/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16197670
Changs will win. Musk will fall. Scammer go to hell. I hate Muskians.

Upcoming chinese rockets, many are F9 clones

>>16197674
I think you clicked on the wrong thread mate
but no worries, I got you the link here >>16178834

NO-
everybody cares.

picrel makes muskrats seethe and cope. why?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0EZQaF_liXw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt2X_568sxc

>>16197680
You and I care :3

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1795446620030730241

starlink launch in 1h

Daily reminder were not going to see orbital starship launches until next year, because spaceX cant even reenlight raptors yet

>>16197698
orbital velocity proves they can get to orbit.

>>16197699
war is peace, freedom is slavery.

>>16197700
Your schizophrenia showing again?

>>16197703
listen I wish i could piss in your mouth but thats beside the point.

>>16197705

>>16197709
loxpunk

>>16197699
I know nigga, they cant get to orbit not because of a velocity issue, but because they cant reenlight raptors in orbit

>>16197714

>>16197728
>med monkeys mad at Persian space program excellence

>>16197683
got live landing audio again! nice

Skibidi rizz

what's that

>>16197683

anything special about this booster? this wasn’t a 22nd flight or anything was it?

>>16197737
how much this repair cost if you contracted boeing to do it?

>>16197737
how much would this repair cost if you contracted boeing to do it?

Its over

>>16197749
You think so? I’m going to have to disagree with your assessment. To me it appears to be only just beginning.

>>16197753
/pol/

>>16197755
Rockets.

Why is it that jews want to take over all areas apart from pol?

>What killed Starship? The Ice Age!

Good Morning friends
~7hrs till SpaceX launch of EarthCARE sat

JAXA with Clear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQm2kG54b8U

SpaceX
https://x.com/i/broadcasts/1kvKpvebyZgJE

ESA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9WKok_1Jhg

>>16197682
There's no way it could possibly be this bad, right?

>>16197765

>>16197682
starlink will never work

>>16197765
that is in character for scammy Musk

this is a pretty long hold

>>16197682
>>16197765
>>16197771
samefag

>>16197776
speak for yourself, faggot. many people hate Musktard overpromises, underdeliver and his scammy tactic, not just me.

>>16197777
checked, based muskrat exterminator

>>16197777
ok, newfag

>>16197777
it's amazing the main criticism of space is you're not good enough while they essentially dominate

You retards would get mad that if SpaceX didn't meet it's own goal of 148 launches a year when others are lucky to get off one a year, but it's ok because the other only advertised a single launch a year

Reminder that only newfags get buttmad at obvious anti-SpaceX bait

Hope everyone had a wonderful Memorial Day weekend

>serious issues with Raptor 2
>noooooo! you can't discuss this!! i-its bait!

>>16197796
I did, thank you anon.

>>16197792
It's because normies don't know anything about anything so they view life through a lens of social relations. They don't understand an optimistic estimate, revising opinions with new data, or even the difference between a tech demo and a design mockup. It's all super fucking shallow.

Bros why is it that when I stand outside with my head pointed towards the sun and my eyelids closed for around a minute, my eyes feel so much better afterwards?

If I go to my office without having spent time outside in the sun first, or if I use glasses/sunglasses first my eyes and head will ache for the whole day. But exposure to the sun in this manner eases all tension, and allows me to see sharper with a noticeable blueish tint to all perceived colors. Glare from the sun's is also much less of an issue afterwards.

>>16197810
your a homosexual and staring at the sun washes away the demons for a day.

>>16197808
Normies don’t know anything about space flight. You tell them Spacex is on track to launch 135 falcon 9s this year and they’ll ask if that’s more or less than the space shuttle will be doing.

what happened to the wdr? i didnt stick around but did they use the deluge or not

>>16197812
Illogical, I am the straightest man in this city.

>>16197816
That city? San Francisco.

>>16197777
What did he even think these posts had in common

LOL hobbitlab seething
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/28/us/politics/elon-musk-space-launch-competition.html

>>16197824
anyone can edit html bozo

>>16197832
paywalled

>>16197832
interesting

>>16197835
>>16197836
are you guys retarded or what?

https://archive.is/1A1mv

>>16197832
The article does the government contracts are subsidies thing in order to try to claim Elon is hypocritical.

>>16197818
That's where the street shitters live.

>>16197842
"wtf, why are they launching their rockets so cheap with their reusable rocket" the article

>>16197842
>>16197850
even more than that its a hitpiece that brings up his tweets instead of staying on topic. i would have taken it more seriously if they focused on SpaceX the company and not portrayed SpaceX as basically just another arm of Elon. it also takes out of context the price decreases, SpaceX has just been getting more and more efficient over time its not like theyre offering worse services at higher prices like a REAL monopoly would, they are continuously improving their services which means that they are able to drop prices and still say profit neutral in the first place. the entire article is just so disingenuous about its purpose and its sad to see. but what do you expect from non-spaceflight specific news reporters when they talk about SpaceX?

>>16197810
PRAISE THE SUN

>>16197853
You don’t hate journalists enough
You think you do but you don’t

>>16197833
I'm phone posting from my real job at my company that I own, do you think I would spend one fucking second doing that? I just asked if the reality was as dire as the YouTube screenshot implied (because I doubt it)

>>16197832
>SpaceX is privately held, so it does not release revenue figures, but Payload, an industry research site, estimated that nearly 60 percent of SpaceX’s launch-related revenue last year came from the federal government.
>This means that despite Mr. Musk’s early disdain for government subsidies granted to his rivals, including Lockheed and Boeing, SpaceX’s own rise has been bankrolled in large part by NASA and the Pentagon.
Why do these retards not have a single clue was subsidies are?

>>16197868
nice subtle brag homo. the reality is that youre posting from the government welfare office.

