/sci/ - Science & Math

Starship first orbital flight in 2023, confirmed by NASA.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20220013431/downloads/HLS%20IAC_Final.pdf

Rockets r cool

>>14831115
no they r hot, haha

>>14831106
Isn't SLS basically a step backwards from STS? NASA had a reusable launch system and instead of improving it, they decided to use the same hardware to make an expendable rocket.

>>14831119
>NASA had a reusable launch system
Being very generous with the term "reusable launch system"

>>14831119
They wanted to make a cheaper and more reliable rocket that could be developed quickly. The J̶W̶S̶T̶ SLS is going to save NASA billions.

>>14831114
we're gonna be stuck here, surrounded by e*rthers forever aren't we

>>14831119
It's a step forward from expendable astronauts

>>14831119
it's probably slightly less likely to kill astronauts (or it would be if boing didn't fuck up several orders of magnitude more than they did with sts) due to having abort capability and no stained-glass/paper-mache retardedly fragile TPS; that and it'll only fly astronauts 4 times max before it gets cancelled

As far as on paper comparisons it's far more capable than the shuttle and can send hundreds of times as much mass to TLI, but throwing away 4 entire rs-25s and extreme grift inflation offset all of it. if SLS was put together competently it would be no better or worse.

>>14831114
Kind of weird how nobody on twitter is talking about it. This confirmation is quite important.
>>14831122
It required extensive refurbishment, but it was still (partially) reusable. Its flight cadence was also decent. 9 manned flights per years is a decent score. Furthermore, there was a Shuttle II concept that could be fully reusable.
But I still think that the best solution for LEO spaceplane is Dream Chaser.

>>14831119
>NASA had a reusable launch system
DEATHTRAP

>>14831144
>it'll fly astronauts 4 times max
I'm something of an optimist myself

>>14831144
The thing is, nobody really needs SLS, apart from its contractors. Just think how Artemis program looks thank to this rocket. One mission per two years, it's like they don't even care. If they did, they would order Atlas V Heavy (or just use Delta IV Heavy) a decade ago and start working on propellant depots. Launch Orion to LEO, refuel it and burn towards the Moon. In later years they could open a competition, for a better and cheaper Lunar vehicle.

>>14831161
All the old Apollo astronauts were behind SLS. The Shuttle astronauts were behind SLS. The Congress were behind SLS. The NASA admin was behind SLS. When SLS (or Constellation) was being proposed to replace STS, Falcon 1 barely existed.

>>14831164
Maybe the astronauts thought it'd cost 500M$. There is no reasonable argument to be made for it to be 4 billion or whatever it's up to now.

>>14831164
So?

>>14831119
That deathtrap had to be basically rebuilt after every launch, the operating costs were astronomical for hardware intended for real operation, not just political favor coin like the sls

>>14831170
I'm sure the old astronauts were just keen on seeing a return to the Moon in their lifetime. As for the Shuttle era astronauts the thought of being able to go on missions beyond LEO was and probably still is very exciting to them regardless of the means of getting there. I doubt there are many currently serving astronauts who joined purely to dick around in LEO for two weeks on a Shuttle mission or monitor zero-g plant growth on the ISS

>In addition to withstanding the cool, desiccated conditions of Antarctica, the bas-reliefs and illustrations in the catacombs of the Mountains of Madness provided evidence that the Elder Things were extraterrestrial in origin. In fact, it was documented that the Elder Things traveled to other planets and galaxies and even visited other universes. Additional illustrations indicate that the Elder Things could travel through interstellar space on their vast membranous wings, propelled by the “ether” also known as aether.
They were using Quantized Inertia

>>14831119
I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily a step backwards in theory—just in practice. Remember that all throughout the preliminary design of the shuttle, and even during the course of the shuttle, there were people trying to find a way to detach the SSME from the orbiter and put it on the extended tank. The reason being that although you save money from reusing the engine, you could theoretically save more by producing a cheaper expendable variant. Also the refurbishment of the SRBs on shuttle was a complete money sink, they should have started expending those even in the shuttle days. The orbiter itself could bring 7 people to space and a ton of cargo, but it cost a LOT of money for preliminary R&D and you pretty much locked yourself into that design. Sure it got upgraded like a glass cockpit, but overall it was way too expensive to try and design something else that could fit neatly on the STS stack and still have the same mass and aerodynamic specifications. Much simpler to chuck a capsule up on the top of a big conventional rocket and just send your cargo up separately. If you need something new you can design a new capsule way easier than you could a big complex space plane

>>14831216
wing outgassing drive

>>14831146
>Kind of weird how nobody on twitter is talking about it. This confirmation is quite important.
Plebbit and NSF haven't picked up on it yet either. This goes to show how esseffgee is the premier spaceflight discussion board on the entire Internet.

>>14831114
>>14831146
>>14831246
Because you people retarded and don't know how to contextualize the phrases properly. You only see what you want to see. There's no 2023 confirmed. There's "come in the next year" aka anywhere in the next 12 months.

Its anywhere from today (published paper) to a year. Not 2023 confirmed. So within a year's time frame.

