/sci/ - Science & Math

For nostalgia's sake, next launches:

>Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 7-5
>Sat Oct 21, 2023 12:19 AM MDT
SLC-4E, Vandenberg SFB, California, USA
>Falcon 9 Block 5 | Starlink Group 6-24
>Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:49 PM MDT
SLC-40, Cape Canaveral SFS, Florida, USA
>Long March 2D | Unknown Payload
>Mon Oct 23, 2023 2:01 PM MDT
LC-3, Xichang Satellite Launch Center, China

>>15811374
Starship delayed till next summer by Fish and Wildlife

>>15811374
Chris cope must cope once more.
How much money has he lost on this?

>>15811388
Dubs confirm, werebacksissies absolutely BVCKBRVCKEN

>>15811390
It will be so over for it's over fags when IFT2 happens in two weeks.

>>15811394
Can it be so over we're back?

>>15811394
YOU HEARD HIM BACKXISTERS!!! TRUST THE PLAN, WWG1WGA!!!

>>15811397
only for itsoverGODS. join us if you want to always be right

I don't know why everyone is so surprised. When beaucrat cocksuckers say they have "up to" x amount of days, that always means that's how long it going to take and if you get approved a few days early you are lucky.

>>15811408
only newfags are surprised. i have been two weeks posting for months now and i AGAIN turn out on top.

Astronomers say new telescopes should take advantage of “Starship paradigm”,
---
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/astronomers-say-new-telescopes-should-take-advantage-of-starship-paradigm/
> A consensus among leading American astronomers is that NASA's next wave of great observatories should take advantage of game-changing lift capabilities offered by giant new rockets like SpaceX's Starship.
> Launching a follow-on to the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) on Starship, for example, could unshackle the mission from onerous mass and volume constraints, which typically drive up complexity and cost, a panel of three astronomers recently told the National Academies' Committee on Astronomy and Astrophysics.
> "We suggest studies of all three of these Astro2020 flagships, and their payloads and their spacecraft, in this new Starship paradigm, or any large launcher paradigm, to take advantage of the design space that’s opened up," Elvis said last week.
> To illustrate the limitations imposed by a rocket's capacity, let's revisit the James Webb Space Telescope. Webb had to fit inside the roughly 5-meter-diameter payload fairing of an Ariane 5 rocket, which had the largest payload envelope of any available launch vehicle when engineers were first designing Webb. That meant the telescope's 18 individual primary mirror segments had to fold, and designers devised a five-layer tennis court-size sunshade made of flimsy but effective insulation to block the Sun's heat and light from the telescope. All of that had to bundle up to allow Webb to fit within the confines of its rocket when it launched in 2021.

>>15811413
> With a larger rocket like Starship or New Glenn, a future telescope could use a monolithic mirror, throwing out the need for segmented mirrors. There are scientific arguments that suggest segmented mirrors may be better for some applications, but the jury is still out. Also, instead of needing a complex deployable sunshade that might be prone to failure, engineers could bolt on a larger rigid sunshade wrapping around the entire telescope.
> If it launched on a huge rocket like Starship, a telescope's mirrors could be thicker and heavier, meaning they would be easier to manufacture and polish, scientists said. A heavier rocket could allow spacecraft designers to add on larger solar panels for additional power. The extra power could allow the spacecraft to use cheaper electronics with more redundancy, Elvis said.
> In order to send any of these telescopes into deep space toward the L2 Lagrange point, where they would observe the Universe far away from interference from Earth, Starship would need to be refueled in orbit. Feinberg said NASA's optics experts have questions about whether the refueling process could contaminate a telescope's sensitive mirrors. A telescope loitering in low-Earth orbit waiting for its Starship transport to be refueled could also be subjected to extreme temperature swings, potentially putting it at risk of damage.
> Ultimately, if NASA wants to go even bigger with its next-generation space telescopes, Starship could accommodate a folded mirror as big as 10 to 12 meters wide, according to Feinberg. For New Glenn, the upper limit is probably on the order of about 8 meters. Bigger mirrors increase the collecting area of a telescope, giving it improved resolution to see smaller and fainter objects.

>>15811414
>(((Feinberg))) said NASA's optics experts have questions about whether the refueling process could contaminate a telescope's sensitive mirrors.

every

single

time

>>15811374
>Astra
The fact that they're now valued at less than Virgin Orbit's factory sold for and nobody has bought them out yet tells you just how worthless they are. And they're down 19% today. At what point does 4ASS make a bid?

>>15811418
I will personally buy a majority stake and rename the company to 4ASS if it drops to 200K mcap.

>>15811414
I think the problem this article magnifies is that these people are trying to make plans for missions ten, fifteen, even twenty years out
And they got NOTHING to go on, leading to wild guesses like this

Axiom Space refines training for next private astronaut mission, NASA's Parker Solar Probe smashes record for fastest human-made object
--
https://spacenews.com/axiom-space-refines-training-for-next-private-astronaut-mission/
> WASHINGTON — As Axiom Space gears up for its third private astronaut mission to the International Space Station, the company says it has refined the training needed to effectively carry out those missions.
> Villadei, who will be pilot of Ax-3, has additional relevant experience: he flew to space in June on Virgin Galactic’s first commercial SpaceShipTwo mission, Galactic 01, accompanied by two other Italian researches to conduct a suite of experiments on that suborbital flight.
> However, he stopped short of recommending a suborbital flight as a requirement for an ISS mission. “It’s not strictly necessary,” he said. “It’s an added value to put together this combination of different flights.”
---
https://www.space.com/nasa-parker-solar-probe-fastest-man-made-object-breaks-record
> NASA's Parker Solar Probe has reached a record-breaking speed as it gets a gravitational assist from Venus to fall closer to the sun's scorching surface.
> On Sept. 27, the probe reached a blistering 394,736 mph/ (635,266 km/h) as it swooped close to the sun's surface, thanks to a little gravity assistance from a close flyby of Venus on Aug. 21. . With this blistering approach to the sun, the probe smashed its own previous speed record of 364,660 mph (586,863 kmh), set in Nov. 2021. At the same time, the probe set a new distance record, swooping within just 4.51 million miles (7.26 million km) of the solar surface — closer than any spacecraft has ever orbited before, according to NASA.

>>15811413
well duh thats obvious enough. ive already said in here on multiple occasions that starship will IN GENERAL remove the issue of mass with modern day spacecraft. of course, later on in the future when things are designed around starship we may need even MORE size and lift capacity but the advancements we can make between then and now are very clearly astounding. this doesn't just apply to telescopes also, really any probe or mission is made easy with starship.

A bit tangential, but what does /sfg/ think of musks constant and blatant lies about tesla being full self driving next year every year for an entire decade?
I find it kek, but it worries me that maybe starship won't work out and become the new fsd

I have figured out when starship will launch.
I'm going camping from Nov 12-16 and will not have any access to the internet or a cell signal. Therefore starship will launch in that window, I just know it.

>>15811433
its aspirational, not a lie

>>15811423
Its supposed to reach 430000mph eventually. Fast enough to make it from the earth to the moon in around 30ish minutes assuming it was traveling in a straight line.

>>15811433
starships will be fsd on mars by this time next year

btw Musk sounded a bit depressed on the Tesla earnings call, could be tired too

>>15811433
not spaceflight, i dont give a shit about tesla in general and i muted him on Shitter (i only go there for starship news)

>travel to America
>receive tour at Kennedy
>it's river rocks and beans
https://twitter.com/KenAkamatsu/status/1713514657909285364/photo/3


captcha: HAYG0Y

>>15811433
Fuck off back to whatever shithole you came from.

>>15811445
oh shit he's the Love Hina guy

>>15811413
I'D like to see other modes, i.e. 'expendable' Starship.

launch ship with telescope to orbit, refuel in orbit from 2nd ship, launch the now refueled telescope/ship

>>15811448
Kill yourself zoomer, I've been here longer than you and have been a musk stan longer than you.
>>15811444
Well he's the CEO so it's kind of relevant.
>>15811440
Starship will not be on Mars next year. At the IAC Musk said he expects the first unscrewed flight to Mars to occur in roughly 4 years, which was a massive Blackpool to me because converting that Elon time to real time means we will certainly not see it on Mars in this decade. Maybe it will do the Artemis landings late this decade, but that too will be behind the schedule even NASA wants.
>>15811436
Well whatever it is its worrying because either he's bullshitting and has some endgame (that's my opinion), or he's just being retarded and has no idea what is actually happening at the company. It should be clear by now that FSD is impossible with the current hardware on Teslas.

>>15811459
>I've been here longer than you

No, you haven't. Your typing style and phrasing is exactly the same as every EDS seether. Now go back.

>>15811417
i noticed that too. seems the jewish trick of designing telescopes persists even until this day.

>>15811374
Cancel MSR

>>15811445
>>15811456
Love Hina
Negima
UQ Holder (Negima 2)

Guy's legendary in manga

>>15811433
Did you come from leddit?

>>15811459
>hello fellow Musk stans

>>15811460
kek, wut? You think I have EDS? Absolutely nuts.

>>15811445
oh, that's the VIP building at the visitor center I think

>>15811469
SMD

>>15811459
> massive blackpool
lol

>>15811462
>why would we design new engines? We'll just whip up another RL10 variant! It's so much simpler!
At this point I'm convinced that the RL10 is at the heart of some evil Jewish space conspiracy

>>15811459
again, he only said roughly 4 years because its very obvious they wont be ready for the 2024 transfer window and the next transfer window is in 2026 with a landing around 2027.

>>15811473
No one on this website uses that acronym. Try harder little reddit man.

>>15811433
>"Haha that's not a typo"
Newfag

>>15811484
if elon is confident it can be done for 2024 then I would be confident it will actually happen in 2026. if hes confident it can happen by 2026 then God knows when it will occur. probably not in this decade.

