anything against it
No just against the company itself because you saw an explosion.

>>12707459
insufficient contribution to science, bro.
>Why do you defend NASA when they were given a real plan to get to mars by 1995 and did nothing?
why do you blame NASA and not funding cuts?
why do defend spacex as if
>Sounds like you are an oldspace zealot
you suck on spacex dildo until it blows up in your face.
SpaceX will never return from mars.

>>12704459
Would that even be a bad thing if it works?

>>12707470
Why will starship fail?
Why will starship succeed?

>>12706619
That stuff is mainly used on trannies

>>12707397
>now you're being honest
Kek, that isn't even me.
>so starship has already equaled the shuttle!!!
No falcon has which gives SpaceX credibility
>did NASA give itself money by its own authority?
Does it matter? They were still given billions more than spacex has ever had.
>as if starship won't do the same thing.
It probably won't because it is far simpler than the shuttle. Also since it is doing irl testing it has the opportunity to iron out unforseen faults before the final product

>>12707432
I believe 1 space walk/repair job on the ISS so far

>>12707449
>this is irrelevant as I have already acknowledged Falcon9 as the best launch-platform humans have ever conceived
You did not until just now

>>12707464
>Not in the paper but on television. The man who bought the seats is a civilian.
how is this open space-tourism?
sure its not a one off promotion?
have we had the 100 passenger travel to mars already?
>Why are you focusing on the landing?
because starship hasn't perfected it yet.
>The most important part of those flights was achieved.
pretty sure landing is important, bro.
>Its like you've never been part of a R&D program.
yes I have, we just didn't blow up shit cause we were incompetent with money to spare.
how many shuttle prototypes did NASA blow up during R&D?
>Do you think them testing the fuel tanks to failure is a bad thing as well?
yes, they tested the fuel tank to failure as does everyone else.
its design is an intrinsic fail-point inevitably.
its shit design to begin with.
ticking time bomb.

>>12707490
>You did not until just now
bullshit.

>>12707457
>>I'll now brag as if our future mission will all work 100% guaranteed
Defending the development of the one reasonable platform to get us beck to manned space flight us not bragging. Would you rather we trash talk the starship like the OP so people look to the SLS for hope? Fuck off nigger

>>12707485
>No falcon has which gives SpaceX credibility
but certainly not starship

>It probably won't because it is far simpler than the shuttle. Also since it is doing irl testing it has the opportunity to iron out unforseen faults before the final product
lmao, its a piece of shit design time-bomb.

>>12707470
>insufficient contribution to science, bro
Well its got 20 more years of service before you can compare it numbers wise with the shuttle so I'm sure the contribution to science will be fine

>>12707494
Show me where then

>>12707496
>shall we discuss starship, as it is the topic of this thread?
>Fuck off nigger

go start a different thread with whatever subject it is you're banging on about.

>>12707498
>but certainly not starship
Yes starship, same company, same engineers, same time period.
>lmao, its a piece of shit design time-bomb.
Go ahead and tell us whats wrong with it then mr engineer.

>>12707501
>Show me where then
you want me to show you where I never bad-mouthed Falcon 9?

and this makes sense to you?
>ok<

>>12707504
Oh I already did, I just am making sure noone believes in your bullshit

>>12707487
>One, so that proves we're better than NASA
>ok<

>>12707510
No i want you to show me where you
acknowledged Falcon9 as the best launch-platform humans have ever conceived

>>12707520
It still has 20 more years, and its already almost flown the same amount of missions.

>>12707509
>Yes starship, same company, same engineers, same time period.
lmao, is Falcon9 also landing on mars?
getting into space isn't the problem, dumb dumb
>>lmao, its a piece of shit design time-bomb.
>Go ahead and tell us whats wrong with it then mr engineer.
its design puts uneven forces in the lower vessel.
it will eventually fail.
its design is flawed, combined both vessels into one as an attempt to save space.

>>12707514
>STARSHIP GO KABOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

>>12707524
Polluting the sky with starlink space junk, and launching third world countries junk satellites hundreds of times is not scientific achievement

>>12707523
>acknowledged Falcon9 as the best launch-platform humans have ever conceived
HERE >>12707449
I've never previously discussed Falcon9.
I've only done so in this thread because fuckwit anons are passing its reliability as if its the starship's reliability...
starship is going to mars, not Falcon9.