>>14831288
That means 2023.

>>14831292
4 months in this year

If we had 1 week left in a year, 2023 is confirmed. With 4 months, thats a huge open window of opportunity. They could launch once per month.

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

Cicada sounds?

>>14831324
>You only see what you want to see.
It looks like you're doing the same thing. "Next year" means the year after the current year. So 2023, not 2022. If NASA meant something different, they would say something like "Starship will launch within the next six (or twelve) months.

SPOILER: NASA is going to try for a Sept. 23 launch for Artemis.

>>14831333
NASA does not have a crystal ball. They're going by SpaceX's guidance, which is 1 month - 12 months. Aka within a year

>https://trademark.trademarkia.com/for-the-benefit-of-earth-97560401.html
BO changed their trademark from "Build a road to Space" to "FOR THE BENEFIT OF EARTH"

kek

>>14831338
They didn't say within a year, in the document it says:
>SpaceX now turns its focus to conducting the first orbital flight of the integrated Starship system (Spacecraft + Booster) which will come in the next year.

>>14831344
It means the same thing functionally. Thats how the english language works. The "next year" by itself means 2023. But "in the next year" means within the next 12 months to anytime in 2023.

NASA isn't going to tell SpaceX to stop work for 2022.

>>14831350
Ok.

>>14831288
It's certainly ambiguous, I'll give you that, but I agree with the other Anon that if they were confident in a launch this year, why not say 6 months? A full year leaves far more time on the other side.
Personally I think the orbital attempt is very likely NET 2023 anyways and this is just another hint to that. But it's ambiguous enough to allow for both interpretations.

>>14831366
>if they were confident in a launch this year, why not say 6 months?
Because SpaceX said within 1 month - 12 month. So thats what NASA is going by. NASA isn't the one launching the first test Starship, its SpaceX. So they defer to SpaceX for guidance.

SpaceX is closing the road.

Launch a solid propellant rocket to LEO and make it dock with Orion ESM and send it to the moon. It's that simple.

>>14831380
Time to shutdown SpaceX and NASA. This guy figured it out.

Its OVER!

>>14831375
How many engines?

>>14831380
Most ideas amateurs come up with are unironically better than was NASA is doing

>>14831385
Make a guess.
They might try to fire 3 engines of the Booster again, because last time once engine shut down prematurely.
Same goes for a Ship, it had a VacRap replaced.

>VacRap gets rendered useless by single pebble
this thing might land on the moon but it ain't taking off

>>14831395
Damn, tell that to NASA. They might be interested.

>>14831395
ITS OVER!!!

SPACEX DEBUNKED!!!

>>14831399
Thundersisters, we win again

If SpaceX won the moonlander contract, what purpose does SLS even serve?
I thought the whole point was to put people back on the moon.

>>14831499
Moon taxi

>>14831503
from LEO to Lunar orbit.

>>14831216
>quantized inertia

>>14831499
>I thought the whole point was to put people back on the moon.
lol
lmao

>>14831499
It puts Orion into orbit, and congress mandates that Artemis uses Orion. Therefore, SLS is required. It doesn't matter if you could do it another way, easier and cheaper, this is the law.

>>14831499
SLS is there to tie SpaceX to the moon.
Without such, SpaceX is going to Mars first.

chopsticks are raising.
booster static fire is definitely in the plans.

hoping for full inner ring static.

Morning, /sfg/. Am I the only one who thinks the SpaceX HLS (Starship superleggera) concept seems kinda improbable?

>>14831671
Yes.

>>14831678
forever_alone.exr

The Queen is dead...

>>14831692
KING CHARLES III

>>14831701
Based

https://youtube.com/watch?v=YSob-Pyj6pM

>NASA's Jim Free says the agency has met with Eastern Range officials and submitted a request for a waiver on FTS battery retest requirements. This could allow for Artemis I launch attempts on Sept. 23 and Sept. 27.
WE
ARE
GOING

>>14831671
me too
I hate the lawsuits, but
1 depot, multiple tanker launches (6-8), one HLS launch, one SLS launch,
all to land 2 people on the moon seems overkill

>>14831753
I unironically think we need to HLS landers.
Blue should have just submitted a simpler design without the national team

>>14831753
That's the problem with Orion, not HLS.

>>14831753
>implying this is a problem with "SpaceX HLS (Starship superleggera) concept"
HLS top level design doesn't need changing to take 15 people to the lunar surface.
just you need the transport capabilities to bring them back home and the rating to launch and refuel with people on board.
there is barely a better architecture. anything 2 stage that leaves something on the lunar surface is inferior.

>>14831753
still more feasible than any other company doing a modest launcher

>>14831744
TO SCRUB

>>14831692
F

>>14831671
>>14831753
Reminder that we'll see a lot more of this 'overkill' talk once Starship starts flying for real.
People have not internalized that it's beating the tyranny of the rocket equation by being truly reusable, driving launch cost towards fuel price.
The reusable & orbital refueling architecture, no matter if its Starship or something else, is literally the optimal approach for chemical propulsion.
Its capability versus cost is off the charts for any inner solar system mission, yet you'll still hear
>8 launches just to land one ship on Mars???
>That's SO overkill.
>That SLS flyby proposal only needs one launch and what about nuclear engines?
>Has nobody thought of this before?
>Seems so inefficient

>>14831692
Hail the Queen

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EP0CcjpJ-us

>>14831744
LMAO it will be 5 months at least.
The SRBs have to be inspected, and the self-destruction explosives' certification is almost due.