>>15811483
It's got like 460 seconds of Isp and is reusable. Short of RS-25 class performance or switching to FFSC Methalox it's the best chemical vacuum engine.

>>15811414
>Feinberg said NASA's optics experts have questions about whether the refueling process could contaminate a telescope's sensitive mirrors. A telescope loitering in low-Earth orbit waiting for its Starship transport to be refueled could also be subjected to extreme temperature swings, potentially putting it at risk of damage.
Simply don't open the payload door until after refueling has been completed and the vehicle has boosted towards its final orbit you dumb fucker

>>15811517
Feinberg isn't dumb, Feinberg is part of a tribe with an agenda.

>>15811500
2024 is less then a year away and starship hasn't even launched a second time yet. Orbital refilling is going to take a year at least to demonstrate probably.

>>15811501
Short nozzle RL-10 engines don't get 460 Isp, and Isp isn't as important as propellant storability when you're very far from Earth and on a low gravity world.

>>15811414
>oh no my mirror was exposed to pure methane
>(methane ice sublimates away in seconds leaving zero residue)
>anyway
do those (((optics experts))) know anything about rockets?

>>15811459
no its not relevant kill yourself offtopic faggot. you yourself said it was tangential, meaning you KNOW its offtopic and yet you still post it. kill yourself.

>>15811459
>blackpool
>off topic faggotry even doe hes been here longer than anyone else (who would lie on the internet)
>multireply posts
>lying to our faces about this being on topic
lurk moar newfag

>>15811417
yeah there must be a lot of intellectual conflict in that guy's head, on one hand he wants to waste all the goyim's money on fancy toys for himself and generate valuable debt for his banker buddies, but on the other hand musk refuses to do the adl's censorship bidding on twitter, so giving musk the launch business is not quite kosher.

>>15811525
Hydrolox is the simplest ISRU process since all you need is water and power.

>>15811295
Starlink is only 6600 yen in Japan, so like $45 USD. And the terminal is 55000 yen which is like $367 USD. The service is $120 in Ohio and another $599 for the terminal. So they can definitely cut down on the cost if they want to but they know people in the US will pay more.

SpaceX and the FAA are FRIENDS guys
The FAA is going fast, by all accounts.
SpaceX isnt ready, I keep telling you.

>>15811421
I mean, what do you want? They have to design a telescope that is going to take advantage of newer technologies that do not yet exist, but could exist, and have to base their design around rockets that currently exist in order to establish a baseline estimate for what they could put into space. The proposal that these astrooooonomers were making is that "We shouldn't try and make a telescope that has to fit inside of a piss tiny fairing." Which is objectively the right mindset because the market indicates that large launchers will exist by the time that the telescope is built. Further, the kvetching in the article about temp fluctuations won't matter by the time they actually get to crystalizing the design you'll have SpaceX providing information as to whether or not that kvetching bares out simply because obviously they will have regular customers who are very interested in the same thing.

>>15811578
insiders have told berger that it’s the FAAs fault, and that Space Exploration Technologies Corp is waiting on them to do their slow paperwork processes. We have proof now

>>15811578
>>15811582
it's not even the FAA, it's the FWS

>>15811585
Fucking Wetarded Shits

>>15811445
BEANS
ARE
GO!

>>15811590
Thought that was a horsecock at first glance.

>>15811433
trust the plan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VWyaAzwMT0
FSD is hard as fuck though
mainly because of morons on the road and morons that built the roads

>>15811590
krystal would never pilot this irresponsibly though

>>15811445
wtf I didn't know this NASA lore https://www.universetoday.com/61939/a-space-shuttle-tradition-thats-full-of-beans/
>Norm Carlson, one of the test directors brought in a crockpot of beans along with some cornbread, and after the flawless STS-1 lift-off, the hungry team members rapidly consumed the delicious beans and cornbread.
>“On each subsequent launch, Mr. Carlson kept bringing more crock pots filled with beans, and on each subsequent launch the beans would disappear in short order.
>Finally, sensing that it was getting too difficult to bring in enough crock pots to feed everyone, Mr. Carlson switched to an 18 quart cooker, and set up shop on the fourth floor of the LCC, just above the firing rooms. The call “Beans are Go!” came to signal that the shuttle had successfully launched, and it was time to relax and unwind.”
>The tradition continued, even after Carlson retired and now 60 gallons of beans are prepared for every launch as an official NASA function.
>Since the phrase “full of beans” means having lots of energy and enthusiasm, it seems fitting that beans are part of the space shuttle tradition at KSC

>>15811433
He ran head first into picrel but if he's willing to design his own chips he might crack it

>>15811617
They have been designing their own chips for quite a while.

>FWS delaying launch until mid-2024
>even legislators are mocking them
What if we just remove the fish and the wildlife?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming_of_Venus
>bomb venus with pure clacium or magnesium asteroids to absorb all the CO2
Just do the same to earth you'd need a tiny fraction of the same roid to absorb the much smaller amount of CO2 here
If they pay in carbon credits it would perhaps even be profitable

hmm

>

>>15811668
Hilarious how this chart doesn't even need labels

>>15811417
HOW THOUGH? For it to contaminate in orbit would mean it would have to be contaminated on the ground. There's no fucking atmosphere up there. This doesn't make any fucking sense.

>>15811617
>>15811433
It took them over a decade to build all the software and hardware foundational building blocks to reach a point where they can build a meganet that can accept raw photons and put controls out that is general purpose and universally applicable. Now, based on new data, their limiting factor is access to training compute and time. Both of which are the most costliest things on the Earth, and both get more expensive, the higher the interest rates go. It's poetically damning all the same.

Anyways, rockets.

>>15811617
>check whether the photo is of a bird
the funny thing is that most phone camera apps will auto do that
and gpt4 can do it as well lol

>>15811674
sadly the labeled version was inaccurate

>>15811685
>HOW THOUGH? For it to contaminate in orbit would mean it would have to be contaminated on the ground
when it gets refueled it could leak
just look at all the contamination on the outside of the ISS

>>15811710
And this affects the sealed fairing contents exactly how, Mr Feinberg?

>>15811717
the fairing won't be sealed?

>>15811720
Ok so hypersonic atmosphere will rip it apart at launch then. Neck yourself schlomo.

>>15811723
you get rid of the fairing after you leave the atmosphere

>>15811726
Starship doesn't have a disposable fairing schlomo.

>>15811573
If you've got enough energy for that, you might as well go for steam rockets at that point - either nuclear or solar thermal. Instead of wasting the power on electrolysis just heat the water to a few thousand C with microwaves or direct reactor cooling and get the same ISP as hydrolox without the hydrogen boiloff and embrittlement clown show. Unless you're talking about ISRU at surface infrastructure and then using it only for local operations, but the other anon is correct with saying
>>15811525
>Isp isn't as important as propellant storability when you're very far from Earth and on a low gravity world.
Water is a great propellant if you're going thermal rocketry, but methalox is hands down better than hydrogen for long deep space missions far from depots or ground infra. Not only does it store better but you also get more dV for the same craft size compared to hydrolox. Remember, isp is only half of the equation, and the other half is full vs empty mass ratio which matters a lot more when you aren't staging off dead weight empty tanks. Methane being significantly denser than hydrogen means a rocket with a given volume for tanks will always store multiple times as much fuel mass as CH4 compared to H2. Methane also has lower insulation requirements and doesn't need a cryocooler or supporting power infrastructure, further improving the mass ratio. 30% lower ISP doesn't matter much if you get 5x as much fuel and it lasts for years instead of weeks.

>>15811704
That particular XKCD is over a decade old.

>>15811706
This version is the same and correct thoughbeit

>>15811753
you are blind and also stupid

>>15811760
Im blind to the change in axis values yes but these could be costs at different dates. No dates were given for each graph so one could be early in to the Artemis program and one could be later, the Starship LEO payload going up 40t with the higher Artemis cost indicates I might be right, but we wont know unless you post source. SO POST YOUR FUCKING SOURCES

Ah see he doesnt post his sources because now he realizes HES the retard

just saw the news that spacex might not get approval for 6 months. biden is eating a tub of icecream right now. he'll probably win reelection too if these wars keep up since wartime presidents tend to get reelected.

>>15811778
Just two more weeks!!! Surely we will launch in November, just trust the plan

>>15811764
you are blind and retarded

>>15811663
>pure calcium or magnesium asteroids
these do not exist THOUGH

>>15811445
Thinkgen of thos beans.

>>15811414
>a future telescope could use a monolithic mirror, throwing out the need for segmented mirrors.
I've been saying this for some time. They could launch a 4.5 meter Hubble style telescope on Starship. If they are so concerned about fuel contamination they can put a cap on it that gets later removed.

>>15811668
according to SpaceX' totally reasonable cost estimate

ok , Starship is delayed 6 more months . What can they do in the mean time ? keep stacking and de-stacking forever in a loop ? keep "checking welds " , 1-2-3-4 WDR's ? , keep building SN's and Boosters at infinitum ? They already have like 3 ships and 3 boosters ready for flight.

>>15811609
I wish I understood why people like baked beans. I like beans, but I find baked beans to be disgusting slimy things. And don't tell me it's because I haven't had real beans, pretty much all of America at this time was eating Heinz baked beans outta cans.

>>15811868
Make sure engines work because I have a feeling not all of them will work during test flight.

>>15811868
Keep building Starships. That is where the major alterations are at this point. They could start proofing out designs for different access points, making stretched designs, etc. They are going to have to do these things anyway so it wouldn't kill them to try out the construction process and see how it goes.

>>15811879
a few of them are allowed to fail. But not 25%

>>15811878
You're supposed to heat them up first, retard.