>>16197874
>I paid you money to do something so you can't be mad I paid someone else just cause

>>16197875
>subtle brag
If you interacted with small business owners in any capacity you'd know the only requirement is to not be afflicted with down syndrome (optional)

>>16197874
They actually do know what subsidies are. They're just used to thinking of government contracts as do nothing graft rather than an impetus to improve the service.

>>16197810
You are recharging your prana. During sunrise and sunset you can even do it with eyes open. Getting up for sunrise and sungazing is pretty much the best start of the day to get shit done.

What's the timezone of the anti SpaceX seether?

>>16197893
Seems to be US

>>16197853
The point isn't so much that SpaceX is using monopoly pricing power, rather that it wants to kill off the competition so that it can then fully exploit monopoly pricing power.

The implied conclusion is that the government needs to step in and create a separate shielded market for the companies that are behind SpaceX, because otherwise those companies will die off and the market concentration of the industry will remain bad or even become worse.

Any educated guesses for the next hop? Still two weeks?

>>16197874
Just because you buy something doesn't mean it's not a subsidy. If you overpay, it's a subsidy. If you pay for something you didn't truly need, it's a subsidy. If you buy just to give your customer better economies of scale, it's a subsidy.

>>16197874
They didn't say the money given to SpaceX was a subsidy, they just implied it.

Still: just because you purchase something for the money doesn't mean it's not a subsidy. If you overpay, it's a subsidy. If you pay for something you didn't truly need, it's a subsidy. If you buy to give your vendor better economies of scale, it's a subsidy. If you buy to give your vendor experience, it's a subsidy. If you buy to help your vendor pay off their factory and installed equipment, it's a subsidy.

spaceX failed yet another wet dress rehearsal, whats out cope this time boys?

>>16197895
i fail to see how its the governments job to hand out gibs because companies have bad business plans. are we supposed to just subsidize any old stupid business plan that comes along just because spacex is running an actual business compared to the other vc scams? thats exactly what oldspace did, take gibs for awful work.

>>16197903
no cope this time... i sold all my shares...

>>16197903
>look at me im a baiting fag
pretending to be a faggot is indeed being a faggot

>>16197895
The only problem is that we are talking about billions of tax payer money, hard to make argument why should people pay more for worse service

>>16197908
post body

>>16197895
>The implied conclusion is that the government needs to step in and create a separate shielded market for the companies that are behind SpaceX, because otherwise those companies will die off and the market concentration of the industry will remain bad or even become worse.
That's pretty much standing government policy. The whole reason ULA was allowed to exist as a monopoly is it preserved two dissimilar rocket options. Instead of whining about SpaceX these newspace guys should be gunning for ULA to take the number 2 NASA+NSSL spot.

>>16197877
so the mishap is done, but that didn't really matter anyway because the license for IFT-4 did not require it

>>16197910
fruity ahh post

>>16197903
What'd it do, stay dry?

>>16197913
>so the mishap is done
abysmal reading comprehension

>>16197902
So if the government pays market rates for something and the provider finds a way to do it cheaper than the rest of the market, suddenly the government is granting a subsidy?

>>16197905
Because, given the current state of the industry, there are no viable business plans that don't involve government intervention, or being a super-billionaire willing to spend out of pocket like Bezos.

Maybe you should try opening an introductory economics textbook sometime. You could read the section called "monopoly -> sources of monopoly -> barriers to entry", or something similar. You could also read about the negative effects to society of high market concentration.

SpaceX would never have succeeded without government industrial policy (commercial resupply).

SpaceX hasn't lowered Falcon 9 prices in years.
They could offer it for half yet they don't.
Doesn't seem very anticompetitive to me.

>>16197925
Didn't they increase the price at some point too

>>16197912
That is not what's happening. The startups are not really allowed to compete with ULA because the barriers to take over ULA's NSSL contract are so extremely high. What is needed isn't "SpaceX + ULA". What is needed is "SpaceX + free competition in a separate market where ULA is allowed to fail". A third provider for NSSL Lane 2 and creating NSSL Lane 1 is a good start however it needs to be expanded and it must be guaranteed that SpaceX will not be allowed to participate in NSSL Lane 1.

>>16197902
>just because you purchase something for the money doesn't mean it's not a subsidy
>list of things that do not apply to either SpaceX or Tesla

And this is setting aside that it is a deflection for companies like ULA getting hundreds of millions in direct subsidies.

>>16197919
It can be, although I didn't say it was a case of subsidy here. I just pointed out that a purchase can be a subsidy, and it needs more analysis to determine whether it has a subsidizing component to it or not.

>market price
It's hard to determine a proper "market price" is right now because there are so few actors on this market that there isn't much of a market. "Market price" is right now essentially whatever SpaceX decides, within a range. I.e. they have a lot of pricing power.

In economic theory, the ideal industry structure is one where no company has pricing power - "perfect competition". This is the industry structure that will deliver the best possible price to consumers.

>>16197936
You were trying to obfuscate the subject to rationalize the article spreading misinfo.

>>16197916
Didn’t get dressed

>>16197909
And this is why China is going to win the economic war in the end. The government is not afraid to intervene in markets and spend money for the purpose of long term industrial policy.

>>16197938
What is the misinformation in the article? I thought they were quite clear in avoiding stating false things. They just made implications for the reader to reach on his own. Maybe I missed something?

As for SpaceX subsidies: they wouldn't have existed in the first place if not for the NASA contract they got that paid for most of the initial product development and created a viable business case. If NASA had simply procured ISS resupply on the open market, they could certainly have bought it cheaper by buying Progress launches from the Russians. It would have cost more in the long term however each individual purchase batch would have been cheaper than developing a new rocket and cargo vehicle from scratch. So why didn't NASA just do that? Because of strategic industrial policy.

>>16197938
What is the misinformation in the article? I thought they were quite clear in avoiding stating false things. They just made implications and let the reader to reach conclusions on his own. Maybe I missed something?