>>12707528
>lmao, is Falcon9 also landing on mars?
No just on earth propulsively and docking to a space station in the earths orbit
>getting into space isn't the problem
And what is? SpaceX has already proven they can propulsively land a spacecraft, they have proven they can support crew in space, they have prove they can get to orbit, they have proven they can achieve heavy lift capabilities and they have proven that they can meet up with other platforms in orbit. What is starship missing out of this equation? It needs to be a heavy lift platform, it must meet up with a fuel tanker in orbit, it must suppor crew and it must land propulsively. All of these things SpaceX has demonstrated proficiently.
>its design puts uneven forces in the lower vessel.
it will eventually fail.
You mean superheavy? How is that different from the shuttle's lift mechanism?

>>12707536
Exactly so before that comment you never acknowledged it

>>12707499
>Well its got 20 more years of service before you can compare it numbers wise with the shuttle so
still using slide of hand to give starship the credibility of Falcon9..

Falcon9 is not under dispute, starship is.
drop the Falcon9 shilling, you sound like a cuck.

>>12707553
>And what is? SpaceX has already proven they can propulsively land a spacecraft, they have proven they can support crew in space, they have prove they can get to orbit, they have proven they can achieve heavy lift capabilities and they have proven that they can meet up with other platforms in orbit. What is starship missing out of this equation? It needs to be a heavy lift platform, it must meet up with a fuel tanker in orbit, it must suppor crew and it must land propulsively. All of these things SpaceX has demonstrated proficiently.
cucking on Falcon9 is all you have, isn't it?
why are you boring me with this irrelevant shit?
any fucka can get into orbit.
>if Falcon9 can get into orbit, then starship can get to mars and back safely
>ok<

>You mean superheavy?
>How is that different from the shuttle's lift mechanism?
it isn't, its also not heading to mars without servicing the whole way and crossing fingers whatever it needs was brought along.

>>12707534
>connecting the world to the internet including deeply remote science bases
>cheap launch of climate satelites
>cheap launch of military satelites
>cheap resupply of the ISS
>cheap lauch of scientists and experiment to the ISS
>incentivizing other companies and governments to compete with them in space
if this is what you consider a non achieving platform i'd hate to see what you think of the less successful shuttle.

>>12707561
>Exactly so before that comment you never acknowledged it
I never doubted it and cared little for /sfg/ threads so it never came into topic.
Falcon9 is boss, Starship is a ticking-time-bomb if missioned with mars.

>>12707567
>still using slide of hand to give starship the credibility of Falcon9..
The falcon9 only has to launch a little over 20 missions to surpass the shuttle and they have more than that scheduled, The falcon heavy variant is also staging the gateway in lunar orbit and sending the Europa Clipper on its mission. This is scheduled in the next 3 years, that means the Falcon platform will surpass the amount of missions and the type of missions that the shuttle performed in its 30 years of service.
>drop the Falcon9 shilling, you sound like a cuck.
I'll stop talking about it when you confront this
SpaceX has already proven they can propulsively land a spacecraft, they have proven they can support crew in space, they have proven they can get to orbit, they have proven they can achieve heavy lift capabilities and they have proven that they can meet up with other platforms in orbit. What is starship missing out of this equation? It needs to be a heavy lift platform, it must meet up with a fuel tanker in orbit, it must support crew and it must land propulsively. All of these things SpaceX has demonstrated proficiently.

>>12707574
>Starship is a ticking-time-bomb if missioned with mars.
No it really isn't

>>12707524
if musk doesn't break every record with Falcon9, then he's as useless as starship on a mission to mars.

>>12707590
I am going to gloat so hard when it lands on mars. you fucks wont be able to come here for weeks without getting butthurt.