>>15811880
please god , no more "construction process". June 2021 - April 2023 was a nightmare

>>15811413
>>15811414
>Starship
Can we stop talking about this vehicle already?
It has already been debunked.

>>15811433
Is it a lie or is he just overly optimistic?
I'm sick of people always calling unintentional falsehoods "lies" when it's just someone making a wrong prediction, the weather man didn't "Lie" when he said there would be rain and it didn't he was just wrong.

Also not space related.

4pvxd>15811914
Gas yourself for replying. Here, I have a tin of Zyklon B pellets for just such infractions.4

>>15811910
people laugh but tory is unironically right. starship is chronically badly designed for anything beyond leo or mars-direct. moon landing is a meme

>>15811938
Okay so tory is calling it “hyper optimized for (trucking things) to LEO”
Hmmmm I wonder if it trucked some fuel and oxidizer to LEO if it could maybe… refill…? ugh ha ha no way. No way!!

>>15811856
They could easily launch a 6 meter monolothic mirror telescope on Starship

>>15811859
actually the Starship point on that graph is ~20x higher than SpaceX's estimate.

>>15811938
Starship gets 27 tonnes to GTO single launch and will cost less than Falcon 9 per flight.

>>15811938
one of the reasons china went from directly cloning starship to CH4/LOX, LH2/LOX, LH2/LOX
yes starship is going to be an unbeatable megaconstellation builder but it aint doing neptune orbiters and missions like that in the next decade

>>15811956
Refill Starship in LEO and it has the delta V to send 100 tonnes of payload directly to Jupiter.
"High energy optimization" is cope, just like "targeted orbit insertion" was cope by smallsat launchers who are currently getting raped by Transporter F9 launches.
Payload designers do not care how big the rocket is. They care about the cost, payload envelope, and upper mass limit.

>>15811956
>but it aint doing neptune orbiters and missions like that in the next decade
That's okay, neither is NASA.

>>15811961
With a fuel depot, you can go anywhere

reminder to all musk faggots here he is actively trying to connect places like africa and india to a reliable net connection with starlink

>>15811969
The prize at the end of it is not having to share a planet with them.

>>15811955
>will cost less than Falcon 9 per flight.
Says musk. its maybe achievable with high flight rate and low maintenance/wear on all the parts, but we will have to wait and see. So far raptor doesnt seem too reliable on one flight let alone hundreds. Shuttle also promised insane performance.

>>15811947
Like I said you can do mars direct if you refill it 6+ times on orbit, but all the added mass of the fins, heat shield, other structural mass etc is wasteful for anything other than atmospheric entry, so its only practical to take starship to mars or venus. for other missions (like the moon) you would stage off starship with a smaller craft. Frankly landing on the moon in starship instead of staging off it is ridiculous, but I see why NASA is persuing it, because SpaceX is the only company with a serious proposal, and giving them the finds to complete starship has added benefits outside landing on the moon

>>15811969
I know, and I'm happy about this. Everyone deserves access to the Internet. Except children before the age of 14, and I'm being generous here. Early unrestricted access to the Internet is very bad for a developing mind.

>new glenn? artemis?...
>calm down anon, must have been a bad dream, watch, theyre taking off from the spaceport again!

>>15811966
I'm gonna build my own Uranus probe using an old 12 foot TV dish, a desktop computer stuffed inside a used 20,000 gallon propane tank potted with wax for radiation shielding, and smoke detector Am-241 sources trickle charging 100 car batteries for a power source.

>>15811984
yeah, it eventually resulted in me being on this hellhole for eternity

>>15811982
oh fuck off with the "shuttle promised things too" argument, it's shit. Starship is vastly more similar to Falcon 9 than to Shuttle. Even if Starship somehow ended up costing twice as much per stage to reuse vs a F9 booster, lauch price would still be lower than Falcon 9, because the biggest cost driver for F9 is the expendable upper stage.
Reusing a spaceX booster costs basically nothing, today, with a fuel that leads to a requirement for actual scrubbing of engine components between flights.
>Raptor reliability
The test to failure on the stand because they are still trying to maximize performance and making changes. All engine failures on IFT1 were caused either directly by issues with the launch table (fixed), issues with hydraulic TVC (replaced by electric TVC, fixed), or as cascade effects from the prior two problems (therefore fixed).
Raptor is already reliable enough, because it's had a head start. The Booster is like a life support machine for the Raptors, and will soon be reliable too. If you think SpaceX doesn't have the expertise to accomplish this you are delusional.

>>15811982
>for other missions (like the moon) you would stage off starship with a smaller craft. Frankly landing on the moon in starship instead of staging off it is ridiculous
Why. Why stage off.
>Starship is too big!
No it's not, it's just big. Get over it.
>it's wasteful!
Wasteful of what? Dirt cheap methalox? Fuck off, the development effort and money necessary to build a small lander you push to the Moon with Starship would be the real waste. You're proposing we spend billions to achieve REDUCED capabilities.
>refueling isn't proven!
You've explicitly accepted refueling will work by your admittence that Starship makes sense to go to Mars. Doing more refueling to do a Moon round trip will be a non-issue, it adds no significant complexity and requires no added hardware be developed. If Starship can go to Mars it can go to the Moon.
>carrying a heatshield etc is a waste!
No, because it lets you come back to Earth from the Moon directly and land. You can't just ignore the return leg of the trip.
>muh HLS doesn't have a heat shield tho
Correct, because it's a variant designed specifically to play nice with Orion in the Artemis program and not threaten to create redundancy in deep space human spaceflight (locksneed would be mad)

>>15812000
>oh fuck off with the "shuttle promised things too" argument, it's shit.
Its an orbiter with actuated surfaces to control its descent and 'reusable' thermal tiles as a heat shield. Back when SpaceX was trying to do active cooling everyone was decrying the shuttle heat shield as the fatal flaw in reusability. Now everyone is silent on that because Starship also has one.
Starship has already lost thermal tiles on test hops, it will definitely lose tiles on entry without a much better system to keep them in place. Starship has to go through much more extreme thermal regimes than any falcon 9 booster, so the two are not comparible. Its like comparing the new shepard booster with the falcon 9 booster.
>No it's not, it's just big. Get over it.
Its carrying around a heat shield and surface level engines everywhere it goes, it puts huge increases in delta v requirments on any mission. That means more launches which means higher cost.
>Wasteful of what?
read above.
>You've explicitly accepted refueling will work by your admittence that Starship makes sense to go to Mars
I never said refuelling doesnt work retard, are you a bot or something?
>No, because it lets you come back to Earth from the Moon directly and land
Read the mission archietecture retard, Starship HLS will not return to earth and Starship does not have enough delta v to land on the moon and return without a propellant depo.
>Correct, because it's a variant designed specifically to play nice with Orion in the Artemis program
I agree Orion makes no sense when you can just use starship, but you cannot land and return from the moon with starship, not even starship HLS. starship is designed for aerobraking and makes no sense being used to land where there is no air. It would make far more sense to have a ~100 tonne ship stage off starship and do the whole lunar intercept, landing and return.

>>15811992
My mind is so /sfg/ poisoned that I assumed "this hellhole" referred to the planet Earth before reading the context.

>>15812009
>>15812030

>>15812000
>The test to failure on the stand because they are still trying to maximize performance and making changes. All engine failures on IFT1 were caused either directly by issues with the launch table (fixed), issues with hydraulic TVC (replaced by electric TVC, fixed), or as cascade effects from the prior two problems (therefore fixed).
Raptor is already reliable enough, because it's had a head start. The Booster is like a life support machine for the Raptors, and will soon be reliable too. If you think SpaceX doesn't have the expertise to accomplish this you are delusional.
is that why so many failed on IFT1 than the ship lost control?naumt

SpaceX: FAA works for CHINA!
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/10/18/world/spacex-testimony-senate-faa-regulations-scn/index.html

>>15812030
The crux of the matter is that if you're using orbital refueling as part of your mission architecture, none of the inefficiencies you decry are regained by making the architecture smaller.

>>15811636
remove them from FAA launch licensing for the very least
there should be one environmental assessment and that could happen simultaneously with the building with the purpose of seeing what kind of damage is going to happen, just for recordkeeping purposes but with no authority to slow or stop things

>>15812034
>/sfg/ poisoned
*enlightened

>>15812009
HLS has the added benefit of being big enough to serve as both a temporary base (just take enough batteries and consumables to get through lunar night) and a permanent base

>>15811868
just keep building and iterating, the point is to mass produce these things

What is the purpose of space force anyways, shouldn't they deal with rocket related things instead of FAA?

>>15812083
>shouldnt the airforce deal with planes insdead of the faa?

>>15812030
making another vehicle optimized for the Moon instead of using the already existing vehicle for everything would ultimately be much more expensive and does not make any sense in the short term
you need to stop thinking like an oldspacer, more launches are not a problem if the launches are dirt cheap
this is going to be a step change, it does not make sense to pre-optimize before the effects are actually seen
does it really matter if it costs 1x or 1.2x for mass to the moon if it currently costs 100-1000x?

>>15812046
> A top SpaceX executive is accusing government regulators of stifling the company’s progress on its Starship megarocket — potentially opening the door for China to beat US astronauts back to the moon.
> William Gerstenmaier — SpaceX’s vice president for build and reliability who previously served as NASA’s associate administrator for human exploration — delivered the warning Wednesday to the Senate subcommittee on space and science at a hearing on commercial space regulations.
> The remarks come as SpaceX is facing an environmental review by the Fish and Wildlife Service and a safety review by the Federal Aviation Administration of plans to launch its massive moon rocket again at the company’s facility in South Texas.
> “It’s a shame when our hardware is ready to fly, and we’re not able to go fly because of regulations or review,” Gerstenmaier said, noting that SpaceX has been ready for a month to launch the next Starship test flight. “Licensing, including environmental (review), often takes longer than rocket development. This should never happen. And it’s only getting worse.”
> He also claimed the regulatory delays have “nothing to do with public safety.”
> “These delays may seem small in the big scheme of things but…. delays in each and every test flight adds up. And eventually we will lose our lead and we will see China land on the moon before we do,” Gerstenmaier said.
> “We’ve got a lot of challenges in front of us to meet the requirements that we received from NASA,” he told CNN in brief remarks after the hearing.
>“The only way we can get there is by flying,” Gerstenmaier said.