As for SpaceX subsidies: they wouldn't have succeeded in the first place if not for the NASA contract they got that paid for most of the initial product development and created a viable business case. If NASA had simply procured ISS resupply on the open market, they could certainly have bought it cheaper by buying Progress launches from the Russians. It would have cost more in the long term however each individual purchase batch would have been cheaper than developing a new rocket and cargo vehicle from scratch. So why didn't NASA just do that? Because of strategic industrial policy.

>>16197945
What if the government makes a mistake?

Starliner was built for Vulcan

>>16197963
Built for Shaken Astronaut Syndrome.
But actually, built for Delta IV.

>>16197960
It's inevitable that there'll be mistakes, because no one has a crystal ball that can predict the future or a 100% perfect understanding of a dynamic high-tech industry and its relation with the rest of the economy. It's guaranteed you'll overspend, that some money will be misappropriated, that some money will be wasted on dead ends, on duplication, on mismanaged companies that fail anyway, etc.

>>16197958
>they wouldn't have succeeded in the first place if not for the NASA contract they got that paid for most of the initial product development and created a viable business case.
How is this really a gotcha or some kinda bad thing?
It almost seems to me people prefer if the usual government contractors just squander tax money.

The decision to take advantage of a situation to grow a company instead of just pay executives I guess seems super easy on it's face but I doubt 99.9% of people or companies in the same situation would do the same.

>>16197972
By far the greatest difficulties in carrying out good industrial policy aren't mistakes, they're (a) the government lacking a long term view, and (b) the government being influenced by special interests. China has less of a problem in both of those regards because (a) the CPC isn't in danger of losing the next election, and (b) the CPC is a stable and self-perpetuating entity that doesn't depend on support from media moguls, industry tycoons and union bosses to get re-elected.

>>16197978
>How is this really a gotcha or some kinda bad thing?
It isn't. The whole point is that the government has done it in the past for SpaceX and should do the same thing again for more companies. The government should not just "let the free market take its course".

>>16197984
Small launch has received billions in venture capital to date, far more than SpaceX's initial COTS contract. The fact they dont already have an operational F9 clone is embarrassing.

>>16197992
Everyone capable of creating an F9 clone works for spacex

>>16197992
1.
It's spread over many companies.

2.
It's not enough to merely have an F9 v1.0 clone. It would have been enough if the year was 2012 however the leading edge is a moving target, and the barriers to entry are becoming bigger. A startup can't just create F9 v1.0 style minimum viable product and then fund further development with revenue like SpaceX did. SpaceX did not have to compete with SpaceX, second movers do have to compete with SpaceX.

See for example how Stoke's Nova, Relativity's Terran-R or Rocket Lab's Neutron are aiming well beyond just a F9 v1.0 clone.

Also, it's also not just a matter of technology, you also need high cadence.

>>16197998
It's really not about the engineers.
It's all about management which ultimately derives from the CEO.
Blue Origin has great engineers.

>>16197998
HAHA YOU FUCKERS REALLY BELEIVE THIS. honey vulcan is better.

>>16197979
>By far the greatest difficulties in carrying out good industrial policy aren't mistakes
because bad industrial policy usually doesn't last long enough in a capitalist democracy to do lasting damage.

>>16198002
baitcuck kys

>>16197877
>need to bold the text for artists
lol

>>16198001
>Relativity's Terran-R
>aiming well beyond just a F9 v1.0 clone
[X]

>>16198000
Also company culture which is basically a form of self management and derives from the CEO

>>16198001
Relativity Space is valued at over 4 billion and their first launch failed. They have more than enough money

>>16198011
1. methalox
2. intended from the start to be reusable
3. different manufacturing techniques
4. 50% more payload than F9FT, 200% more than F9v1.0
5. they were originally aiming even higher

>>16198016
That they were valued at $4 billion doesn't mean they have received $4 billion in investment. From what I've read, they've raised $1.3 billion. That will probably be enough to finish Terran-R development however it won't help them much if the Terran-R isn't going to be competitive.

>>16197958
>where was the misinfo, they only deliberately misled the reader

lol, lmao even

>>16198024
The market is absolutely desperate for capacity, especially spacex alternatives. Amazon bought out 80 launches over the next decade from Ariane, ULA, BO. SpaceX capacity will continue to be Starlink focused. There is plenty room for dissimilar F9 clones

>>16197963
Vulcan will never be crew rated.

How tf does crew dreamchaser work? put astronauts in the fairing? lol

>>16198032
Amazon is a competitor to SpaceX both directly amd through Bezos' other companies and not representative of the market as a whole.

>>16198038
Thanks for proving you're a baiting nigger

>>16198035
Just load the astronauts before vehicle integration.

>>16198035
Depictions of a crewed Dreamchaser never had fairings, cargo Dreamchaser uses them for better performance.

>>16197832
>More recently, SpaceX started what it called Bandwagon, which offers satellite makers launches to orbits that provide them better coverage over key sections of the world. SpaceX is selling these flights at far below its own costs to undermine its competition, Mr. Beck said, citing his own estimates.
>“Bandwagon is like, the most bold and obtuse anti-competitive thing you can do,” said Mr. Beck, whose company charges about $21,500 per kilogram for its launches to specific orbits.
lol

>>16198032
Kuiper only plans 3,226 satellites, at least as thing stand right now. The operating altitude will be 590km and higher, so the lifespan of each satellite might be longer than for Starlink. Amazon alone isn't going to keep paying indefinitely to compensate for the US government's lack of industrial policy.

>>16198041
Your disingenuous arguments getting called out is not bait.

>>16198044
KEEEEEEK

>>16198043
it's literally not aerodynamically possible to launch dreamchaser without a fairing

>>16197979
>the CCP is immune to special interests and makes careful long term plans

too on the nose my wumao friend

>>16198048
Bezos is no stranger to money pits.

>>16198055
Rockets literally don't care about aerodynamic stability.
Have you seen the Starship?
You just use the engines for control.