>>12707586
>>still using slide of hand to give starship the credibility of Falcon9..
>The falcon9 only has to launch a little over 20 missions to surpass the shuttle and they have more than that scheduled, The falcon heavy variant is also staging the gateway in lunar orbit and sending the Europa Clipper on its mission. This is scheduled in the next 3 years, that means the Falcon platform will surpass the amount of missions and the type of missions that the shuttle performed in its 30 years of service.
>>drop the Falcon9 shilling, you sound like a cuck.
>I'll stop talking about it when you confront this
SpaceX started off well and will do well, unfortunately starship will kill a bunch of people on mars.
my criticism with SpaceX is starship.
whatever other anons you're debating with is your own wank-fest.
>SpaceX has already proven they can propulsively land a spacecraft, they have proven they can support crew in space, they have proven they can get to orbit, they have proven they can achieve heavy lift capabilities and they have proven that they can meet up with other platforms in orbit. What is starship missing out of this equation?
so its like everyone else before itself...
>It needs to be a heavy lift platform, it must meet up with a fuel tanker in orbit, it must support crew and it must land propulsively. All of these things SpaceX has demonstrated proficiently.
goody for them..
go tell someone who gives a shit.
I come here to discuss starship, as is the topic of this thread.

>>12707593
>lands on mars
it has to get back dumb dumb
I doubt anyone on mars will make it back to earth alive

the ship will develop an unfixable problem and another ship will need to be sent.
no starship with that fuel-tank will ever make the journey bringing people back to earth safely.

>>12707596
>unfortunately starship will kill a bunch of people on mars.
>my criticism with SpaceX is starship.
I disagree
>go tell someone who gives a shit.
I come here to discuss starship, as is the topic of this thread.
We are discussing starship, its early in its development and so discussing the accomplishments of their previous projects is necessary. They have proven that they know how to make a spacecraft that meets the goals they have for starship, that means their starship design comes from a position of experience. That makes the design much more likely to succeed.

>>12707607
>it has to get back dumb dumb
Not the first few cargo missions. Also the plan is a propellant plant.
>no starship with that fuel-tank will ever make the journey bringing people back to earth safely.
why?

>>12707643
for the sake of pedantic correctness I'd like to point out your pic is a pic of SN9, not SN10. You can tell because SN9 featured those distinct 'prints' almost arranged like footsteps along the nosecone barrel. Also being an autist I'm familiar with the picture and recall from memory it being posted before SN10 reached the pad

>>12707662
I thought they both had those

>>12707643
you are confident a badly designed sheetmetal fuel-tank will make it to mars and back because its excellent service record on Earth has shown it reliable for a mars mission?

the sheetmetal fuel-tank is a shit design that has not been performing anything remotely close to a 7 month mars journey and liftoff return to Earth plus re-entry..

you are talking complete shit.

>>12707654
>Not the first few cargo missions. Also the plan is a propellant plant.
is shitty fuel-tank design being used to just get there, dump some shit and thats it?
jeez, that might work.....

anything SpaceX landing on mars with that shitty fuel-tank will ever return safely to Earth.

>>12707676
>you are confident a badly designed sheetmetal fuel-tank will make it to mars and back because its excellent service record on Earth has shown it reliable for a mars mission?
I am confident you do not know the design, I am also confident that you are not knowledgeable on this subject.
>the sheetmetal fuel-tank is a shit design that has not been performing anything remotely close to a 7 month mars journey and liftoff return to Earth plus re-entry..
and you are assuming this is a shit design because?

>>12707643
you are confident a badly designed sheetmetal fuel-tank will make it to mars and back because its excellent service record on Earth has shown it reliable for a mars mission?

the sheetmetal fuel-tank is a shit design that has not been performing anything remotely close to a 7 month mars journey and liftoff return to Earth plus re-entry..

you are talking complete shit.

>>12707654
>Not the first few cargo missions. Also the plan is a propellant plant.
is shitty fuel-tank design being used to just get there, dump some shit and thats it?
jeez, that might barely work out.....

anything SpaceX landing on mars with that shitty fuel-tank, will never return safely to Earth.

>>12707684
>I am confident you do not know the design, I am also confident that you are not knowledgeable on this subject.
>>the sheetmetal fuel-tank is a shit design that has not been performing anything remotely close to a 7 month mars journey and liftoff return to Earth plus re-entry..
>and you are assuming this is a shit design because?
haven't you already asked >>12707528?

its an attempt to save space, nothing more.
its shit and will inevitably go bang if on a mission to mars.
you equating short-duration low-earth-orbits to a mission to mars is delusional.

>>12707685
>the sheetmetal fuel-tank is a shit design that has not been performing anything remotely close to a 7 month mars journey and liftoff return to Earth plus re-entry..
It has passed numerous cryo tests as well as pressurization to failure tests. It has demonstrated its ability to operate in tandem with multiple engines and it is constantly being improved. Exactly what is wrong with it? Muh uneven forces doesn't mean anything.