>>15811527
>micrometeoroid nails your 10 billion dollar foldable cuckscope

>>15811433
I've watched videos, it sure looks like it fully drives itself. I'm honestly at a loss at what people are whining about, extremely impressive tech

https://orbitalindex.com/archive/2023-10-18-Issue-240/#short-papers

A planet may be co-orbiting with another planet (3x Jupiter with a rocky world I assume in the exo-Jupiters L5 point)

> Two planets sharing the same orbit (much as the Trojan asteroids share an orbit with Jupiter) have been predicted but never observed until now. That has changed with the detection of what may be an exoplanet orbiting in the L5 point of a gas giant planet, 3x the size of Jupiter

https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2311/eso2311a.pdf

>>15811433
>>15811459
kek

>>15811590
sauce

>>15812110
its all cherry picked, it can stick in a lane and switch lanes to overtake like an advanced cruise control, but try using it outside of a built up well marked area. it completely fails in the country.

>>15812119
>cherry picked
>entire unedited drives through densely populated city

>>15811527
Water from the exhaust gases of the hot gas thrusters impacts both reflectivity at long wavelengths and degrades UV coatings. Larger organic molecules and soot will also degrade reflectivity. Even just oxygen will degrade pure aluminum coatings (the best for most UV).
I guarantee he understands it better than you.
It's something which has to be tested.

>>15811685
A lot of effort goes into minimising contamination. Some UV mirrors are held in nitrogen atmospheres for as long as possible. And it's not binary, more contamination means less performance.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20220000732

>>15812127
>it completely fails in the country.

If the FAA doesnt let them fly to orbit, they should start again the high altitute test program. Hypersonic starships , belly flops , landing practices , etc

Why not?

>>15811433
it was never going to work with the crazy feature engineered thing they built.
i've been saying for a while that it will not work unless you train it fully end to end. i've been ridiculed in this thread for it.
now they've completely pivoted to end to end.
it's vaporware until it ships but it is the only solution that even has a chance of working.

>>15812130
lol no it doesnt
it might work worse in some parts due to being optimized for california right now but driving in the country is much simpler than driving in a busy city

>>15811987
>black people? you mean chimneysweeps?

>>15812135
For what reason, if starship can't survive hot staging and reentry all those tests will be irrelevant.

>>15812119
Works for me

>>15812046
More articles about the hearing
--
Industry united in push to extend ban on human spaceflight regulations (ars)
---
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/industry-united-in-push-to-extend-ban-on-human-spaceflight-regulations/
> There are three US companies now capable of flying people into space—SpaceX, Blue Origin, and Virgin Galactic—and representatives from those three companies told lawmakers on Wednesday that the industry is not yet mature enough for a new set of federal safety regulations for their customers.
> A nearly 20-year moratorium on federal regulations regarding the safety of passengers on commercial human spaceflight missions is set to expire on January 1. It was scheduled to lapse at the beginning of October, but Congress added a three-month extension to a stopgap spending bill signed into law to prevent a government shutdown.
> That allows a bit more time for lawmakers to write a more comprehensive commercial space bill addressing several issues important to the commercial space industry. These include industry-wide concerns about the Federal Aviation Administration's ability to quickly license commercial launch and reentry operations, a hurdle SpaceX is eager to overcome as it waits for FAA approval to launch the second full-scale test flight of its giant Starship rocket.
> There are also complaints from the industry about the large number of federal agencies, not to mention state and local entities, that space companies must go through to obtain final authorization for their missions. Industry representatives, testifying Wednesday at a hearing convened by a subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee, argued for legislation to combine these disparate responsibilities into one federal agency, what Wayne Monteith, a former FAA official and Air Force general, called a "one-stop shop" for regulating commercial space activities.

>>15812166
> Gerstenmaier said it's important to understand the objective of the regulations. "Are they to help the industry? Are they to fill in a safety gap? ... It’s appropriate to extend this learning period for a significant period of time while we have these discussions among ourselves, and we can make coherent and complete recommendations back to the FAA.”
> Phil Joyce, Blue Origin's senior vice president for the New Shepard suborbital rocket, agreed with Gerstenmaier. "We’re still learning, so the learning period is appropriate. Extending the learning period ... is not only going to allow us to develop experience through operations and improve our safety systems, it’s also going to allow new entrants into this industry.”
> "I still believe that there should be more flights to collect more data," said Sirisha Bandla, Virgin Galactic's vice president of government affairs and research. Bandla flew to suborbital space on a Virgin Galactic rocket plane in 2021. "About eight years is our ideal timeline for having these discussions."
> Another witness at Wednesday's hearing, Caryn Schenewerk, said that given the low number of private human missions to space so far, the premise underpinning the learning period still "appears solid." The industry is not yet mature enough to develop smart regulations that wouldn't stifle innovation, according to Schenewerk, an independent consultant and former government affairs manager at SpaceX and Relativity Space.
> “We must address the learning period, mission authorization, and other pressing matters in a way that looks ahead to the future with unknown capabilities," said Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.), chair of the subcommittee on space and science.

>>15812041
The hydraulic TVC failed, which caused Starship to go out of control, d*mb fuck.

>>15812046
Launch industry asks Congress for regulatory reforms (spacenews), SpaceX, Blue Origin, Virgin Galactic executives urge senators to improve the FAA (cnbc)
---
https://spacenews.com/launch-industry-asks-congress-for-regulatory-reforms/
> WASHINGTON — Industry officials used a Senate hearing to request reforms to the Federal Aviation Administration’s launch licensing process, warning of dire commercial and geopolitical implications if changes aren’t made.
> Gerstenmaier and other witnesses called for providing the FAA’s commercial space transportation office, known as AST, with additional resources. He specifically recommended doubling AST’s budget, $37.9 million in fiscal year 2023, provided those additional resources go exclusively to the office’s licensing work.
>Those additional resources and other regulatory reforms, like accelerated reviews of launch licenses, are needed to keep the company on track. Gerstenmaier said the company continued to target up to 100 launches this year — it has performed 75 so far this year, including the Starship test flight — and 144 next year.
---
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/10/18/spacex-blue-origin-virgin-galactic-call-for-faa-improvements.html
> The FAA was not invited to testify.
> “The FAA has neither the resources nor the flexibility to implement its regulatory obligations,” Gerstenmaier said.
> “Keeping pace with industry demand is a priority and is important for several reasons, including meeting our national security and civil exploration needs. We’re working diligently to attract, hire and retain additional staff,” an FAA spokesperson told CNBC in a statement.

>>15812175
>The hydraulic TVC failed
because of raptor hot gas manifolds leaking everywhere

>>15812129
So don't open the fucking payload bay door until all refueling, boosting, and maneuvering is complete, and don't use any thrusters on Starship until the telescope has moved itself to a 1000 km standoff point.
If the bay door can keep the telescope clean while the vehicle sits on the pad ready to launch it can keep it clean in the massively less dirty environment of orbit.

Virgin Galactic to perform suborbital research flight in November, SpaceX aims to launch 144 missions next year,
---
https://spacenews.com/virgin-galactic-to-perform-suborbital-research-flight-in-november/
> WASHINGTON — Virgin Galactic will conclude its schedule of suborbital spaceflights this year with a mission in early November whose crew will include a longtime advocate of suborbital research.
> The company announced Oct. 18 that the next flight of its VSS Unity suborbital spaceplane, Galactic 05, is scheduled for a window that opens Nov. 2 from Spaceport America in New Mexico. It will be the fifth commercial flight for the company and the sixth flight of Unity this year, all since late May.
> While Galactic 05 continues a roughly monthly cadence of Virgin Galactic suborbital missions dating back to late May, it will also be the last of the year. The company said Galactic 06 will take place in January to give the company time for “routine, planned annual vehicle inspections.”
---
https://www.space.com/spacex-launch-144-missions-2024
> The company wants to keep increasing its already-impressive launch cadence.
> Elon Musk's company has already launched 74 orbital missions in 2023, more than any private outfit ever has in a single year. (The previous record was 61, set by SpaceX in 2022.) But these next 2.5 months should see even more spaceflight action.
> About 60% of SpaceX's launches in 2023 have been dedicated Starlink missions.
> Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) decried the "bureaucratic red tape" that's keeping Starship groundbound at the moment. Gerstenmaier voiced similar sentiments, stressing that frequent test flights, and frequent design iterations based on analyses of those flights, are key tenets of SpaceX's development strategy.

>>15811992
A dying breed believe or not

>>15812183
> About 60% of SpaceX's launches in 2023 have been dedicated Starlink missions.
Yet when ever I argue the launch market isnt expanding to the supply of falcon 9's and that this poses a serious viability issue for starship, all of a sudden I get told the number of starlink launches is insignificant and less than 10%

>>15812112
These aren't planets by definition
2. Must clear their local orbit.
The law is clear on this

>>15812185
it won't expand immediately, that is one of the reasons starlink exists in the first place

>>15812185
Starship is a Starlink and Mars rocket primarily.
You need weekly Starship launches to maintain a 40000 satellite constellation.
Also the market is expanding just slowly.