>>16198059
Not true

>Past two WDRs experienced uncorrectable faults with the plumbing around the booster common dome and downcomer. Majorly invasive work would be required to fix these. Expect booster rollback shortly followed by B12 rollout for SF test campaign. IFT-4 likely not happening in June

>>16197895
doesn't that already exist with NSSL? with phase 3 or something going to new launch providers that haven't really proved themselves yet
they also kind of glossed over Blue Origin, if New Glenn works there isn't going to be a monopoly

>>16197992
SpaceX was awarded contracts worth $396 million in 2006 for initial development and $1.6 billion in 2008 for 12 flights, which in 2024 dollars is $615 million and $2.3 billion respectively. Also the government bought the first three F1 launches.

>>16198065
nuclear grade cope

>>16197902
if anything, SpaceX is being underpaid compared to the competition
also when talking about ULA in the article they specifically seemed not to mention that ULA was just given a billion a year to do nothing, a direct subsidy just to be there

>>16198018
>1. methalox
hydrolox and solids

>2. intended from the start to be reusable
>sustainer core
>intented to be reusable

anon I...

>3. different manufacturing techniques

cheaper to make than a Delta IV is an extremely low hurdle

>4. 50% more payload than F9FT, 200% more than F9v1.0

With six solids which put it in expended Falcon Heavy's price range, for less performance.

>5. they were originally aiming even higher

And?

>>16198071
are you having a stroke?
delete your retarded post while you still can

>>16198066
SpaceX is allowed to participate in NSSL Lane 1, which pretty much defeats the whole point.

>>16198071
Are you talking about Terran-R, or are you talking about Vulcan, or what?

>>16197958
those implications are done on purpose to mislead
leaving out crucial information or only talking about specific things is misinformation even if it isn't technically outright lying

>>16198044
>SpaceX is selling these flights at far below its own costs
>Bandwagon is like, the most bold and obtuse anti-competitive thing you can do
ohnononononono
>Mr. Beck, whose company charges about $21,500 per kilogram
AAAAAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAHAHAHAHA

>>16198065
L2 confirms

>>16198068
source?

>>16198057
He might be willing to fund money pits however I'm pretty sure he will insist that they be *his* money pits

> y-you can't launch a lifting body without a fairing! it's impossible!!

>>16197813
they'll say that 135 launches is a bad thing because that's obviously way too many and spacex is risking kessler syndrome

>>16198083
Wikipedia article on SpaceX

>>16198078
anon went full retard and started talking about Vulcan

4 more days

https://strawpoll.com/e6Z2A2DBqgN

>>16198056
He's not completely wrong about that. China is an authoritarian hell-state so anything that would be recognized in the west as a "special interest" was either absorbed or destroyed. "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” The communists are also big fans of multi-year plans, although the wisdom that goes into making them varies widely.

On the other hand, China might not have electorally driven politics, but it does have internal factions that fight for power, and this fucked over the Soviet space program on more than one occasion. Calling it "stable and self-perpetuating" is also completely ignoring the cycles of liberalization and crackdown that China passes through.

>>16198098
whoever the faggot is that voted 95 ack yourself immediatly

>>16198098
4 days until what? Certainly not the “space”craft in your picture launching.

>>16198098
ip grabber

>>16198098
Why is it disgustingly shitstained?

>>16198018
when is it launching?

>>16198099
>China is an authoritarian hell-state so anything that would be recognized in the west as a "special interest" was either absorbed or destroyed

China is infamous for book cooking which is enabled by the extreme top down authoritarianism of the CCP.

>>16198065
I refuse to believe it

>>16197877
https://x.com/BCCarCounters/status/1795495860651835778/photo/1

Dammit, give more context, didnt see this until I tried posting.

Context: FAA doesnt see any issue with Flight 3, therefore launch license SOOOON. Possibly within this week

>>16198099
the united states had special interests wrecking our long-term planning abilities in the 1950s - they were called the army, navy, and air force. then in the 1958-1961 period a series of decisions were made to disempower the internal factions because american political leadership knew that was the only way to surpass the soviets.

the other thread is funnier than this boring rocket science shit thread


j/k.
starship launch when?

>>16198074
seems to me that there isn't really a maximum number of providers and it is specifically aimed at small launchers with 1000kg to LEO
does it matter if SpaceX can compete if they are just given one launch as a token for Starship or something?
then lane 2 has three providers, so even if SpaceX and ULA take two spots there is space for a new entrant

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2023/07/nssl-phase-three-update/

>>16198117
My best guess is 2 more working weeks.

>>16198117
two weeks rounding up

>>16198117
Read the thread edition retard.

>>16198118
>>16198074
Why wouldn't the most prolific small sat launcher in the world be allowed to compete in a small lift scale lane?

>>16198117
/pol/tranny malding that his thread gets ignored and laughed at.

>>16198118
Payload says SpaceX, ULA and BO were the ones that bid on Lane 1 at this time
https://payloadspace.com/clean-up-in-nssls-lane-1/

There isn't a maximum number of participants however there is a maximum number of payloads to bid on

>>16198106
Shaniqua at Boing got a little out of control with a blowtorch while twerking for a TikTok video.

>>16198086
this was before they knew about aerodynamics.

>>16198106
its the same capsule they used in the last demo mission.

>>16198173
stingy bastards.

https://x.com/shivon/status/1795527763295899648

the search for heirs to the empire continues

>>16197810
Vitamin D or something
tl;dr sun good

>>16198190
crazy how everything gets a negative spin when its done by boeing lol

>>16198193
Enron Mollusk junior

>>16198203
HAHA

>>16198202
Considering the last few years, they’ve earned it.

>>16198202
Almost like Boeing has had a decade of major fuckups including killing hundreds of people through pure corporate greed.