Not to mention the leaky tower.

>>14831812
cope, it's launching this month

>>14831789
starship hasn't even reached orbit

>>14831815
2023.

>>14831820
>completely missing the point
let me spell it out again.
The reusable & orbital refueling architecture, no matter if its Starship or something else, is literally the optimal approach for chemical propulsion.The reusable & orbital refueling architecture, no matter if its Starship or something else, is literally the optimal approach for chemical propulsion.The reusable & orbital refueling architecture, no matter if its Starship or something else, is literally the optimal approach for chemical propulsion.

September 23 is possible

>>14831826
blah blah blah

>>14831841
kys

>>14831835
>takes off
>goes up and away straight for FAA HQ
>FTS batteries died weeks before

>>14831842
hah hah hah

No one actually thinks this thing will fly, right?

you guys should use the real thread since this schizo one will be deleted shortly
>>14829987
>>14829987
>>14829987

>>14831823
Wrong, it's 2022.

>>14831856
Go the fuck away you huge queer

Predicting the future with certainty is impossible. Why do you guys always try with the launch dates?
There's not a person in the world who knows.

OLM is spooling up nicely. Booster testing will be first. Hopefully no spin prime faggotry.

This rocket will be a VAB queen.
The more it scrubs the more pork they get.

>>14831889
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhJRzQsLZGg

Yep

>make mock SLS in KSP
>include a couple ion cubesats in upper stage fairing
>fly one out to Jool, flyby with all moons one by one
>enough fuel left to fly out to Eeloo
>reach orbit, keep lowering until I'm 3km by 3km
Well now what? I could maybe make a secondary probe assembled from cubesat-sized parts stashed in another fairing, deliver a simple lander to Laythe or Eve or something idk.

bing chilling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4a7-zRRgqyI

>>14831856
seethe

>>14831744
Anyone have the time table?

Not just this calendar but the time + length of launch windows

>>14831692
First good thing she did.
S

>>14832044
42

>>14831855
>No one actually thinks this thing will fly, right?
What do simulations say?

>>14832015
be careful with that edge bro

>>14831856
>jannies fucked up again
Why do we even pay them?

>>14831856
Jannies have redeemed themselves.

>>14832087
Shut up stampfag

I've contributed so many webms and pictures to this general, feels good man.

>>14831856
>DELETED
based! mods = gods

>>14832090
meds. finnanon is based

some nice integral stiffeners

this guy is such a powerhouse. he's now working on a gas generator engine after his success with electric pump fed.
https://nitter.ca/akarin9527/status/1565096628142297088

big boom

they paid for all the raptors they WILL use all the raptors

>>14832111
Does anyone know where I can find the best place to read about the most recent coalesced developments in PROONTING? It looks extremely promising, even in its infancy.

>>14832162
no the Martian habitat won't be printed

>>14832129
This guy is getting funding, there's no way he could pull this off on even a generous salary

X-38 a cute

>>14832159
how exactly is he "counting"

>>14832174
Don't these weirdos have thermal cameras?

>>14832168
i don't know maybe. he said picrel was under 400 bucks.
it's just a ton of time you need to invest.
he also builds all his own electronics so you COULD do it on a reasonable budget.

>>14832181
how are those impellers made

>>14831288
>next year? why, that could be tomorrow!

>>14832186
bro it's all powder sintered

>>14832166
Why not?

>>14832174
He probably has his tricks.
But on NSF cam you can see clouds coming from a few engines.
https://youtu.be/4a7-zRRgqyI

HOLY SHIT

so puffy

NO BOOM

HUGE spin prime

Big clouds

We get it B7 you vape

>>14831164
>All the old Apollo astronauts were behind SLS. The Shuttle astronauts were behind SLS. The Congress were behind SLS. The NASA admin was behind SLS.
Do you see the pattern?

Stop taking old people seriously.

Another roast from GAO
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105323?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=usgao

i count between seven and ten engines in three staggered groups like our nigga said.

Uh oh one copv fell down

>>14832190
and that costs only a few hundred dollars?

Yeah that was all engines is my guess

>>14832226
elon said he wouldn't!

>>14832222
yeah if you know a guy. it's just cost of electricity for whatever laser or electron beam, material should be negligible.

>>14832228

Uh bros russian front is collapsing right now
Nukes soon

>>14832229
that's the beauty of proonting it lends itself very well to low quantity production. essentially zero tooling cost

>>14832232

>>14832233
It’s not really on topic but yeah, Ukeleles pushed 50 km into Russian held territory. Insane because the war was at a standstill for a while

I miss her already…

>>14831692
F

>>14832260
Not a vatnik, but there's still a chance they are just drawing them over the river before moving in behind them and cutting them off.

they should avoid static fires during these mournful moments

It's over for today

>>14832233
There are still plenty of steps to escalate fighting before turning to nukes. Like attacking critical civilian infrastructure.