>>12707685
>anything SpaceX landing on mars with that shitty fuel-tank, will never return safely to Earth.
I'm sure it will

>>12707693
>It has passed numerous cryo tests as well as pressurization to failure tests. It has demonstrated its ability to operate in tandem with multiple engines and it is constantly being improved. Exactly what is wrong with it? Muh uneven forces doesn't mean anything.
from your lips to god's ears.
KABOOOOOOOOM!!!

>>12707685
>its an attempt to save space, nothing more.
>its shit and will inevitably go bang if on a mission to mars.
Give a more in depth explanation because you aren't actually saying anything.

>>12707695
nope

>>12707697
stay mad autist

>>12707702 >>12707699
ok half ass designer trying to save a penny!!

>>12707705
what is this half baked picture even trying to convey?

>>12707701
I wasn't going to appeal to authority but this is a pointless thread anyway. I trust the word of a successful rocket company on their main project more than I trust the word of a anonymous person on the internet whose credentials could be less than a GED

>>12707705
wtf even is that picture? fan fiction?

>>12707715
>>12707706
>I'm stupid, please explain what are pressure vessels and what is unequal forces!!
>>12707711
>the word of a successful rocket company on their main project
anything to save a buck might cut it in short-duration low-earth orbit.
don't even pretend any of that means it will touch-down on mars then return all the way back to earth.
you're delusional like Musk.

>>12707719
You understand that we have no idea what these pressure vessels are actually like outside of the external appearance.

>>12707719
idk looks like a classic instance of moving the goalposts, I bet you were the type that said boeing would beat SpaceX to the ISS kek
many such cases!

>>12707722
>You understand that we have no idea what these pressure vessels are actually like outside of the external appearance.
yes, your ignorance is evident.
I believe you.

>>12707723
>moving the goalposts
nope, I always stated starship is shit..
also the fuel-tanks are shit.

that fuel-tank will never survive a mars mission.
whatever other debate you're having with another anon is your own wankfest.

>>12707719
>you're delusional like Musk.
Thats what they said about propulsive landing, about spacex getting NASA contracts, about starlink and about falcon heavy. They said it about tesla, they said it about the boring company and soon you will be saying it about the next project they do too.

>>12707724
when I said we I meant you as well faggot.

>>12707731
>Thats what they said about......
how the fuck are you even talking to?
do you ramble the same shit to everyone?
is everyone your opponent?

starship is shit
fuel-tanks are shit.

anything else added to your ramblings is your own psychosis.

>>12707732
pressure-vessels are old news bro..
if you don't know the basics by now then you're retarded.

>>12707730
I don't know why you found such a bizarre hill to die on (a fucking fuel tank?) but if you rub two brain cells together you'd come to the conclusion the engineering company that can send astronauts to the ISS and heavy payloads to orbit for the cheapest price in history isn't going to be stumped by something as mundane as their fuel tanks.
If there's one thing Starship has tested more than anything else in its development history it'd be the tanks lol
You can keep screaming 'starship is shit' till the cows come home and it won't change the fact that they're changing history and you're seething on an imageboard

>>12707739
>how the fuck are you even talking to?
There have been people like you calling SpaceX a shitty incapable armature company with doomed to fail designs since the late 2000s. You are nothing new and you will magically disappear as soon as starship starts flying missions.

>>12707739
>if you don't know the basics by now then you're retarded.
yes and you clearly don't know the basics

>>12707730
Why wont they survive a mars mission? You keep spouting the same bullshit again and again without actual data or numbers. Its always muh uneven forces muh never survive muh shit design muh sheet metal

>>12707743
>I'm a needy japanese school girl.
>cheapest price in history isn't going to be stumped by something as mundane as their fuel tanks.
KABOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
>>12707744
>You are nothing new and you
Tesla rocks.
Falcon9 rocks
starship is shit.
the rest of your monologue is pure psychosis circle-jerking.
>>12707745
I've even disassembled them for parts.
did you even know some have a bladder inside?
>>12707750
>desperate reaching
>trust the plan, bro!!
KABOOOOOOOOOOM!!!

>>12707756

>>12707757

>>12707756
>KABOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!
Not the hecking prototyperino!!!! Its supposed to do an unheard of aerodynamic maneuver perfectly with only 10% of the product!!! Omgosh guyzzzz this thing is never gonna work! It like totally blew up and they only have dozens more!