>>15812030
Shuttle thermal tiles were too delicate to handle without extreme care and were glued in place using silicon in a process that took days.
Starship tiles can be stacked up on a man lift and applied by hand in seconds, as they attach mechanically with spring pins.
Shuttle infamously lost hundreds of tiles just being flown across the country on the back of a carrier plane.
Starship lost like 3 tiles during IFT1 after the launch pad shit itself and the stack did uncontrolled high speed flips for over a minute prior to vehicle breakup.

The tiles are proven to not be a problem and any continued concern that they won't work is baseless FUD.

>>15812030
>Its carrying around a heat shield and surface level engines everywhere it goes, it puts huge increases in delta v requirments on any mission. That means more launches which means higher cost.
The delta V requirements are identical bozo, you're talking about propellant requirements to achieve that delta V.
>higher cost
Compared to what, Starship with two fewer refueling flights? Keep in mind even if it takes 17 launches total to do one HLS mission, every one of those launches would need to cost over $260m for the HLS mission to match the cost of a single SLS-Orion launch.

>>15812177
>>15812175
In the grand scheme of things, it was good it failed the way it did. Electronic thrust vector control is superior, more precise, more reliable, etc.

>>15812030
>Read the mission archietecture retard, Starship HLS will not return to earth and Starship does not have enough delta v to land on the moon and return without a propellant depo.
Yeah I wasn't talking about HLS there, I was talking about Starship and assuming a depot, and stating that the extra refueling cost will be <<<< the cost of developing a smaller, way less capable, redundant Moon lander.

>>15812099
Boeing probably wouldn't be upset if SpaceX was stopped in their tracks.
SpaceX success, progress and delivery on contracts has really exposed and highlighted Boeing's perpetual billion dollar grifting and failure to produce or complete or deliver anything.

>>15812181
Basically this. I don't understand this contamination argument at all. Fuel is being loaded towards the posterior end of the ship. Space is a vacuum, how the fuck can it contaminate more than the Florida or Texas launch pads.

>>15811886
Elections have consequences. Sorry, jack. *trips on stairs*

>>15812188
>>15812190

I understand and admire Musk building the market with his own two hands, but its just that, an artificial market. God willing starlink works out and is mega profitable, but it may also be a money sink forever.

>>15812030
>but you cannot land and return from the moon with starship
Yes, you can, you simply refuel it.
>not even starship HLS.
HLS can't return precisely because it lacks TPS.
>starship is designed for aerobraking and makes no sense being used to land where there is no air
Starship (specifically not HLS)can return from the Moon (~2000m/s to launch into low lunar orbit, plus ~900 m/s to achieve Earth intercept) if you refueled it in a highly elliptical Earth orbit before you landed on the Moon. From Earth intercept it can either land directly or aerobrake then boost into a stable low Earth orbit to pick up landing propellant.
All of this math is easy to check. I used 150 tonnes as the estimate for Starship dry mass and 360 Isp average propulsive efficiency both for the crewed vehicle and for the tankers. Crewed vehicle propellant capacity estimated at 1200 tonnes (IRL it's higher, making this mission easier).

>>15812216
there will be no fuel depot on the moon because the entire point of the exploration mission is to land in multiple different places.

>>15812196
agreed

>>15812217
That's fine, because if you read my post, I said you refuel Starship in a highly elliptical Earth orbit before you ever land on the Moon, and post-landing you still have enough delta V to return to Earth, with no refueling on the Moon necessary.

>>15812181
Perhaps, but it's not going to be airtight. Its something that warrants study.
Everyone here has so massively overreacted to this point, Feinberg is literally stating a fact that it's an unknown. He clearly doesn't think it is an impossible obstacle otherwise he wouldn't have considered it as a vehicle, nor would he have put to much discussion on a monolith which won't fit on NG.

>>15812205
The problem is the things being emitted from the spacecraft. The ISS is a good example, all the visiting spacraft thrusters and venting have meant there is a significant decrease in performance of some of the UV instruments. It is a dirty environment, people don't even want to use it to test mirror coatings.
Telescopes can literally contaminate themselves from outgassing. If it's a cryogenic mirror molecules can stick to it.
And telescopes sit in conditioned atmospheres in their fairings. They're not exposed to the launch pad.
Again, it's not binary.

>>15812222
assuming you need 6 tankers for a full refuel in leo you will need about 36 tankers for the full refuel in gto with a grand total of about 42 flights. thats a lot

>>15812000
All static fires are conducted at half thrust though and raptors still failed. How is that maximum performance?

>>15812228
>ments. It is a dirty environment, people don't even want to use it to test mirror coatings.
>Telescopes can literally contaminate themselves from outgassing. If it's a cryogenic mirror molecules can stick to it.
You can blame ISS contamination on all the Russian faggotry that's happened up there. I get some degree of contamination from thruster venting, but that can't possibly nearly as bad as everything else.

Also, the Starship fairing is vacuum sealed and more importantly, is integrated with the ship itself. It will NEVER JETTISON from the vessel--because it defeats the purpose of then making ship reusable, as you can't reenetry the atmosphere with a gaping cavity in your hull. So the contamination argument is brittle as fuck.

>>15812233
yeah he's a retard. just
refuel fully in LEO
land on moon
take it back as far as possible (HEO)
refuel once or twice there
go to LEO
repeat

>>15812238
I guess SpaceX can go ask NASA for another $1Bn then for Starship so they can build a full scale test stand and deluge system for the sole purpose of testing 33 Raptors at full thrust to simulate.

>>15812228
The contamination potential for any telescope inside the carho bay of Starship will be orders of magnitude lower than the potential JWST had to deal with when it was hanging naked off the top of the Ariane upper stage that was boosting it to L2.

>>15812249
>he doesnt know about stainlesss steel leeching

>>15812233
No, do the math. You refuel Starship in Leo, and you refuel a support tanker in LEO. The two vehicles boost onto the same highly elliptical orbit. They rendezvous and dock, the Tanker transfers its remaining propellant into the Moon-bound Starship.
Now you have a fully loaded Starship on an elliptical Earth orbit. It has enough delta V to boost to Lunar intercept, brake, land, launch, and achieve Earth intercept from there.
You don't ever launch tankers beyond LEO directly, because as you describe that method requires far more tanker launches and is therefore stupid.

>>15812252
are you trying to act dumb?

>>15812238
I'm talking about the mcgregor engine test stand, where they're doing Raptor development, not preflight static fires silly.

>>15811968
blue board anon, we don't use the d-word here.

You're buying the dip, right?

>>15812245
see >>15812252
If you don't accept the claim, do the math.

>>15812213
how is it an artificial market? they are making money with it

>>15812258
>>15812248
I don't particularly love how SpaceX tests engines. First of all, you can't have engine reliability sepperate from booster reliability, integrated systems must work with all of their parts combined. Vibrations from booster, general plumbing on boosters, QDs, being next to other engines, all of that changes the conditions engines must operate in. Second of all, yes, I would like it if SpaceX actually did full duration static fires at full thrust and built a stand for it. Current full duration static fires are 5 seconds long, but ideally they should have the capability to do a full thrust fire for however long superheavy is meant to fire before staging which is >100 seconds. I know that SpaceX has done at least 2 minute long falcon 9 static fires before. SLS has done 8 minute long fires but I doubt SLS is a hallmark of vehicle development efficacy. If longer static fires were possible, maybe some of the problems on IFT-1 would've been fixed prior to actual flight including leaky valves.

>>15812243
The US side vents water preoidically. And the Shuttle visiting would have a much bigger impact than Progress.
it can't be vacuum sealed. You need the air to gradually leave the bay as it climbs into orbit.

>>15812249
If it was just releasing the payload yes, but refueling is an unknown. It's to be established, there's little detail.

>>15812184
what, 4kanker idiots?
nah

>>15812265
not until the recession

>>15812275
If the cost of not building a giant Booster test stand capable of supporting full thrust full duration static fires is "yeah we blew up two launch attempts before we ironed out all the issues", their strategy works.

>>15812276
And how you think that contamination from ullage gasses from the tanker are going to seep through these gaps in the fairing and contaminate the telescope instrumentation? How exactly would this work?

>>15812265
I'll wait until end of the month before I do anything. Market is reactionary and still the institutions are still unloading. I did buy a bunch of NVDA though. Since Tesla bought 10k more H100s recently, and Dojo just now entering volume production request to TSMC, the likelihood of more H100s and A100s and B100s in the future going to Tesla via additional orders are high. Tesla will be permanently compute limited hereforward; so NVDA is a better choice right now while TSLA is still cratering.

>>15812275
In theory they can test it faster and cheaper without stand as they can just launch it and test it in a real situation.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/10/18/spacex-battles-regulatory-process-that-could-hold-up-starship-test-flight-for-months/

ITS OVER!! STARSHIP BEING DELAYED BY MONTHS AND POSSIBLY YEARS

>>15812276
Fairings can be vacuum sealed and capable of venting, just like propellant tanks are. Want to 100% ensure zero contamination enters the fairong? Keep it sealed and pressurized to one millibar on orbit until the telescope is ready to be released.
Contamination risks with or without refueling are unchanged.

>>15812282
>>15812286
Possibly, but regulatory requirements for flights are way more stringent than for static fires. A lot of time is wasted waiting for the FAA and FWS when you could be testing and straightening out kinks. I also assume you get different types of data from static fires than from actual launches. You might get more data on the stack aerodynamics and real loads during a launch attempt, but you can actually inspect, recover and analyze a mostly intact booster and engines following a long duration static fire.

>>15812279

>>15812293
SpaceX mitigates the data loss of losing the stage by spamming instrumentation everywhere and transmitting it groundside at high transfer rates. This is how they accomplished F9 iterative booster landing development.

>>15812297
>5f0

https://spacenews.com/launch-industry-asks-congress-for-regulatory-reforms/

Biden admin playing dangerous game of delaying SpaceX could give China a leg up in the space race and harm America's national security!