>>14832281
and buying drones and ammo from NK and Iran

Booster is done for today but the ship might fire (all 6 engines)

>>14832281
>have nukes
>give them up
*laughs in juche*
speaking of best korea, do you think they will ever make good on their promise to have a crewed space program?

>>14831692
F, may she rest in peace. What a world she got to see develop into.

God save the King

>>14832307
It'll be weird as hell to try and get used to saying "King Charles the Third" instead of "Queen Elizabeth"

Shut the fuck up bongs, you were never relevant to spaceflight and never will be. SpaceX is the future, your brown hands from that shitty favela island will never touch mars.

Interesting... they're testing Starliner an old Dragon capsule

>>14832336
I think its Americans who give more of a shit about QE's death than the British, which is weird, but that does seem to be bearing out.

Are there any startups (other than Relativity) working on a medium/heavy lift launcher?

Seems like all the startups are balls deep in developing small launchers. Why? The market is so saturated

>>14832343

>>14832323
I don't believe in kings so he's just Charles.

>>14832345
Unless you're Astra, it's generally a good idea to develop a small launcher and use the lessons learned to scale up

>>14832344
>

>>14832345
Firefly Beta.

>>14831855

the shape the winglets and the shiny stainless steel just make it look like something from 1950s scifi. It just looks fake.

>>14832343
wut?

>>14832288
They might get to send someone via china's launches. Under their own program they're still far from a man in orbit

>>14832377
>*and

>>14832378
According to the documentary series For All Mankind, the DPRK will land a man on Mars by 1995. Personally I can't wait.

>>14831499
Both legally and realistically the whole Artemis program is only being funded BECAUSE of SLS. In fact NASA is lucky they’re still getting a program now that SLS has lost out on bringing the lander and building out gateway (and even launching sats, all of these have been lost to spacex)
As for practically, I don’t think I would trust launching astronauts on starship until it has flown at least 500 times without an incident. But even then I would find a way to get astronauts up there on Dragon or something and then taxi them to the Moon aboard the HLS moonship. Even a Starliner on a Vulcan would be a fraction of the cost compared to using SLS.
But anyways to answer your question: congress controls the piggy bank and congress wants SLS to fly because it spreads billions and billions of dollars over many districts instead of just millions and millions to california/texas

>>14831753
It’s literally more practical than what BO and Dynetics a Leidos Company proposed

neutron update this month!

I like that SpaceX throttled back on with all the Mars autism and will now just use Starship like Falcon 9, the second stage won't be reused.

So what will POCCKOSMOS do with the oneweb satellites they stole?

>>14832430
Occurred to me in a dream

>>14832436
Turn them into farm equipment or sell them on the black market.

>>14832438
B-but the s26 heat shield. L2 said the reusability program is CANCELLED

>>14832345
Smaller rockets means smaller investment requirement which means startups can reach their basic goal easier.

>>14832441
more like postponed
they need to start flinging next gen Starlinks NOW and they can't use Falcon for those.

>>14832399
>because it spreads billions and billions of dollars over many districts instead of just millions and millions to california/texas
Aren't there other programs they can spread the wealth around with? Spaceflight is so special its progressing innovating history should never be determined by short sited selfish sillyness

>>14832436
pockcockass

>>14832436
soccer

>>14832436
Launch it (free internet)

https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-axiom-space-to-develop-artemis-spacesuit/

They still don't have a spacesuit and Artemis III is in three years

>>14832461
No need to hurry

>>14832461
It’s over muskrats.

>>14832461
Spacesuits have existed for 50 years, surely they can bring out granmas recipe book and whip something up, maybe they've even learned a thing or two in that time

>>14832461
$228 million for space suits for the Artemis 3.


I'd assume 4 people going to Moon in Artemis 3, that's $57 million dollar per space suits. Seems way too expensive

>>14832468
Fuck me, anon

>>14831216
I'm glad I'm not the only one to make that joke.

>>14832473
The number maybe 2 spacesuits instead, so its actually $114 million per suit

>>14832473
>I'd assume 4 people going to Moon in Artemis 3
OHNONONONO
HAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHA

>>14832468
REJECT MODERNITY
EMBRACE TRADITION

>>14832450
did they really need to remove the heat shields though?
can't they use the launch to get more testing done?

>>14832461
It's crazy that they only just started work on a spacesuit with Artemis III launching in three years. You think they would have got started on this sooner than just four years before the launch date. What's going to happen when everything else is ready in five years and they still don't have the dumb space suits? If all Artemis III can do in six years is another lunar flyby it's going to be a terrible look for the program.

>>14832473
It's actually just two people, so $114 million per suit. Half the crew are stuck in orbit when the others attempt the landing.