>>12707756
>Tesla rocks.
>Falcon9 rocks
>starship rocks
T:you in 2024

>>12707756
>I've even disassembled them for parts
Post proof

>>12707770
>has a ticking time-bomb feul tank.
>shift focus to other stuff..
ok, let me know when you get your fancy flying done so you can all go and die on Mars.
>>12707774
if starship succeeds 3 landings on Mars and returns to Earth, then I'll endorse sending people.
not before.
>>12707775
>Post proof
you want me to dig thru the shed looking for 20yr old relics?
fuck off.
I've worked with companies that makes pressure vessels, including underwater-vessels and never did they once have sharp edges to save a buck then bullshit forever to justify it.
Just do it correctly in the 1st place & be done with it.

>>12707781
>has a ticking time-bomb feul tank.
It doesn't and you have yet to prove otherwise.

>>12707781
>then I'll endorse sending people.
>not before.
good think you are a nobody

>>12707815
>It doesn't and you have yet to prove otherwise.
sorry, when successfully completes a mars mission I'll then give a shit about your lottery.
>>12707819
>nobody
musk when he sells tickets on a death trap that goes KABOOOOM.

>>12707781
>you want me to dig thru the shed looking for 20yr old relics?
So you haven't seen the starship's internals? cool
>I've worked with companies that makes pressure vessels, including underwater-vessels and never did they once have sharp edges
which sharp edges? which ones?

>>12707827
>sorry, when successfully completes a mars mission I'll then give a shit about your lottery.
Not an argument.

>>12707827
>musk when he sells tickets on a death trap that goes KABOOOOM.
Musk is the wealthiest man in the world. When Starlink IPO launches he will remain the richest man in the world. SpaceX's contracts with NASA, the US military and commercial sat customers will keep them the dominant player in space for years to come with or without starship. But starship won't fail and the worlds of some scrapyard worker is not going to change anyone's opinion here. So how about this, when starship makes the return trip successfully you make your head go KABOOOOM.

>>12707834
OR just change the design and be rid of the problem completely.
>no fuck off we trust in our new god musk....
>musk will never make the same overconfident mistakes like everyone else eventually also make somewhere or rather..
>nooooo, fuck changing the design; thats heresy!!!!
>fuck common sense, lets all take a risk and save a slither of space!!!
listen to yourselves..
substandard yobbos.
>>12707833
>which sharp edges? which ones?
this is hilarious!!!
are you retarded bro?
didn't you understand the pretty picture, bro?
>>12707843
my concern is only with starship and using it for a trip to mars whilst ignoring best practices for designing pressure-vessels.
the rest of all that shit you dribble is your own psychosis.

>>12707856
>OR just change the design and be rid of the problem completely.
There isn't a problem

>>12707856
>didn't you understand the pretty picture
The fanmade speculation picture?

>>12707858
>There isn't a problem
KABOOOOOOM on mars liftoff.

>>12707856
>whilst ignoring best practices for designing pressure-vessels.
You are literally the only one asserting this.

>>12707860
>The fanmade speculation picture?
you're even stupider than I'd imagined.
hilarious!!

>>12707861
not an argument

>>12707865
>ad hominem

>>12707864
>You are literally the only one asserting this.
the fuel tanks have sharp edges.
pressure vessels aren't made like this.
if you're this retarded then congrats on that.
>>12707867
>not an argument
>I get a hard cock for cutting corners.

>>12707870
show me a pic of the starship fuel-tanks proving it has no sharp edges.

>>12707872

>>12707871
>the fuel tanks have sharp edges.
No they don't, are you talking about the external shell? that isn't the tank itself

>>12707871
>>I get a hard cock for cutting corners.
Not an argument

>>12707882
if thats the fuel tank then thats 2 tanks in one.
one is ok the other is not.
>>12707883
>that isn't the tank itself
no shit sherlock
>>12707884
>I don't design to best practices.
>I'm not cutting corners
ok, half ass.

>>12707891
>if thats the fuel tank then
So you have no clue what the starship fuel tanks are? Why the fuck are you judging them autisticly then?

>>12707895
it looks like them, am I supposed to assume you got the right picture?
why would I assume that?
you still don't know what the sharp edges mean, do you?