>>15812301
If only China was closer to moon, maybe they would move their asses more.

>>15812298
Even with tons of instrumentation and telemetry, you can't pull out a tested engine put it under a microscope and then test its material properties without actually physically having it. Plus Elon actually advocated for pulling out as many sensors out of the Raptor as physically possible.

>>15812288
"two years"

>>15812299
I have black hair

Now that the dust has settled. Was this a better psyop than spruce goose?

>>15812308
I have blue eyes

>>15812305
If your engine design is so sensitive to conditions that after firing it in flight vs on a test stand you have any chance of gaining insight from studying it with a microscope, your engine design is shit and needs to be more robust.
At mcgregor they best the shit out of engines to establish robustness across all conditions expected in flight.

>>15812283
Normal fairings have vents to let out the air as it rises. They could let contamination back in. It depends entirely on details which probably aren't even defined yet.

>>15812292
>Fairings can be vacuum sealed and capable of venting,
They could be. But we don't know if they will be. This is why it requires actual study. It's not something most payloads would care about so it may not be something worthwhile doing.

Why is SpaceX so lazy with cleanup what the fuck man, why are you still cleaning up concrete chunks well into fucking october??? How do you manage to repair a super-heavy launchapad and install a deluge system and test and prepare a super-heavy rocket for launch faster than removing some debris from a fucking field?

>>15812331
Why do they have to go pick up some rocks from the desert to appease bureaucratic faggots?

>>15812331
Oh no a rock on a sand

>>15812332
>boca chica
>desert
we know you're retarded anon but holy fuck

>>15812331
I'm with you, they left all that shit out there way too long. It should have been cleaned up immediately.

>>15812331
oh NOOOOOOOO NOT THE <dried liquid rock> ON A <bed of crushed rock>!!!
LITERAL WARCRIME!

>>15812332
>>15812336
>>15812348
Who fucking cares if its actually polluting or dangerous or not, it should be obvious to the team at starbase that leaving fucking concrete chunks in the wildlife preserve is going to slow down or fuck up the FWS consultation, or just put them on bad terms with the FWS. Imagine if they just dumped unbroken glass bottles there, like yeah they're biologically inert and as long as they're intact they probably wont injure an animal but its still fucking retarded. I want Starship to launch sooner and SpaceX are sabotaging themselves with shit like this.

>>15812344
Fuck off Fish and Game, that is (not) a wetland no matter how hard you want to play pretend.

>>15812348
yes i agree private enterprise should be allowed to shit up national park lands whenever they want. i too am entirely cucked, haha rocket go fwoosh

>>15812352
Why are you using Evangelion rebuild title formatting?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeC4-WiQbNI

> SpaceX And USFW Inspection and Cleanup at Starbase Live With Chief - 2023-10-19

fish and wildlife people looking at blown up concrete

>>15812331
because they don't care and are now forced to do it.
>>15812356
tranny
>national park
getting ever more delusional

>>15812356
>0.1km^2 of mudland out of nonillion km^2 of mudland
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH ITS THE END OF THE WORLD SPACEX ARE LITERALLY DESTROYING ALL OF NATURE
>chinks fish the oceans clean
>oil companies poison the air you breathe
>chemical companies poison your water
>big agri destroys all the farmland
w-well they are allowed to!

>>15812374
Yes retard, that is literally it. Personally, I wouldn't care if they exterminated all life within a 10km radius of launch, but they are delaying their own fucking launch with this bullshit, it CLEARLY looks bad to regulators.

>>15812284
you buy low

>>15812331
who gives a shit nigga

>>15812356
this one should be allowed yes

>>15812368
hahaha
It took getting publicly shamed in front of the Senate to get these agencies to do their jobs

>>15812368

>>15812384
if this was delaying, they would have cleaned it up
I wouldn't be surprised if this was left as is so FAA/FWS can go inspect it

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

>>15812185
starlink launches were only 1/3rd of Q3 or whatever

>>15812331
those fucking faggots
fish and wildlife service needs to burn to the ground

>>15812329
>They could be. But we don't know if they will be.
FUD, kys

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/services/files/ADC08FC1-E28D-4178-8D39-16E02BB803CE

Here's yesterday's statement from SpaceX for the senate hearing

>>15812407
I work in quasi-government (nuclear) and yeah, you're likely correct.

>>15812368
Absolute state of this general

>>15812422
Every day starship doesn't fly we start eating one fish

>>15812442
fuck fish
how about we mail dead animal heads with threatening notes instead?

I'm so fucking tired of nothing happening

>>15812443
Alright calm down agent smith

NASA's Science Mission Directorate had a Town Hall, stand by for news updates

>>15812443
I wonder who is behind this post.

>>15812455
VERITAS put off until 2031, they're basically rebooting the mission in 2025
Uranus probe is functionally dead
MSR review is in progress, they're going to try and fix the mess they caused
Dragonfly is potentially dead (in review)

>>15812395
Nvidia can easily 10x over the next 7 years.

>>15812351
>Imagine if they just dumped unbroken glass bottles there
oh no, someone dumped silicon dioxide on the beach!!!

>>15812459
the Dutch

>>15812099
>delivered the warning Wednesday to the Senate subcommittee on space and science
Isn't that committee made up of oldspace sympathizers? Unless BO was making this argument, they won't care.

>>15812489
They made the point that Artemis will be held up by this
Boeing's bottom line is directly impacted by any delay in SLS

>>15812493
youre nuts bro, boe-wing gets paid no matter what and gets more if there are delays

>>15812030
HLS won't have tiles you absolute nigger retard

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/telescope-price-fixing-astronomy-1.5617766
Another supply chain attack on a space-adjacent industry

>>15812489
The guy who spoke for SpaceX worked for NASA for 40 years, here's a picture of him (left) in a wind tunnel with the Space Shuttle. They fought old space by bringing in an old space legend

>>15812489
It is very relevant for BO too if they ever plan to reuse their rocket.

lol

space fucking general

>>15812336
kek

>>15812442
I will eat one wildlife every day until my demands are met

>>15812553
It would be quicker to simply eat the FAA

>>15812331
hahahaha buncha cụcks

>>15811938
>>15811910
Starship is designed to launch huge pLEO constellations as rapidly and cheaply as possible.

>>15811433
>I find it kek
go back

>>15812575
seethe

>>15812175
>The hydraulic TVC failed, which caused Starship to go out of control, d*mb fuck.
Per SpaceX's own FAA filings, the flight computers were destroyed by the engine bay fires. This is what caused the rocket to lose control in flight, and why the engines on the first stage never stopped firing.

>>15812623
They are wrong.

>>15812112
exoplanets are a cope for low iqs, belief in them turns on ignorance of the limitations of optics.

>>15812538
>copium_at_ula.jpg

>>15812425
>All of SpaceX’s innovation occurs in the United States, creating tens of thousands of direct and indirect jobs, advancing technology, and generating substantial economic activity. SpaceX invests billions of dollars across the country in development, test, operations, and supplier purchasing from crucial (and largely small business) vendors across America. We maintain manufacturing and engineering facilities in Hawthorne, CA; Starlink satellite system design and manufacturing facilities in Redmond, WA; a rocket development and test facility in McGregor, TX; and launch pads and rocket processing facilities within Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, NASA Kennedy Space Center, and Vandenberg Space Force Base; and production, test, and launch facilities at Starbase in South Texas. SpaceX maintains a network of more than 7,000 American suppliers—supporting 150,000 small business jobs—and vendors in all 50
states.
If that doesn't get Congress' attention, nothing will

>>15812521
watching the hearing is crazy. i always used to get depressed when gerst spoke about human spaceflight

>>15812331
Probably need a supervisor to watch the cleanup and one was not available earlier.

>>15812678
>largely small business
If they're not big enough to have lobbyists on retainer then their not worth congress's attention.

>>15811969
And?

>>15812678
Son I didn't see the good ol state of Alabama on that there list, until you buy the river rocks the FWS will continue as scheduled.

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/varda-looks-to-australia-after-delays-in-obtaining-us-reentry-approval/

Auschads saving the day, they can bring it down in my yard

Elon Musk needs to be drafted to the senate to answer for his acts

>>15811590
What's the rest of her body doing if she's piloting with her foot?

>15812716
Shit bait, no (You)s until you improve

>>15812719
Thinly veiled request for krystal porn. Go back to the /vg/ /sfg/

>>15812716
Agreed

I'm filing a federal lawsuit against Elon Musk and his companies, asking for $1.4 billion in damages for my blue balls

>>15812644
belief? so you think the only planets that exist are around the sun? lmao
there are hundreds of billions of stars, but our sun is the only one which has planets

>>15812644
fuck off flat Earther

>>15812712
> Varda Space Industries says it has reached an agreement with a private range operator in Australia for spacecraft landings as early as next year after the US government declined to grant approval for the reentry of Varda's first experimental mission carrying pharmaceuticals manufactured in orbit.
> After years of applications, reviews, and discussion, the Federal Aviation Administration and the US Air Force would not clear Varda's spacecraft to land at a military test range in the Utah desert last month. An Air Force spokesperson told Ars it did not grant approval for the landing "due to the overall safety, risk, and impact analysis."

FAA is such a joke

>>15812783
The FAA must be abolished to secure mankind's place in space

>>15812754
>lmao

>>15812790
lol. lmao.

>>15812790
Juden Peterstein lmao

>>15812790
LMAO this dude is totally unhinged

>>15812790
>“Such fun in unbelievable techno-nightmare CCP hell”

https://twitter.com/spacesudoer/status/1714987801207607447

>>15812790
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1715108543076978737

>>15812829
>he has a point
what is elon talking about, this guy works at spacex and was sent by spacex, of course he has a point, what a redundant thing to say.

