Space/SpaceX/Spaceflight General /sg/

File: 1.63 MB, 3504x2780, boeing btfo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Space/SpaceX/Spaceflight General /sg/ Anonymous Thu Mar 21 12:50:27 2019 No.10486162 [Reply] [Original]

Boeing BTFO edition

Previous
>>10482057

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 12:52:34 2019 No.10486165 File: 2.59 MB, 330x400, holocoop.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Starship cam https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7zia2HqOOc

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 12:53:58 2019 No.10486167 File: 2.01 MB, 296x296, 1551956062503.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10486165 shiny

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 12:55:29 2019 No.10486170 There is an ongoing foreign against Boeing. The United States must not tolerate this and the government must step in and protect one of the most trustworthy American companies in existence.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 12:59:09 2019 No.10486177 >>10486170 $0.0737 has been deposited into your Boeing account

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:00:57 2019 No.10486180 >>10486170 The US stepping in to protect Boeing against memes that criticize Boeing? As for SLS, Boeing deserves all the shit it's getting for taking over a decade to bolt 4 preexisting engines to a propellant tank.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:08:43 2019 No.10486200 >>10486165 >3000 viewers LMAO Elon is a PR genius.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:13:10 2019 No.10486206
File: 175 KB, 1324x866, 1460375432517.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10486162
>Boeing BTFO
Oh no no no...
https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/missions/commercial/with-crew-dragons-first-flight-complete-wheres-boeings-starliner/
>Boeing’s CST-100 “Starliner”capsule has encountered some troubling technical issues. Critical abort engines, provided by Aerojet Rocketdyne, leaked highly-toxic hydrazine fuel back in June of 2018, according to an Ars Technica report.
The comments are especially juicy.

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/240016/20190321/boeing-pushes-back-test-flights-for-nasa-human-spaceflight-program-till-later-this-year.htm
>The first uncrewed test flight of the Starliner was originally scheduled to happen in April. New reports, however, revealed that the launch will be pushed back for at least three months. The crewed test flight was also moved from August to November 2019.

>>10486200
He isn't even running that cam, it's South Padre people doing it to promote (eventual) tourism. That's why it's so genius.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:20:33 2019 No.10486228 File: 241 KB, 710x708, 9j7th9d0rhn21.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10486206 Dude, 3000 people are watching a water tower from 500 metres doing absoluetely nothing. It's completely fucking ridiculous.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:22:13 2019 No.10486231 File: 339 KB, 1200x1200, D1GQiyEVYAA6mDJ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10486206 old guard finna get dabbed on

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 13:30:25 2019 No.10486248 I just want to point out that we still have eight hours or so of that other thread, and we weren't even close to image limit the faster the thread, the longer you want to wait to make a new one

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:04:24 2019 No.10486327 woa it just moved

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:07:19 2019 No.10486334 Time to buy stock.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:19:33 2019 No.10486368 When is the test? It's almost 2 PM in Texas

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:23:32 2019 No.10486383 second stream here, from opposite direction supposedly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3shfJwX2Kac

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:23:37 2019 No.10486385

>>10486180
>As for SLS, Boeing deserves all the shit it's getting for taking over a decade to bolt 4 preexisting engines to a propellant tank.
SHLV are incredibly difficult and expensive machines to build and nothing can be further from the truth than what you said.

Anyone who wishes to build a rocket of comparable performance will inevitably face the same challenges and delays.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:24:44 2019 No.10486389 >>10486383 this guy is the kind of retard who gets rocket launches cancelled at the cape so the coast guard can chase him out of the water

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:25:59 2019 No.10486397 >>10486385 challenges, yes delays, no just need to find an acceptable margin that makes it easy >>10486368 it's too windy for today lol everybody watching who isn't getting payed for it is a retard

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:28:09 2019 No.10486405 File: 592 KB, 3000x2000, not powerpoint.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10486385 >comparable performance

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:31:49 2019 No.10486418

>>10486368
They might fire it today or maybe not, remember they are still doing testing even if it's not visible. This is the first time they've loaded large amounts of methane and oxygen into the Hopper, SpaceX always do a wet dress rehearsal before a static fire so maybe this is all it is. Also, Elon mentioned that they did preburner and burp tests before running the engine for the first time. There's a lot of testing to do before the engine can be fired, so if it does it will occur at the end of the window.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:32:59 2019 No.10486421

>>10486405
constrained by a lackluster second stage and small diameter
the fineness of the rocket is off the charts too, so there's no real way to expand the payload volume
could make an excellent agena target vehicle analogue launcher with some tweaks

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:33:47 2019 No.10486423

>>10486385
>SHLV are incredibly difficult and expensive machines to build
Yes they are, but that doesn't justify the cost overruns and excessive delays SLS had. For Pete's sake, it shouldn't take a month to figure out how a part of the thrust structure broke much less to run FEA on it.