>>16198217
Slow and steady wins the race

https://x.com/NASA_Gateway/status/1795525060926521344
>Gateway is a vital part of @NASAArtemis. Built with industry and international partners, the next-gen space station will support:
> A sustained presence around the Moon.
> Crewed missions to the lunar surface.
> Deep space science and discovery.

https://go.nasa.gov/3yAU5eO

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-spaceport-company-signs-contract-with-the-us-department-of-defense-to-demonstrate-novel-sea-based-space-launch-infrastructure-302152964.html
>The Spaceport Company (TSC) was awarded a contract by the Defense Innovation Unit (DIU) to deliver cargo and enable greater access to space by leveraging a unique, sea-going mobile space launch complex. This prototype is intended to demonstrate delivery to a mission-designed orbit and test autonomy-like features of the sea launch vessel.
>In Phase 1 of the Novel Responsive Space Delivery (NRSD) project, TSC will construct and demonstrate foundational maritime launch technologies within the next 12 months. Depending on TSC's Phase 1 outcome, DIU may award future modular phases to TSC. DIU's objective in this phased approach is to work with TSC as it constructs its self-contained, ocean-going space launch complex and creates the complex's capability to quickly deliver satellites to orbit from wide swathes of the ocean on a regular, commercial basis.

>>16198225
Holy shit gateway in the same infographic as starship hls!?! And published by nasa no less. It’s not to scale but I’m impressed that they’d even do that.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9WKok_1Jhg
Falcon 9 is getting ready to launch an important European payload. This should be entertaining.

>>16198239
>The launcher is getting ready to launch an important European payload
fixed that for you

>>16198242
The weird short lady actually named the Falcon 9 earlier. It was nice, but their shame still isn't complete.

JAXA live!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQm2kG54b8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQm2kG54b8U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQm2kG54b8U

>>16197682
Salivating over a species level achievement failing just so one rich guy you dont like will feel disappointment, you have to be mentally ill

Also we know a test article with heavy redundancy and in development hardware has shit performance. Also we know it has numerous design flaws. So even if this is all correct there's nothing unusual about it. Spacex either improves/fixes it or they fail.

Anyway that wasn't enough, so he lays on more icing because the HLS interior is just an interior volume mockup for suits to see. He expected it to be fully furnished with props that do nothing like a movie set, or like the competitor's mock ups, oh wait. He doesn't describe whats wrong with the plan or what nasa is objecting to. Actually it's just retarded in the first place to believe spacex can't design a habitat with an insane amount of space and mass or work with when dragon exists. Because they hire young people or something

>>16198262
war is peace, freedom is slavery.

the ESA kid is spergin out

>>16198262
I for one hope the actual interior of hls is just a cubic kilometer void with two cots and an airlock

https://www.space.com/swedish-space-corporation-perigee-aerospace-partnership-announcement

Might finally be able to see a launch in person, I don't live too far from the launch site. Never expected South Koreans of all people to be the one to utilize the newly built launch facility.

Pretty nice little rocket as well, I hope something comes out of this
https://perigee.space/mission/

>>16198225
>>16198230
This one is probably closer to scale

>>16198257
Wait a moment, this is official JAXA stream, not clear's channel.

>>16198257
Need JAXA wife

>>16198293
I love Asian women so much it's unreal

>>16198239
ESA must be seething that they can't launch this on one of their own launchers

>>16198257
How does our girl just keep winning

>>16198296
I just love women (beautiful) in general

Max Cute

Clear Max-Qute!

>>16198297
It was originally supposed to launch on a Soyuz, and then had Vega-C as a backup. I'm a bit surprised they didn't try penciling it in on an Ariane 62 before inking a contract with SpaceX.

Max Qute

Oh it's got the gross nozzle

They need to set these stream commentators up with some kind of audio delay system so they can work around the mission control callouts more naturally. Also they need to be banned from saying "good callout there"

>>16197717
I still miss that nigga so much like you can't believe.

>>16198098
>4 more delays
ftfy

>>16198321

>>16198193
>literally who pajeeta published something on MuskBook
>gets posted ITT
tell me how I know this thread is full of actual shills without telling me

ITS HAPPENING, GET THE FUCK IN HERE!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTchP7WdIcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTchP7WdIcs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTchP7WdIcs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTchP7WdIcs

>>16197818
kek

>>16198332
fake link

>>16198332
>@corp-spacex2
nigger

>>16197963
>snake_eating_puppy.webm
:-(

>>16198326

>>16198332
>90k watching now
wtf

>>16198340
bots streaming for morons

>>16198098
what would your last meal and your last words to your family be before being loading into the Boeing death capsule?

>>16198342
Bots streaming for bots. The only humans in the equation are the ones who set up the bots (probably pajeets) and the adverting execs who think they're doing a good job because the line is going up

>>16198329
its the mother of that kid

>>16198332
Double my bitcoin!?

>>16198336
YOURE BULLSHITTING? YOU HAVE TO BE.

>>16198099
in practice the central government tends to fuck with your life less than here in the US
in the US some group of faggots or subhumans can use the federal government to force everyone else to call them real people, but that doesn't really happen in the PRC
it's not democracy, but neither is picking one of D or R and the vote being ultimately decided by who can import more third world garbage from Somlia or Latin America or get a favorable supreme court ruling
it's true that the cops could just snatch you up and shoot you in the head for no reason (although it's a lot less likely if you're a foreigner because there would be political consequences at a global scale)

>>16198332
Im signing up. Ive got like $10000 in bitcoin, if elons willing to double it then ill send it no questions asked.
/s

>>16198368
Be quick! He's not doing it for long

>>16198347
The account has been hacked from a vietnamese pop or drama channel or something. Thats how it has so many subs already

>>16198372
What I did was send $1 in BTC, he doubled it, I sent $2, $4, $8, $16, etc
im on $1,073,741,824 now after only 30 repeats!

>>16198368
>>16198372
Bros, I send 0.420btc and I didnt get double back yet. How long does it take? I'm getting nervous.