>>14832468
The difference with these suits is that they have to be usable for several years on the lunar surface, and if you know what lunar regolith is like, that's like asking for the moon itself to be brought down to earth.
Apollo missions never reused suits, and nearly all had damaged joints and seals after inspection on Earth

>>14832487
literally nothing will be ready

>>14832181
>>14832168
he's a graduate researcher at a certain university, so he's got access to a bunch of facilities, equipment, suppliers etc. which helps cut down a lot of the not rocket-related costs

>>14832461
Axiom spacesuit is just xEMU with Axiom logos and some different bits and pieces on the Display and Control Module.

>>14831940
This or something like it might become real with new funding into hypersonic airbreathers being driven by militart research.

>>14832486
Nobody knows why they removed it. They haven't even launched the first Starhip yet, and they can only do it five times per year. Skipping the tiling won't help much.
It doesn't make sense to me.

>>14832473
I wonder what the breakdown for R/D is and what the actual cost is.

I hope its not actually $114 million per suit. If its R/D, it should be one time. Lets suppose ~$150 million for R/D to setup the shop/test/etc.

Thats still $40 million per suit. It seems extremely expensive.

With a $1 million, you could build yourself a space suit with battery pack, sealed checks. Lets say $225 million to setup the company from scratch, hire people, do R/D, go to party at beach, hire dozen hookers to give blowjob every single day for the designers/builders, down to the last janitors, etc.

>>14832497
Could be that they found some new way of attaching the tiles, which would make the current design obsolete and pointless to test.
And if they did decide to separate SL and test launches, that would increase payload capacity on Starship launches

>>14832461
>Artemis III is in three years
kek

>>14832497
So the most plausible reason is either they found a fatal flaw with the tiles or attachment or made a big enough improvement to make implementing it now worth it.

>>14832484
>you will never take the time to sit down on your walking stick/chair and enjoy the view of earth from the moon with a good cup of british tea while thinking about how young and fertile the queen of england is.

>>14832486
>can't they use the launch to get more testing done?
good question

>>14832486
no heat shied = lower mass, higher payload, larger margin of error

>>14832497
the wings, raptors and tiles have the weight of a few Starlinks goyim

apparently the new tiles will have a metal back and sides

Ship is getting frosty

>>14832474
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me as to why nobody is utilizing counter-pressure suits? Is there some sort of overlooked fatal flaw right now?

>>14832523
It’s not enough, go for the full metal TPS. Tech has advanced even more since the venture star experimental TPS and Starship has the mass budget. Ceramic tiles is a crew killer

>>14832543
We literally do not have the technology, lurk more this is common /sfg/ knowledge

>>14832543
They're really hard to design and before now there's been no market for them. The only people who use spacesuits are astronauts and cosmonauts performing the occasional spacewalk at the ISS. We have more than enough suits left over from the shuttle years for NASA to have no interest in spending a huge pile of money on developing new ones. Russia isn't interested in replacing theirs because they're broke.

>>14832556
The real question is: Counterpressure suits when?

>>14832558
Not any time soon

>>14832543
Crushed, freeze dried sausages

>>14832543
stagnation of ambition. its been done before. people spent hours in vacuum chambers. obviously then there arent insurmountable issues.
>>14832548
retard
>>14832556
retard
>>14832558
when it becomes critical path for a productive and well ran company like spacex

>>14832558
S O O N

>>14832574
>retard
Okay. So where's the market been that justifies the investment? Who had the need for new better suits, and why haven't they started funding that project?

>>14832399
>I don’t think I would trust launching astronauts on starship until it has flown at least 500 times without an incident.
That seems like an excessive margin of safety. Why not 50?

>>14832455
Congress likes doing it with space flight because space flight is visually impressive and prestigious. Much moreso than building bridges or something mundane but practical like that.

talking of which the case for human spaceflight is weak.

>>14832543
Because it's a goofy fucking scam

>>14832574
There’s a difference between making a skin tight garment that can allow a person to survive in a vacuum chamber sitting still versus having a skin tight garment conductive to EVA activity stupid ass

>>14832576

Probably the best view
https://youtu.be/EdygcWV2vT8

21 European stamps. 17 from Hungary, 2 from Bulgaria and Poland each, and 1 from Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1D0BfVUA_nd4wSktc0dtPNJMhiWNDhkfn?usp=sharing

>>14832641
why wouldn't have they tested mobility during the vac chamber testing?
i've always assumed that the counter pressure suits would be worn under another protective garment

>>14832684
An odd series of stamps from 1965, two have incorrect satellites on them (San Marco being a SolRad-1 and Zond-3 being a Luna-3), and an extremely obscure French sounding rocket "Saphir", which was the basis for Diamant. Stylishly it's even been misspelt as "Shapir"

Static fire incoming

>>14832689
And the first Yugoslavian stamp I've found.

>>14832690
spin prime

>>14832696
Tanks are filled more than the 9 engine spin prime test for B7

Mechanical counter pressure suits need custom foam inserts at places where the suit can't properly squeeze. This is simply enough with a 4 axis cnc mill and 3d laser scans.

For these suits to be viable long term away from earth resupply. You also need a way to recycle the milled away foam and the old foam inserts. Allowing new perfect fit inserts to be made every few weeks.