>>15812829
He's right, spaceships aren't airplanes and the FAA can fuck right off.

>>15812790
As a malicious non-narcissist I use kek.

>>15812839
I think he just wants his followers to see it and people shit on him when he replies with !! or interesting

>>15812844
thats even worse, basically a nazi dogwhistle

>>15812846
honestly exclamation mark would be better, Elon should just let insults wash off him like rain off a coat and press the key to his hearts content

>>15812723
No I just wanted the source

reminder starship is literally dead in the water.

https://twitter.com/cnunezimages/status/1714828490938134920

https://twitter.com/cnunezimages/status/1714996482095341681

https://twitter.com/cnunezimages/status/1715071014671946095

https://twitter.com/cnunezimages/status/1714984283079659804

https://twitter.com/LabPadre/status/1714764855469539772

preburner test I guess

>>15812864
https://twitter.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1714767898265211110

>>15812864
this image alone would make early tankwatching anons shit their pants and come
Now it’s boring and routine

https://twitter.com/AJamesMcCarthy/status/1715049400530284783

>>15812869
>fake color info
Disingenuous and typical

>>15812864
>>15812866
arent these starships meant to be getting longer according to musk? whats up with that?

>>15812875
True color will blind you forever.

>>15812881
They can't get longer without full flight data from orbit; which they can't do cause they're waiting on the next launch license.

https://twitter.com/Astra/status/1715097899825303927
>Astra to report Q3 2023 earnings on November 13, 2023
mark your calendars

>>15812883
Which they won't get, because the administration is purposefully hamstringing them.

>>15812890
And so sets the stage for election season next year. If Biden loses the white house, Starship goes BRRR. Else, "two years".

>work at NASA now
>no time for /sfg/ browsing
>can't spill beans because lol opsec
I'll post the cafeteria specials though

>>15812909
the “bbq” is disgusting

>>15811956
>one of the reasons china went from directly cloning starship to CH4/LOX, LH2/LOX, LH2/LOX
So China has implicitly given up on having a large space presence and has resigned itself to a smaller number of missions.

>>15812196
booster 9 was already on eTVC and had ditched all hydraulics even before 7 died. It only really served as final absolute confirmation of the fact that hydraulics was not the right choice, which they already knew beforehand and were moving away from anyways.

why do people even follow starship anymore? like seriously what do you think is going to happen?
Elon dreamt big and he realised space is hard. It's basically naked in that starship will fail at this point and I'm glad because honestly hearing his fans rant and rave about how awesomoen he is would be more annoying than not going to Mars.

>>15812945(You)
here ya go big guy

>>15812945
>It's basically naked in that starship will fail at this point
How much money have you bet on this watertight outcome?

>>15812945
I hate elon musk but yet i would suck his cock in an instant if he asked me

>>15812945
its going to fly soon, within 6 months, possibly even in something like a month

>>15812959
my 401k reflects it and I have a buddy in the industry who knows musks full of shit.

FWS were spotted helping spacex clean up the environment. launch november 1st

>>15812909
tits or gtfo

>>15812999

I bet ISRO/India go for a domestic internet constellation one day. Like 20 years from now, if not more. But I can see it happening

>>15813015
How far up there is this on weirdest looking rockets?

>>15813015
I'm so fucking confused by those grid fins
they're hinged at the bottom insead of the top; it looks like they can't even rotate at all so they aren't doing guidance & control; when deployed they move the center of aerodynamic pressure higher up; and lastly, isn't the section they're attached to going to be fully expended anyways? genuinely wtf are they there for

>>15813023
Have you ever looked at a manned soyuz rocket?

>>15812790
Bedevilled egg!

>>15813015
the airforce wants a SAR constellation
https://twitter.com/TheLegateIN/status/1714999799911731463

>>15813023
It's for the launch escape, look closer

>>15813035
between the Saturn V and SLS/Orion, I somehow managed to completely forget about the shitty third worlder rockets needing passive stabilizer grid fins for the LES
and looking it up now even zond/proton at least had the decency to cover the grid fins with an aero fairing until the LES actually got triggered
Are indians genuinely stuck in the '70s-'80s for their ENTIRE rocket program, same as the russians?
>LVM3 uses derivatives of '70s european engines
>PSLV also uses the same viking clone as upper stage, home grown solids from the 80s
>GSLV Mk.II even worse, old solids and copied liquid engines
at least Gaganyaan seems to be somewhat their own original work, not entirely ripped from half a century ago and halfway across the world

>>15813023
same deal

>>15813131
>>15813023
I think those fins are an abort contingency item, but I'm not sure.

>>15813126
Hey, if it works there's no real need to try and reinvent it.

>>15813133
yes, I didn't realize when I posted the first time but they're passive stabilization for the launch escape system, they essentially put a fuckton of drag at the back of the capsule in order to keep it flying straight once it's free of the rocket

>>15813019
it's like anti Thor-Able

https://twitter.com/SLIM_JAXA/status/1715166916971745322
>[SLIM character is born‼]
>The character “Slimoon” has been created to convey the charm of #SLIM! Together with the expressive Slimoon, we will continue to communicate lively and interesting information to everyone

>>15813126
you know the saying
"before you can start to compose your own, you should learn the instrument by playing songs by the others"

>>15813015
Reminds me of Ares I-X

Reminder that IT IS OVER NO MORE STARSHIP LAUNCH 2023 BACKSISSIES IN SHAMBLES

>>15812538
I did it first

>>15812945
>like seriously what do you think is going to happen?
A launch.

>>15813186
Cute.

>>15813186
Is this Dynetics-chan's little brother?

Total turtle annihilation

>>15812790
What is he even a doctor of?

>>15811414
I can't believe they managed to unfold earth into a space telescope.

>>15813437
drug addiction.

>>15812881
they're growers, not showers

Rocket Report: Key Ariane 6 test delayed; NASA urged to look at SLS alternatives
---
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/rocket-report-key-ariane-6-test-delayed-nasa-urged-to-look-at-sls-alternatives/
--
Small Rockets
> Virgin Galactic to fly sixth mission in six months.
> Small launch companies struggle with Falcon 9 prices.
> Industry unites for extension of learning period.
> Two Vega payloads fail to deploy.
> Astra is having stock troubles.

Medium Rockets
> Ariane 6 hot-fire test delayed again.
> Historic launch pad will be turned into a museum.

Heavy Rockets
> NASA urged to consider alternatives to SLS
> SpaceX urges FAA to double licensing staff
> Falcon Heavy launches Psyche mission.
> Astronomers eye Starship capabilities.

>>15813526
The future is grim.

Astra Stock Drops with No End in Sight
https://payloadspace.com/astra-stock-drops-with-no-end-in-sight/
> Heart of the issue: The company reported $36.7M of cash flow burn in Q2 alone, leaving it with just $26.3M in the bank. In an attempt to keep the lights on, the company slashed G&A expenses in half and redoubled focus on spacecraft thruster production.
> Bloomberg reported last week that Astra is looking to sell 51% of its space propulsion business at a $100M valuation. The news did nothing to stop Astra’s freefall, with investors likely deeming the a potential sale as unrealistic.

from Ars' Rocket report
> Astra is having stock troubles. Astra's stock dropped another 19 percent on Wednesday, to 75 cents a share, as it continues its downhill march, Payload reports. The launch startup executed a stock split a month ago in an effort to elevate its share price above $1 and keep its place on the NYSE. But share prices have again plummeted, dropping 70 percent, back to below a dollar.
>Seeking to cut expenses ... The launch startup’s market cap now sits at just $14 million—a far cry from the $2.1 billion valuation the company garnered when it went public during 2021’s SPAC-apalooza. The company reported $36.7 million of cash flow burn in Q2 alone, leaving it with just $26.3 million in the bank. In an attempt to keep the lights on, the company slashed general and administrative expenses in half and redoubled focus on spacecraft thruster production.

>png of a skeleton wearing a space suit
>complaint about lack of activity in this general

>>15813526
>Ariane 6 delayed
>Starship delayed

Hey look, what time it is. It's time to restack starship

> OH N-

WE ARE BACK

>>15813603
Vulcan delayed
New Glenn... uh... um... hey, look at this cool space station we wanna make!

>>15813603
blame fish

Key Ariane 6 test rescheduled for November, ESA Pushes Ahead with Ariane 6 Testing
---
https://spacenews.com/key-ariane-6-test-rescheduled-for-november/
> WASHINGTON — The European Space Agency said Oct. 19 it has rescheduled a long-duration static-fire test of the Ariane 6 rocket for late November, after a major meeting of European government officials where support for the rocket will be on the agenda.
> In an update, ESA said engineers are continuing work to fix a problem with the hydraulics in the thrust vector control system of the core stage of the rocket. That problem caused ESA and its partners to delay the hot-fire test, where the core stage’s Vulcain 2.1 engine is fired for 470 seconds, from early October.
---
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-pushes-ahead-with-ariane-6-testing/
> ESA announced 19 October that it had adapted the Ariane 6 testing schedule to enable teams to continue to tick off key milestones while work on a Thrust Vector Control (TVC) anomaly continues.
> The first hot fire test of an Ariane 6 core stage was completed on 5 September. Following that test, as teams worked towards a full-duration hot fire test, an anomaly with the hydraulic group of the rocket’s TVC system was discovered. The discovery of the anomaly meant that the 470-second test had to be postponed.
> ESA identified the Belgian company SABCA as the supplier of the TVC hydraulic system in question. According to an agency update, SABCA has already prepared a replacement hydraulic group “without waiting for the results of the technical investigation.”
> The long-duration hot fire test is now planned for 23 November. However, that date is surely provisional, considering the fact that the root cause of the anomaly is not yet known. The final major Ariane 6 test of 2023 will be an upper stage test occurring in Lampoldshausen, Germany, in December.