>>16198392
soon bro

>>16198332
My mom sent me one of these once. She has a master's degree

>>16198284
Our autistic king would probably need to be told why that doesn't work
>it's only one week? who would need more than a bed and a screen? should we add a chair?

>>16198399
University is a humiliation ritual so she's probably not smart

What's the name of it again?
https://x.com/esa/status/1795581349405094363

>>16198405
>the launcher

>>16198405
lmao, Eric can be such a shitter when he wants to be.

>>16198405
Who cares about this Eceleb?

Would you share a Soyuz with this new cosmonaut?

>>16198421
sorry, I don't associate with Russians

>>16198429
Ethnic Georgian bro

>>16198421
No, I'm afraid of beautiful women.

>>16198431

>>16198413
ESA is an eceleb to you?

>>16198433
lmao, this
a Muscovite is a Muscovite no matter where he comes from

>>16198421
Rape is legal in space.

>>16198441
California looks mid af

>>16198441
HOLY SHIT, are they really launching this frequently? I count 13 rocket ships in that space train!

>>16198460
This actually is the first month we've have with 13 Falcon launches

>>16198421
When do the sex experiments begin?

Do you think any astronauts have smacked one out on the ISS?

ONE WEEK
https://x.com/TheRocketFuture/status/1795564123339571344

>>16198490
L2 bros...

>>16198485
Every single one of them.

>>16198127
OP was lying. see >>16198490

Does anyone have a tally of days between starship launches?

You can just see satellites.
This is so kino
https://x.com/dominickmatthew/status/1795581289657233596

https://twitter.com/raz_liu/status/1795619096828297286
Boat's fixed

mars is a biohazard

>>16198528
we should go decontaminate mars.

what's your crew size for the first manned mars mission /sfg/?

>>16198538
200

>>16198538
two

>>16198511

>>16198538
1, just me, and I'm not coming back.

Muffin

>>16198538
9
one per class

>>16198553
there is ZERO reason to bring the freaking scout to Mars

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1I3dKEriVl8
linus video about servers on the ISS

>>16198563
also the internet on the ISS is a fucking joke holy crap
just use starlink already

>>16198538
as many femboys that can fit in the pod

>>16198538
70 people would be a good number. Good redundancy and specialization.

>>16198538
how many starships are we launching?

>>16198563
Does he accidentally drop a satellite?

>>16198594
yeah, piece of it fell on my house
not his fault, blame the sat operator

Moderator:
Claiming one's posts are on-topic does not mean that they are, indeed, on-topic.

Ad hominem posts are forbidden.

Thread trimmed of recent posts by dustinthewind and replies to those posts.

Edit: No, dustinthewind, my thread trim is not an invitation to explain your off-topic posts with yet another off-topic post.

Another post deleted.

2nd edit: No, Turgin's post from 2023 was off-topic as well. I deleted it as well. Thank you for pointing it out to me.

Yet another post deleted.

3rd edit: Thread locked

>>16198637
what the fuck are you on about nigger

>>16198640
NSF mods are insufferable little shit-stains

>>16198642
Back to reggit nigger

>>16198644
Thread locked. Let's try to be a little more civil next time okay?

test

>>16198538
I always send one Kerbal

>no one has died on the moon yet.

I still have a shot into immortality...

>>16198662
nobody has killed on the moon yet either

>>16198662
Would be really funny if off-world death was the trigger for the next step in the simulation and we've been dodging it for decades

>>16198668
plenty of bacteria in the shitbags they left behind perished

>>16198669
Non-sapients don't count

>>16198668
schizos not welcome

is there a reason ESA is launching satellites to protect the Earth while Nasa is focused on flags and footprints/colonialism?

Don't use EarthCARE for your low quality bait.

rape the earth

>>16198713
flags-and-footprints missions are a show of force to any aerosols or infrared radiation that thinks it can mess with us

>>16198724
holy based
fuck the earth, what did it ever do for me?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDaOgu2CQtI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63angwcoXsU

>>16198713
Eesa is the last bastion of hope for our dying world

>>16198732
radiation isn't even real, you ever seen it? don't think so

>>16198737
This argument has legs

>>16198739
3 of them

>>16198737
This is how you know Moon landing deniers are feds. Really? A Moon landing denier believes in invisible scary killer "radiation" in the Van Allen belts. Yeah OK

https://archive.is/MTe21

New hitpiece about SpaceX dropped. Laced with leftwing political talking points and feelings from other space companies about the intent of spacex launch contracts

>>16198780
Feat. Peter Beck(Rocket Labs), Jim Cantrell, Tim Ellis (Relativity)

>>16198668
The simulation is not a game. If it were we would likely be NPCs anyway.

>>16198780
Yes >>16197832

>>16197874
they themselves know perfectly well
but they think the average reader is ignorant enough not to know the difference
they are probably right

>>16198490
C-Day

So whem are we laumchin?

>>16198846
two weeks

Hello I have been absent a number of days and wish to know how long until the next Starship test flight

>>16198849
tell the truth

>>16198850
TWO WEEKS

hi /sfg/! i just read further up in the thread that ift-4 will be on june 5. can someone please tell me what day it will happen?

Hop wen

>>16198854
how long away is june 5fth

>>16198716
Me on the right

>>16198855
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL2IZ6-QvjU

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/24/opinion/elon-musk-spacex-brownsville-texas.html?unlocked_article_code=1.vE0.ry82.rDeXhvy3rP2U&smid=url-share

another seethe article from NY, but this was a week ago
the link is weird because its a gift article

but if you prefer, here is the archive link
https://archive.is/XBjGa

>>16198875
>A community organizer in the city who opposes SpaceX’s intrusion into Brownsville, Bekah Hinojosa, told me at length about the material concerns she had — pollution, the cost of living, the fragile environment around the company’s launchpad. But Ms. Hinojosa’s core complaint was that her native city didn’t feel like it belonged to her anymore, and that it felt as though public officials were changing the city to become a center for space tourism. It was a kind of psychological burden. “It’s exhausting,” she said. “We are constantly being bombarded by Elon Musk and SpaceX news down here.” There was the ever-present threat that “Elon might show up to charro days, or sombrero fest,” she said, referring to some of the local festivals. Most of all, she wished simply to stop having to think about him so much.