Though there are still the same problems as with inflated suits. Finger nails coming off and other sores on high friction spots.

>>14832703
>redditspacing
>bikeshedding
yeah bro. the bottleneck for mcp suits is foam recycling technology. get fucking real

>>14832703
it’s not going to happen

SIREN

Siren at 4:20
lol

>>14832718
Elon just tweeted the overpressure event was him coming in your mom.

The puffs have started, should be within 1-2 mins now of firing

BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

>it broke the camera
based

Nice

WOOOOOOOO

HOLY SHIT HOW MANY ENGINES WAS THAT?!

>>14832743

it's begun

Tiles fell off...

>>14832747
Somewhere between 1 and 6

Rip tiles

>grass on fire
it's over

your days are numbered 24

>>14832754
>>14832756
spacex bros...

>>14832757
>>14832756
>>14832754
begone doomers, we are going

>>14832757
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NOT THE SUPER RARE BOCA CHICA LOCAL GRASS! FUUUUUUUCK! IT'S OVER BROS!

oh fuck

did something blow up

GRASS FIRE

Wow those tiles fucking SUCK

>>14832757

>>14832764
there is no sugarcoating this

Environmentalists will not like that...

Burn it down, Elon. Burn it all down.

>>14832764
beetlebros...

NO MORE BEETLES

wont somebody please think of the beetles!!!

>>14832764
It's going to look like a desert if the boosters are allowed to fire all their engines simultaneously. It's so fucking over.

this needs a thorough investigation

>>14832764
>>14832770
oh no no no no no

FAA and EPA are gonna throw the book at them

>>14832770
The grass should have been removed in 300 meter perimeter of SpaceX facility.

it's over bros..

he's completely destroyed boca chica. we can't let this maniac get his hands on mars.

ESGhound must be typing furiously right now

>it's getting worse

>>14832783
Yeah they’re doing that right now retard

>>14832718
Smoking grass siren

Yeah Starship ain't gonna work. Only the booster will be reusable and that's OK

>>14832786

>>14831927
solar electric or radionuclear electric

>>14832797
There wont be grass in orbit

Holy shit wtf their equipment is on fire?!

>>14832786
i set the over/under at 10 falling off a few threads back. it was WAY over.

SpaceXsisters, we lost...

>>14832770
Damn, how did it even get that far out? Something must've flown quite far.

I always disc out a fire lane before burning our wheat fields. I’m basically smarter than all of these rocket scientists

>>14832044
lmao, love this image
>>14832109
Finnanon is cringe

Starship is not getting a launch license after this...

Literal DUMPSTERFIRE

LMAO

So uhhh how exactly do you fight a pad fire when there’s tons of methane and oxygen stored everywhere? Kek hope there’s a firefighting airplane nearby

literal dumpster fire

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>14832813
SLSbros... I can't believe our rocket is on fire near the SN24!

Grass is performing a long-duration static fire

just release the nitrogen tanks to extinguish the fire

>>14832807
the plume exits the nozzle at like mach 10 so i guess some bits of it get out fast enough that they stay hot

oh boy this is going to get milked for weeks

Why not SpaceX get a robotic controlled truck with water that can fire water at fire and be driven by a remote controlled driver?

>tiles dropping like flies
>dumpster on fire
>wildire started
musk is finished

>space x's boca chica facility has burned down due to elon musks hubris
I guess it's over then, isn't it?

Orbital launch attempty truly cofirmed for 2023
Thank you.

>>14831753
who cares about the number of launches if the vehicle is reusable?
retard

>>14832827
>repair under cryogenic conditions
HYDROLOGGS :DDDDDDD

The whole site will burn down because firemen can't come close

put the flames out with liquid oxygen

i live a few hours away from boca chica. i'm heading out to the store now to stock up on fire extinguishers before the first full booster sf.

Unironically speaking, watch out how after this insignificant incident ends skeptics, antimusk retards, and the media will start sperging out about muh poor grass and how musk is killing beetles in a pristine natural reserve and what not, just like it happened that time with Starhopper.

>>14832827
Oldspace poured gasoline around Starbase when they had to scrub SLS

>>14832831
RICH MAN MUSK BURNS DOWN LOCAL WILDLIFE IN HIS SELFISH PURSUIT OF ESCAPING EARTH AND CREATE GLOBAL WARMING

>>14832839
LOX is so cold that it'll freeze the fire out, good thinking anon

>>14832764
>>14832770
Alright guys I'm back what did I mi-
>SOME FOLKS ARE BORN MADE TO WAVE THE FLAG.
>HOO, THEY'RE RED, WHITE AND BLUE
>AND WHEN THE BAND PLAYS "HAIL TO THE CHIEF"
>OOH, THEY POINT THE CANNON AT YOU, LORD

great day to be a doomer

Another 30000 acres of grassland destroyed. Capitalism disgusts me

Orbital test soon :^)

>>14832849
I'm trans btw if that matters

>>14832853
I know

[Top]

>>14832851
if s24 ignites all 6 engines in midair it'll set the atmosphere on fire given what we've seen today

>>14832853
Yeah, it matters, thank you.