The Saturn V is similar to the SLS in size, capability, and cost and it only took 7 years from the first design request to the first launch of Saturn. SLS has taking over 14 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:35:49 2019 No.10486431 >>10486423 Correction >SLS has TAKEN over 14 years.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:41:31 2019 No.10486435 Have heard chatter of a 1:45 CST test

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:48:08 2019 No.10486451 >>10486435 So I guess the information in the chat is bullshit then...

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 14:50:36 2019 No.10486460 >>10486451 it's always bullshit

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:02:28 2019 No.10486474 Kinda offtopic, but I don't like niggers

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:04:31 2019 No.10486478 >>10486474 it's understandable, but they're not all bad

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:26:15 2019 No.10486528

>>10486383
The "opposite direction" has Mexico a mile or three away, so either he's over the border, or he's violating the evacuation order.
>Video unavailable
>This video has been removed by the user
>>10486389
Why am I not surprised.

>>10486248
>I just want to point out that we still have eight hours or so of that other thread, and we weren't even close to image limit
>the faster the thread, the longer you want to wait to make a new one
/v/ermin always freak out the moment a thread hits bump limit
Waiting until page 10 also keeps the thread off of page 1 where the morons can see it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:29:11 2019 No.10486532 >>10486528 oh, is it /v/ doing that now? you get a lot of people posting "bump" after like fifteen minutes and freaking out that they haven't had any replies, I assumed it was still /b/ immigrants doing that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:40:39 2019 No.10486555 >>10486167 How ez are they to see in orbit around the earth. Riding high, shiny and chrome through space.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:42:21 2019 No.10486560 >>10486532 could be other another fast board nobody wants to mention, but /v/ is likely since it's so fast that threads die in like 15 mins even without bump limit

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:43:27 2019 No.10486562 >>10486560 bump limit and nobody posting have the exact same effect bro

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:44:33 2019 No.10486564 >>10486562 Tell that to the people starting a new general at 311 posts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:44:51 2019 No.10486566 >>10486564 I DID AND THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO ME

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 15:55:13 2019 No.10486588

>>10486385
Think of it this way

>Heres a few hundred million, can you build a rocket with these specs for us?
>Call us when you need more money
vs
>Private company, has to stay competitive to stay alive
>Iterative design. Keep improving. First and current falcon 9 are worlds apart in capabilities.

Iterative design makes a lot of sense. I'm sure starship isn't gonna end with just 2 test vehicles.

I'm sure boeing their engineers are smart enough to pull of the same shit as spacex. It's just that the people in charge have no incentive to do make better decisions. Also they outsource way too much shit. SpaceX does it all in house. It's not like these are off the shelf parts.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:14:40 2019 No.10486632 File: 1.33 MB, 2048x1365, 47382357662_5e8b542a29_k.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Anne McClain a cute

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:15:52 2019 No.10486635 Now you all just watch as they find (((reasons))) to delay DM-2.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:17:14 2019 No.10486639 >>10486635 >Now I know DM-1 went perfectly Elon, but you haven't filled out enough (((paperwork))) like Boeing did.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:18:02 2019 No.10486641 >>10486632 >tfw no cute space tomboy gf

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:23:05 2019 No.10486654 >>10486641 feels bad man time to rewatch Planetes

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:23:32 2019 No.10486658 File: 70 KB, 879x485, newglenn-2ndstage[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Blue Origin studying repurposing of New Glenn upper stages https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-studying-repurposing-of-new-glenn-upper-stages/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:27:00 2019 No.10486667 >>10486658 Blue Origin making paper rocket things, when they can barely reach 100km up.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:29:11 2019 No.10486673
File: 3.05 MB, 3600x2400, 025_dreamchaser_8_16-with-credit[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>cutie shuttle progress

Dream Chaser Spacecraft Passes Another NASA Milestone. Dream Chaser continues to meet technical and scheduled milestones on its way to first flight in spring 2021.

https://www.sncorp.com/press-releases/snc-dream-chaser-nasa-milestone-5/

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:30:41 2019 No.10486679 >>10486635 That's a silly conspiracy theory. NASA won't do something like that because it'll put the whole commercial crew program at risk if it were found out.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:33:40 2019 No.10486688 >>10486679 hihi, you're such a baka, anon-kun. At this rate, BFR will fly before commercial crew.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:33:45 2019 No.10486690 https://spacenews.com/nasa-considers-shorter-first-crewed-slsorion-mission/ >The new approach for EM-2 does not affect plans for the initial SLS/Orion mission, EM-1, scheduled for launch without a crew in late 2018. EM-1 soon lads

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:39:47 2019 No.10486709

>>10486688
>At this rate, BFR will fly before commercial crew
As awesome as that would be, I doubt it'll happen.