>>16198881
>Bekah Hinojosa
this bitch needs to go away already

>Will any of it happen? It seems doubtful. SpaceX’s Starship has reached orbit. But regular safe transport to the Red Planet is a fabulously difficult proposition, the kind of project that could only be undertaken by sovereign governments. Once the light of consciousness does touch down there, what does it do? Mars may have water and other potential resources, but on top of its profound hostility to human life, the planet looks like the most charmless corner of the American Southwest, without the saving grace of being able to grab a Cherry Coke slushie from a nearby filling station.

>>16198881
They're going to get gentrified out of town by the performance of one company which does not employ the majority of its citizens, which is a new-ish phenomenon that doesn't have a word yet. Google did it to several cities, and Amazon as well with HQ2.

>>16198780
Throw these cunts out an airlock. After a decade of mocking SpaceX and laughing at them telling it will never work, they cry monopoly? Get fucked.

>>16198881
>There was the ever-present threat that “Elon might show up to charro days, or sombrero fest,” she said, referring to some of the local festivals.

Oh no the horror please don't come and eat the tacos and wear the funny hat Mr Musk. Fuck off back to Mexico you beaner bitch.

>>16198881
LMAO

So why does Peter Beck think transporter missions are shady and $6000 per kg is unfair? Bulk pricing is ~$2000/kg. Thats unfair and too cheap about transporter missions?

>>16198917
because lowering your profit margin to compete with your competition is anticompetitive

>>16198917
Because Peter Beck sells rockets at 20000$/kg.
He's basically an impotently seething upmasslet

>>16198917
Business isn't fair
Transporter / bandwagon is taking away his customers

>>16198926
that is how competition works

>>16198917
He's just a malding little faggot, should have spent less time being a redditor and more time building rockets

>>16198926
That's not how it works. You can only bring in anti competition lawsuits if they are pricing below their cost to drive competition out and for the most part American companies get away with that anyway. Transporter is still making profit so how about the competitors compete instead of seething to the media and government?

>>16198513
And Galactic Energy successfully launched their second Ceres-1S lifting four Tanqui IoT comsats to SSO. They may have two more Ceres launches planned for the imminent future with the first coming up as soon as tomorrow, but it's China so no one can really say for sure.

>>16198926
In a free market environment, you're supposed to see companies lowering prices, offering better products to attract customers.

Thats not being shady at all, thats market driven economies.l

>>16198941

>>16198946
it's a neat video and all but i'm just not sure why china keeps pushing these all-solids startups. you can get them flying pretty easily but it's a total dead end as far as a path to a useful launcher.

>>16198952
Same reason America does, to keep on top of military missile technology which loquids suck shit for. They have plenty of liquid fuel reusable things in the works anyway.

>>16198952
>>16198956
America should scrap Artemis and partner with Thiokol to make a solid only lunar landing program. They can even burn solids to produce the oxygen for the crew like how the Soviets did on Mir

>>16198956
America doesnt have many solid booster rocket startup companies. In fact, there are none, atleast as far as functioning companies go.

>>16198952
Chinese all solid designs are mostly a DF-26 or 31 ICBMs with an extra stage or two stuck on top instead of a warhead. It's an easy training wheels mode that lets a launch service company get practical experience without having to develop the entire rocket themselves. Once they've run a few launch campaigns they usually move on from solid fuel to designing their first liquid engine and shortly after that they're putting out powerpoints describing their upcoming Falcon 9 clone. Galactic Energy might have the first test flight of Palas-1 sometime later this year.

China also has a huge bottleneck in launch capacity right now and Chinese customers will take whatever they can get.

>>16198666
Satan trips demand a sacrifice in space

>>16198960
wasn't there one making nozzles in the very least

>>16198668
what is the next step in the simulation?

>>16198987
TND and system wide aryan expansion

https://twitter.com/raz_liu/status/1795777829357187438
>Great video of today’s launch. It is said half population of the city come to see the launch.

>>16198989

Rocketlab should realise that it's a doggy dog world.

>>16199002
>it's a doggy dog world.
what is the meaning of this phrase?

>>16199008
Do you believe its a caty cat world instead?

>>16198997
>being able to see a rocket launch from your wage cage
That's actually kinda kino.

https://spacenews.com/verizon-plots-100-million-direct-to-smartphone-satellite-investment/

Amazing things are happening in China.
Western regulations are frankly not needed.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1795791386668618095

>>16199033
The only truly anti-competitive action with lasting consequences Musk ever did in space launch was to prevent Kistler from getting that pre-COTS NASA funding in 2004 or so.

>>16199033
>>16199034
Rocketlab and Relativity couldn't exist were it not for SpaceX singlehandedly transforming the market and boosting demand for launchers.
Neutron and Terran-R wouldn't be viable if SpaceX didn't succeed with Starlink.

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4801/1

>>16199040
>AHHHH, I'M DISROOOPTING

>>16199040
All journalists are low iq and their writings are worthless drivel without fail

>>16199040
>The first Starlink was 5 years ago
>/sfg/ is 6 years old

>>16198528
That's a muffin, you lunatic!

>>16198670
I have bad news for you about Artemis

>>16198898
>Cherry Coke slushie on Mars
I'm sort of excited to see just how far we can get just by rearranging carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen with electricity. Is there a future where you have a cherry coke slushy from irradiated air and rocks powered by a solar panel? There's no physics reason why not

>>16198881
Someone should employ the services of a certain ULA snipar

>>16198528
I think there's definitely something there. No idea how the Martian lichen/crab that got photographed slipped through people's minds.