Time for some firerobots, Elon. Firerobots with a whirling set of penises and rape protocols.

The virgin hydrolox leaker vs the Chad methalox flamethrower

>Elon still silent on twitter

>>14832862
Firefighter Teslabots will fix this

Starship is real you’ve seen it down in boca chica

next flyover photos are going to be interesting

>fill up tanks
>explodes
>spin prime 33 engines
>blow up orbital pad
>move chopsticks
>hydraulics fail
>move chopsticks again
>destroy scaffolding
>static fire
>set fire to entire area
Hard not to be a doomer these days

>>14832864
He's busy frisbeeing TPS tiles against engineers to make a point.

APOLOGIZE

>>14832862
Just lease a truck, attach a water tank, modify the control system so can be remote controlled, add cameras, add starlink on top.

Why aren't robot firefighting trucks more common?

Reusable experience

I CAN'T BELIEVE LEON TUSK ORDERED HIS GOONS TO SPRAY GASOLINE ALL OVER BOCA CHICA BEFORE IGNITING HIS ROCKET! HE CANNOT GET AWAY WITH THIS, ESG-HOUND, GET ON THE CASE!

Expendable launchpad

the absolute state...

>>14832874
it seems weird they don't have a few of these rn-i mean this is all off the shlef tier stuff

how many beetles died in this fire?

Do you think this happened because they use natural gas instead of the filtered pure methane they wanted originally?

>>14832880
Renewable launchpad.

>>14832885
no lol

>>14832883
I’m told that no beetle has been seen in the Boca Chica area for ~40 years.

We have many motion-activated cameras around Starbase – thousands of clips of coyotes, dogs & cats, but no beetles.

This smoke is the only thing lifting off from this cosmodrome the last 2 years

Meanwhile, an expert's opinion on the matter
https://twitter.com/ESGhound/status/1567991047875342337
>I was told they don't need a significantly larger deluge system and that a flame diverter would be sufficient for orbital launches though!

>>14832895
Stop

something explode already let’s just get this over with

>>14832864
He is in mourning for Her Majesty

>>14832895
ESG you are never going to get your money back, enjoy the launch when it happens and keep seething we all enjoy your twitter screenshots :)

>>14832874
Electronics stop working from ambient heat before people do.

>>14832895
Remember, this guy, Eric Roesch, is a Jewish s.oy-boy man paid off by oil giants.

Biden ordered the FAA to ban waterbombers from taking flight and the whole starbase is going to burn down
I don't actually believe any of that I'm just tired.

>>14832904
launch?

>>14832906
meds

>>14832904
>ESG
hes called eric roesch

i know people are going to assume this is trolling but how can you have a rocket with double the thrust of the saturn v and no sound suppression system without it fucking things up massively

The time of the beetle ends today.
It's now the time of the martian.

shits going crazy on sentinel cam

They need to clear these area to make it safe from random fires

>>14832919
Elon, hire this man.

>>14832919
they are literally not allowed to

>>14832921
Wildlife prevents them from clearing the area

>>14832919
Wow sir very good observing sir many thanks to you smart man

>>14832924
wildlife is burning at this moment

>>14832919
Umm sweaty, you can't just concrete it all, think of the beetles

>>14832926
Controlled destruction is necessary to prevent future unknown events. This isn;t the first time, this isn't the second time, its not the third time, it happens often enough.

>>14832919
subterranean pad 2 looking good

>>14832926
That's why they're letting it burn.
>oops :^)

>>14832917
Based

What the fuck? Stop him

SpaceX can't ever burn grass right. Feds figured that shit good in Vietnam. Embarrassing.

>>14832915
do you even know what the sound suppression system is for? Why it's needed? fucking cargo cult bullshit just fuck off

OTF VENTING
WE ARE GOING TODAY

>>14832835
MAGSIMISE ISB :DDDDD

Fucking stop Elon Musk

longtermists need to die. In the longterm you're dead.

>>14832917
Sorry. Mars is for bettles

>>14832912
We found out his name, occupation, and media profiles after FAA doxed him. That is his name, he has credentials under an explicitly Jewish organizations, and he is an "environmental engineer" under an oil giant subsidiary, which means he is under the payroll of Oil Giants. He also shorts Tesla because he is afraid of his job security and has bought into the entrenched Oil industry and lobbies. There is no political bias to this, it is INDISPUTABLE TRUTH.
Massive coincidence, I'm sure, but that's not my judgement to make.
Take your meds, incel.

2 weeks™

Somebody please STOP ELON MUSK

>>14832831
Looks like Pearl Harbor happened

>>14832934
>>14832934
brb buying all skittles and dannon strawbetty yougurt at the super market

THEY DID IT

>>14832942
so the acoustic shockwaves don't damage the rocket and pad? now that i've solved your riddle will you answer the question?