China rolls out rocket for Shenzhou-17 mission to Tiangong, U.S. Space Force seeks to work closer with allies in face of shared threats
---
https://spacenews.com/china-rolls-out-rocket-for-shenzhou-17-mission-to-tiangong/
> NEW DELHI, India — A crew of three astronauts is set to launch to China’s Tiangong space station next week for a six-month-long mission.
> A Long March 2F rocket was rolled out to the pad at Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in the Gobi Desert, northwest China, early Oct. 19. The rocket is tipped with the Shenzhou-17 crew spacecraft and a telltale escape system atop the payload fairing.
> The 62-meter-long rocket was transferred vertically across the roughly 1,500 meters from the assembly building to the pad at around 30 meters per minute.
> China’s human spaceflight agency, CMSEO, announced the rollout without providing a launch date. Recent adjustments to the orbit of the Tiangong space station suggest a launch date of Oct. 26.
---
https://spacenews.com/u-s-space-force-seeks-to-work-closer-with-allies-in-face-of-shared-threats/
> WASHINGTON — The procurement arm of the U.S. Space Force is making a major push to work more closely with allies abroad and is pressing the Pentagon to adjust classification policies to allow for more open sharing of information with trusted international partners.
> “We’ve been talking to our international allies about common interface standards,” Guetlein said, “so that whatever they build or whatever we build can easily be networked together in the future.”
> Again, technology sharing agreements can be a problem if the U.S. wanted to launch a payload from foreign soil, Ryals said. “We’ve got to continue to work with our government and our regulators to look at that, and we need industry to push that message to our regulators.”

NASA's Artemis moon astronauts may wear electric field spacesuits to fight pesky lunar dust, Could Neptune's largest moon swing a spacecraft into the planet's orbit?
---
https://www.space.com/moon-spacesuit-dust-static-electric-field-hawaii-pacific-university
> Apollo astronauts hated moon dust. NASA's Artemis program crew might not have to deal with that problem.
> The flexible, stretchable moon fabric prototype is under development at Hawai'i Pacific University (HPU) and just got fueled by a $50,000 grant from NASA.
> The new technology is called LiqMEST (Liquid Metal Electrostatic Protective Textile) and aims to overcome the dusty problems NASA's Apollo astronauts struggled with in the 1960s and 1970s. The sharp dust quickly corroded surfaces like rover dust shields, caked the spacesuits of astronauts and generally clung to everything, making even three-day sorties a challenge.
> "When activated, it generates an electric field that repels lunar dust, preventing the dust from adhering," Arif Rahman, an HPU assistant engineering professor who led the grant proposal, said in a statement. "This strategy can be applied both to spacesuits and fabric covers for lunar equipment during moon missions."
--
https://www.space.com/neptune-triton-spacecraft-orbit-capture-assist
> Researchers have shared a radical new idea for how to put a spacecraft in orbit around Neptune: Use the thin atmosphere of Triton, Neptune's largest moon, to capture it.
> The next logical step after a successful flyby mission is an orbiter, but the extreme distance to Neptune poses significant challenges. We have no clear way to haul a large enough orbiter to the Neptune system, pack enough fuel to allow it to slow down and do it all in a reasonably short amount of time.
> However, researchers have shared a radical new idea for how to overcome these challenges: Use the thin atmosphere of Triton, Neptune's largest moon, to capture a spacecraft.

>>15813631
Neptune aerobrake article continued
--
> In a paper appearing in the preprint database arXiv, the researchers pointed out that in 2022, NASA successfully completed the Low-Earth Orbit Flight Test of an Inflatable Decelerator (LOFTID). The goal of that program was to develop an inflatable shield to protect a spacecraft as it descended through Earth's atmosphere and slow the craft so it didn't crash upon landing.
>The researchers proposed to aim a future Neptune orbiter at Triton and use a LOFTID-like apparatus, known as an aeroshell, to slow the spacecraft. They found that the atmosphere of Triton, despite having less than 1/70,000 the air pressure of Earth's atmosphere, could sufficiently slow a spacecraft and allow it to enter into a captured orbit around Neptune. Additionally, they could change the angle of the aeroshell to tweak the orbiter's alignment and fine-tune the course to get it into the perfect orbit.
>To get it right, the orbiter would have to get as low as 6 miles (10 kilometers) above the surface of Triton. That's not much higher than a typical intercontinental flight, but because Triton doesn't have any seriously large mountain ranges (the tallest known peaks are barely a kilometer tall), there's very little risk of a catastrophic collision with the surface.
> The researchers estimate that, using this aeroshell technique, a mission to Neptune could take as little as 15 years, which is far shorter than any other current mission ideas would allow.

AstroForge Conducts Hot Fire Test Ahead of Early 2024 Mission
---
https://payloadspace.com/asteroid-mining-startup-astroforge-conducts-hot-fire-test-ahead-of-early-2024-mission/
> Asteroid mining startup AstroForge successfully conducted a hot fire test of its Brokkr-2 surveyor spacecraft—a key milestone towards its scheduled Q1 2024 launch.
> The 100-kg Brokkr-2 vehicle—named after a blacksmith in Nordic mythology—is scheduled to launch on a Falcon 9 as a rideshare aboard Intuitive Machines’ second lunar landing mission.
> Asteroid flyby: The launch will send the spacecraft on a year-long journey to an undisclosed asteroid.
> Lower costs: The flyby mission will cost less than $10M. “The mission will be two orders of magnitude cheaper than anybody’s ever attempted before,” AstroForge chief Matt Gialich told Payload.
>Psyche comp: Gialich cited distance, mission complexity, and risk tolerance as the reasons AstroForge was able to keep its mission costs so much lower than Psyche, NASA’s $1.4B voyage to the asteroid belt that launched last week. “There’s really no risk tolerance on a mission like Psyche. We have extreme risk tolerance. We’re not going to test it for 10 years. We’re gonna send it and see what happens,” he said.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1715262805270569448

>>15813636
There's wildly optimistic and then there's whatever this guy is on. At 100kg your margin for error is so low and your useful instrument payload is so tiny that I'm not sure why they're even bothering. The asteroid they plan to visit is a M-type and 35 million km out, so I guess if I was super curious that's probably enough to pick it out of the Minor Planet Center's database.

>>15813632
>using this aeroshell technique, a mission to Neptune could take as little as 15 years
>as little as 15 years
fuck off

>>15813658
Do you know how far away Neptune is? They're going that slow because they want to be able to orbit it, so that puts some constraints on how fast they make the transfer.

>>15813663
>Do you know how far away Neptune is?
I do. I'm sick of generation long travel times because our deep space propulsion methods are so shit

>>15813655
It's not really useful to see a post about something we've known about for the past two months.

>>15811413
>>15811458
I really REALLY want an expendable upper first stage Starship.
>Same booster configuration
>Zero cargo area in Starship, fill with extra fuel
>Take off the nosecone
>10m fairing
It would absolutely destroy everyone else in this category. The only reason New Glenn even comes close is because it uses a traditional fairing, and telescopes are made to be light. A payload volume optimized Starship could launch utterly insane scientific payloads. These flagship missions go into double digit billions in cost, the cost of an expendable or even one off Starship design is nothing in the context of the cost of the entire mission. Half of these things were originally going to fly on SLS, Starship is cheap at basically any price.

>>15813699
why? what would be the benefit of that compared to the current architecthure using orbital refilling?
or are you talking about a deep space variant? I think something like that has been talked about by Musk

>>15813708
A good telescope is very light and very big, Starship can lift very heavy things but not very big things. JWST weighs 6.5t, Starship has plenty of performance as is despite being "LEO optimized". Specifically, it has the performance to launch a telescope that's far too big to actually fit in its payload bay, and the payload bay can't just be made larger like most other rockets. Specifically, Starship can't do this.

>>15813713
so you want a specialized starship with more voluminous cargo bay?
Maybe it would be possible to do a reusable version that has a way bigger payload bay somehow
like some weird expendable fairing but then the ship closes up to a normal Starship profile so it can return from orbit with similar aerodynamics and so on
or a fairing that can be packaged and put in the starship, that sounds like a lot of dev time though, why not just have a modular telescope or something, then you could do one of any size

Lol MSR review underway right now and theyre calling out NASA and the IRB for being a bunch of lazy fucks who cant even run the program correctly. Some people dont even know their roles, and the finances are fucked as usual because they are treating it like corporate financial aid. Cancel MSR, glowies agree!

>FWS appears at Starbase the day after the hearing
What a coincidence

expendable starship strikes me as a good idea. sometimes you just don't want to refuel

>>15813726
Its a good idea as long as SpaceX isnt covering the cost of building it and the customer is willing to pay the premium

>>15813718
The long term obvious solution for Starship's mass/volume dichotomy is on-orbit construction facilities but nobody with money is willing to dream that big.

>>15813748
bezos has but no real term plans

>>15813755
*short term plans

>>15813757
*mid term plans

>>15813758
*plans

>>15813759
*realistic plans

>>15813760
*launch vehicle

>>15813761
*engines

HE HAS NOTHING!

>>15813762
*hair

Staging

>>15813793
>>15813793
>>15813793

>>15812847
kek

>>15812882
Is it not possible to decrease the brightness somewhat while maintaining the same color?

>>15812909
Those river rocks won't count themselves!

>>15813809
You should go watch Sunshine. While the movie's psychological thriller plot is mostly forgettable, it does a good job of showing you how devastatingly intense the sun actually is. The Earth filters an insane amount of light through the atmosphere, and despite that, its still not recommended to look directly at the sun. In space, its a million times more dangerous.

>>15813817
I look at the sun directly all the time and my eyes are fine.