>>16198881
by all means fuck off back to mexico, puta

>>16199008
Nitpickers like you are a diamond dozen

>>16199033
Can I see the injector diagrams for your engines?

Checkmate!

>>16198881
>There was the ever-present threat that “Elon might show up to charro days, or sombrero fest,”

>>16199085
I wouldn't cry if 100 heads of state got the Kennedy treatment but I hope and pray Elon's security guys are good

>>16199049
I came here after Perseverance landed!

>>16199085
why is he gagging on that big pipe cleaner? Humiliation ritual?

>>16199085
Is this real?

>*Gluck* *Gluck* *Gluck* *Gluck* *Gluck* *Gluck* *Gluck*

no bulli elon

>>16199085
It's sickening

>>16199092
to sow fear and terror in the local population

>>16199131
el hombre basado

>Regarding the communication status with the Venus probe “Akatsuki”

>The Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) launched the Venus probe "Akatsuki" in 2010, and after entering orbit around Venus in 2015, it has been in operation for about 14 years, achieving high scientific results. Akatsuki has completed regular operations based on the project completion review in 2018, and has been conducting observations in late-stage operations. After a long period of time, it became impossible to establish communication.

>Since then, various measures have been taken to restore the network, but communications have not been restored at this time. We are currently undergoing recovery operations to restore communications.

>Considering that the spacecraft has already exceeded its design life of four and a half years after its launch and has entered the late stage of operation, we are considering future measures. We will notify you as soon as JAXA's policy is decided.

https://www.isas.jaxa.jp/topics/003749.html

>>16199157

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1795840604972429597

June 5th.

They'll probably fix the missing tiles at the same time they'll install the fts

>>16199169

>>16199214
its happening

>>16199167
RIP
Akatsuki was a real one
And also our last functioning mission to Venus, which is currently getting fucked over by MSR stealing all the money for Veritas. Scientists are getting close to retirement age and will have seen no US missions to Venus since Magellan
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/01/after-latest-nasa-rejection-venus-scientists-face-more-years-of-darkness/

Starship will launch on June 5th. It came to me in a dream.

>>16199240
Our time will come, Venus chads

>>16198857
you will never be a star

>>16199240
I have high hopes for the roggidlab venus mission

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1795840604972429597

>>16199263
>stainless steel airship
Venus is so cool man

>>16199276
Thank you for your contribution. How’s the weather on mars this time of year?

What are your thoughts on the rocket coomer posts

>>16199279
>Venus is so cool
false
>>16199263
what’s behind the handwave of cooling?

>>16199282
Idiot. Can you literally shut the fuck up?

>>16199240
>NASA Venus missions canceled for MSR
>Russian neoVenera program dead
>Hobbitlab's Venus mission indefinitely postponed
Alright, gentlemen, it's time for a 4ASS mission to Venus. What's the absolute cheapest way we can get there and still do useful science?

>>16199263
I was going to point out that stainless steel really doesn't like sulfuric acid, but it turns out that almost all of that evaporates out of the air below about 10 km. This probably explains the 8 km flight ceiling.

>>16199296
>Hobbitlab's Venus mission indefinitely postponed
When did this happen?

>>16199296
Depends what you define as useful science.
The cheapest option though is to not bother building to withstand venusian surface conditions, and instead go with an atmosphere sampling flyer of some kind. I like the idea of an orbiter paired with a solar powered dirigible.

>>16199263
wasn't Rocket Lab proposing a Venus mission as a way to prove out Photon as a bus for long-term planetary missions?

>>16199287
how long would it take for Venus to turn into a dry-ice ball if we shaded it from the sun?

>>16199299
They're focusing on Neutron instead. They don't have the size to do both at once.

really interesting takes from a trained astrophysicist.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tw0aqmnmaw

>>16199317
kill yourself

>>16198538
2
me and my body pillow

>>16199323
who hurt you?

>>16199326
You did, with your pop-science starring a tart video.

>>16199336
Do you need a hug?

>>16199326
>erm who hurt you
i'm going to rape your mouth shut

Trump bending the knee now that he realizes how important SpaceX is to the countries needs
https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1795865409914012011

>Qatar Airways raises in-flight experience to new heights!
>We are proud to be the largest global airline and the first in the MENA region to collaborate with SpaceX Starlink
>This complimentary, ground-breaking service will enhance our passengers' onboard experience with boundless entertainment and information options.

>>16199263
>Z>un>
What did they mean by this?

>>16199303
about 300 years iirc

>>16198917
Much as I like Beck, he's saying that because he can't compete at those prices and won't be able to for a while if ever, not because it's actually true. SpaceX probably still makes a profit at those prices, although far lower than for normal missions especially once you factor in all the extra costs of integrating multiple payloads. It's not a loss, but it is very much priced this way to pull up the ladder and make it harder for potential competition to arise. As I've been saying for a while, they've pretty much stated it's designed to kill small launch on stage and it comes after they resisted rideshares for years on grounds of being too much extra work and cost for the little gain (half a dozen missions a year at thin margins don't exactly make them significant money).

>>16199380
Yeah it'll kill small launch, which will remove any funding pathway for other startups to develop medium/heavy launch
Fortunately for small launch, launcher diversity is a highly sought after commodity for the biggest customers

>>16199034
lobbying congress to ban the rd-180 although that would've happened anyway

>>16199296
land an ant farm on the surface because putting an ant farm somewhere new is automatically scientific

>>16199380
If others cant compete against F9 rideshares, they're not gonna survive Starship rideshares.

>>16198917
hard for me to tell (and this may be me simping so take it with a grain of salt) but i think he may have been saying that nasa allowing rideshares on f9 launches for their missions is effectively a subsidy to spacex for smallsat launches and spacex wouldn't be able to undercut rocketlab so much if not for that. mind you, this is still a retarded position to hold but it would be a different kind of retarded than saying that charging $6000/kg in any and all cases is unfair.

>>16199317
What does it say?