China just published this, they say starship will launch 2023(lol) but Long March 9 won’t launch till 2030

>>14832959
Glad to see New Glen already flew

>>14832959
they've been saying 2030 for a while. i assume it's code for "we haven't started any real work on it yet"

>>14832959
They said SLS will launch in 2020

>>14832959
2 more decades

Fire is getting smaller
lame

>>14832957
apparently the team of SpaceX engineers are confident that it won't damage the pad or rocket
do you have something to doubt them or are you just concern trolling, reasoning by analogy, and cargo culting 60s NASA?

>>14832959
Yenisei is real.

>>14832976
The river is anyway.

>>14832974
>starship engineers know what they are doing trust me

What is that big tank for? Water deluge?

>>14832980
>>starship engineers know what they are doing
I mean, yes?

the taste of love is sweet
when hearts like ours meet

A TEXAS WILDFIRE JUST CONSUMED MY HOUSE

>>14832981
12m starship

>>14832957
Orbital Launch Platform is up high enough that the damage to concrete is minimal and there will be some water deluge system to reduce the damage to the concrete as well.

>>14832986
God, I wish, we were robbed when ITS/BFR shrank from 12m to 9m

>>14832873
That's a big shower

>>14832981
methane

>>14832981
It's double layer so it's cryo something

>>14832993
and oxygen is stored in the ball?

>>14832996
dodge coin tank

>>14832974
At the same time, Elon said they think it'll be fine (without a flame diverter), but that that may end up being a mistake. So confident yes, but how confident isn't exactly clear.

>>14832974
>do you have something to doubt them
sure. apollo 4 and sts-1's liftoffs were both much louder than expected and when you're talking 70 MN of thrust you're in uncharted territory for rockets.
>>14832989
>there will be some water deluge system
didn't realize that, thanks anon

>>14832795
>>14832790
>>14832786
The ship is simply too powerful to be chained to earth, it's purpose is to fly, it is crying out to meet it's destiny

>>14832998
the ball isn't big enough for Starship
the ball is full of methane right now, right
>>14833007
sound levels and thrust do not correlate in the slightest

>>14833009
the ball is full of nothing. it's the space shuttle hydrogen sphere

>>14833007
>there will be some water deluge system
Just to be clear, it will be a very light water deluge system similar to what the suborbital mount has. It sprays some water across the concrete.
Nothing expansive like NASA does with their water. The OLM was designed so that it would use very little water for it.

>>14832991
You could fit 64 Raptors into a 12m Superheavy. That's over 150 MN of thrust. You might actually need a deluge system for something like that.

>>14832764
>>14832770

>>14833013
yeah, I thought that SpaceX bought the sphere off of NASA at scrap prices at some point

>>14833018
i assume they bought it they're cutting holes in it.
they've not used it yet though

>>14833015
Imagine the environmental review for THAT lmao

>>14832905
Surrounded by an insulated heatshield bubble where only the hoses stick through holes in the bubble

>>14833009
>sound levels and thrust do not correlate in the slightest
derp

>>14833027
yeah plot anything on a log plot and it'll look like a straight line

>>14833027
Thankfully Raptor 2 has only 230 tons of thrust.

>>14832928
>Umm sweaty, you can't just concrete it all, think of the beetles
Nature adapts and evolves. Texas is huge, this area is small, concrete bit by bit and the wildlife will move bit by bit

>>14833029
the shape of the trend isn't the point. the point is higher thrust means louder sound.

>>14833027
that is for single engines, and clustering engines doesn't behave as you'd expect with regards to sound levels

So what just happened

>>14832959
Chinese naming their roggets after Mao's cowardly retreats and hiding.

>>14833045
dynamic fire

Why don't they just divert the flames over into the open ocean?

>>14833048
NOW you're thinking in sea dragon

>>14833048
That would scare the heckin fisherinos

>>14833043
for single engines

>>14833044
>>14833051
How loud would Sea Dragon be?

>>14833044
>>14833057
is it like they use destructive interference when they have multiple engines to dampen the noise?

>>14832974
>apparently the team of SpaceX engineers are confident that it
What percent of them are what percent what percent of the time afraid to speak their true mind in front of their boss

>>14833051
Okay then how about diverting the energy up into the air diagonally? Would that work?

>>14833062
it's not predictable in that way but they don't all constructively add together into a super death beam or anything

>>14833045
Boring company's new flamethrower v2 just dropped

>>14833049
A sea dragon styled launch would work nicely for a 18 or 24m starship successor. You could delete everything related to the launch mount, tower, and deluge system and you'd vastly simplify the rest of the GSE. The only tricky part would be getting it to go into the water straight on landing and stick that way when it really wants to tip over.

>Several police cars on camera
it's over, they're gonna arrest him, aren't they?

>>14833072
they've caught the ULA napalmer

>>14833045
engines went brrrrrr

>>14832974
Also let's not forget that these are the same engineers that thought doing a 33 engine spin prime test with out any anti-explosion measures would be just fine.

>>14833072
Finally, some good fucking news for the SLS program. I'm breathing a sigh of relief for the future of the Artemis missions.

>>14832436
museum

>>14833086
>LivePD
what a good show that was

Dumpster fire is almost FINISHED!