>>10486690
Wait. Did a projected SLS launch date actually shift to earlier instead of later? That's amazing! Hopefully NASA is starting to clean out the rotting management and return to some respectable level.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 16:55:57 2019 No.10486754

>>10486635
>we are worried about those draco engines and that extremely dangerous and toxic hypergolic fuel so we're afraid we'll have to delay you until after Boeing completes its first crew launch
>what do you mean starliner hypergol leak that was just a minor accident

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:32:59 2019 No.10486830 >>10486162 >>10486206 If it's Boeing, it ain't going!

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:38:42 2019 No.10486844 >>10486248 Notice how it's always the muskrat morons who make new threads too early. Reddit tourists need to GTFO

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:51:18 2019 No.10486871 >>10486844 >Notice how it's always the muskrat morons who make new threads too early. Wasn't the Delta launch edition of /sg/ too early as well?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:52:02 2019 No.10486874 >>10486162 What's with the vitriol here against everyone that isn't SpaceX?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:56:06 2019 No.10486880 File: 59 KB, 725x727, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hopper test postponed to friday

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 17:57:14 2019 No.10486884 >>10486874 Shitposters. Ignore them, unless they're posting wrong information. If so, correct them, then ignore them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 19:10:32 2019 No.10487019 >>10486690 >SLS is gonna launch as soon as it's 2018 again Checks out. Assuming the universe moves in perfect circles, it'll then only be about 15 trillion years before SLS is going to fly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 19:11:22 2019 No.10487021 >>10486170 Wow, an ongoing foreign? Say it aint so

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 19:12:50 2019 No.10487027 >>10486880 It's already Friday in half of the world. Get on with it already.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 19:21:59 2019 No.10487050 >>10487021 This just in! It has been discovered that countries outside of the United States exist. Americans are shocked by this startling revelation.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:08:42 2019 No.10487203 File: 1.23 MB, 5184x3888, IMG_6750 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:16:51 2019 No.10487211 >>10486632 Her pic with blond hair just reminds me of Sam Carter, my first sci-fi gal crush.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:18:02 2019 No.10487214 >>10486874 Reddit-fags mostly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:24:45 2019 No.10487229 >>10486165 I had to go to a class during the supposed test fire, did I miss it?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:28:00 2019 No.10487238 >>10487229 No, its been postponed again because Elon thought he could fly rockets in Texas weather. It's going to be windy every day for the next month.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:29:55 2019 No.10487241 >>10487229 it blew up

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:34:09 2019 No.10487251 >>10487238 Hopefully I wont be forced to miss it again. >>10487241 https://youtu.be/ZWphqA1Slrw?t=66

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:42:53 2019 No.10487276 Eight minutes until a Vega launch in Kourou. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xd0NBfeVtys

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:46:09 2019 No.10487288 >>10487276 also the window has opened for a RocketLab Electron launch of Darpa's R3D2 payload from New Zealand. No idea what is holding up this launch, but it is probably weather.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:47:20 2019 No.10487295 >>10487276 thanks, i always miss these small launches

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:47:59 2019 No.10487296 >>10487276 Good job. Thank you.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:50:38 2019 No.10487302 File: 418 KB, 1000x1000, 1549152320907.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10487276 dubs and it explodes

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:52:08 2019 No.10487306 Damn that motherfucker's got get up and go.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:56:23 2019 No.10487315 >>10487276 sure accelerates fast at launch. Couldn't they significantly increase payload capability by just scaling the first stage up a bit? Such a high acceleration at launch seems wasteful.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:57:52 2019 No.10487319 >>10487276 Speedy lil bastard

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 21:59:14 2019 No.10487324 >>10487315 That is just a property of solid fuel engines vs liquid fuel engines: high thrust but low efficiency. If it didn't take off quick, it wouldn't get far enough fast enough before burnout.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:01:03 2019 No.10487329 File: 76 KB, 639x359, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10487276 can someone explain pic related? I doubt their animation was broken but pointing the rocket down doesn't seem correct

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:01:45 2019 No.10487331

>>10487315
>Such a high acceleration at launch seems wasteful.
Actually, you'd want a higher acceleration at launch so that gravity losses are reduced. Sure if you accelerate too quickly then air drag becomes an issue, but you can still find a way to balance the two.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:02:26 2019 No.10487335 >>10487203 BIG shiny boi

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:03:30 2019 No.10487339 >>10487329 It's a maneuver to prevent the apogee from increasing while still building orbital velocity

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:04:44 2019 No.10487342

>>10487324
So you can't make them burn longer? Seems odd considering they come in all kinds of sizes

>>10487331
but fuel is pretty much free, which is why i assume you don't see liquid fueled rockets with such high acceleration around. The rocket itself is expensive, might as well squeeze as much payload out of it as possible

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:06:40 2019 No.10487345 >>10487339 why would they want to do that? Doesn't it need to go high up anyways?

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:10:36 2019 No.10487351

>>10487329
I sometimes see this at the end of other solid rocket flights that have overperformed (which I was seeing on the earlier part of the flight profile graph). They do the final tailoff burn at this attitude to trim the orbit to be closer to the desired trajectory. There isn't as much room for throttling solid fuel motors, which is why this happens.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:11:57 2019 No.10487355 >>10487345 because they aren't in orbit yet during that point, but their apogee is already as high as the final orbit apogee will be. the rocket needs to go around the Earth before raising the perigee

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:12:11 2019 No.10487357

>>10487342
>but fuel is pretty much free
Yes. But less gravity losses means that you would need to carry less fuel. Less fuel means that you can have more payload for the same total rocket mass at launch.

>which is why i assume you don't see liquid fueled rockets with such high acceleration around
Liquid propellant rockets accelerate slower than solid propellant rockets because liquid engines can't produce the same amount of thrust as a solid rocket motor for the same mass. Overall for a launch vehicle designers try to get as much thrust as possible for the first stage. Which is why SpaceX keeps trying to increase the thrust of their Merlins.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:13:08 2019 No.10487360 >>10487351 so they are basically wasting excess energy because you can't shut a solid rocket motor off?

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:14:11 2019 No.10487361 >>10487357 makes sense i guess. thanks for breaking it down to retard level

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:16:45 2019 No.10487371 >>10487360 Yes. Why do you think that most space agencies agree that solids on a crewed rocket is a bad thing? >>10487361 No problem. I love teaching people about these things.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:18:40 2019 No.10487377

>>10487371
>Why do you think that most space agencies agree that solids on a crewed rocket is a bad thing?
i think it's more the burning debris part, launch abort systems are more than powerful enough to pull the capsules away from a solid rocket booster

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:25:58 2019 No.10487393

>>10487377
I recall a study about the Aeres I-x that disagrees (I think it was made by the USAF). I can't find it, but in short it said that while a launch abort system can pull the capsule away from an out of control SRB, the flaming debris from the SRB self destruct (which is required) would rain down on the capsule as it's parachuting. The chutes would get burnt and the capsule would fall to it's doom.

Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:27:55 2019 No.10487396

>>10487393
so it's more the burning debris part and not the launch abort system not being capable to pull the capsule away? The launch abort system is always just supposed to get you away from the immediate vicinity of the rocket, not cover larger distances

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:41:09 2019 No.10487431 the old thread is STILL ALIVE you FLAMING BUNDLE of NEWFAGS that's NINETY posts

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:43:02 2019 No.10487436 >>10487431 I tried posting there, people ignored it to instead post about how the thread is still alive.

>>	Anonymous Thu Mar 21 22:47:00 2019 No.10487441 >>10487276 PRISMA deployed, mission success!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 00:04:25 2019 No.10487591 >>10487396 The problem is when your LAS needs parachutes to get you back down to the ground, while burning bits of propellant are still floating around.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 00:09:41 2019 No.10487597 >>10487288 they just announced the launch date: Sunday the 24th.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 01:08:52 2019 No.10487682 the last thread finally died

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 01:28:42 2019 No.10487713 >>10487682 S

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 01:39:27 2019 No.10487738 >>10487713 literally twelve hours after some idiot made this one prematurely

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 02:42:12 2019 No.10487843 >>10487738 A moment of silence, everybody...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 02:49:05 2019 No.10487852 >>10486673 Did they edit out the insulation layers from that photo?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 05:27:53 2019 No.10487979 Was there a hop/firing yesterday or nah?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 05:29:42 2019 No.10487980 >>10487979 There wasn't. It's scheduled (tentatively) for today instead.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 05:55:16 2019 No.10488011 >>10487979 Apparently yesterday was just a wet dress rehearsal, a static fire is scheduled for the same window today.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 06:07:27 2019 No.10488028 >>10487211 I'd Jaffa her chappa'ai with my ma'tok, if you know what i mean

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 06:37:30 2019 No.10488056 >>10488028 Cringe Keys nerd

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 06:50:32 2019 No.10488066 >>10488056 Silence, shol'va

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:01:35 2019 No.10488078 File: 93 KB, 1000x742, 140715-bruce-mccandless-1984-2-feat.jpg?quality=85.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] spacewalk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:06:48 2019 No.10488083 >>10488078 They're really cramming that guy into the airlock.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:13:13 2019 No.10488089

>>10486588
Companies are generally contractually obligated to outsource a certain amount when building directly for NASA. It's for the same reason the Saturn 5 and space shuttle were built by so many companies all over the US, creating jobs in as many senators states as possible.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:21:53 2019 No.10488095

New information about the Starlink constellation from an FCC document:

https://licensing.fcc.gov/myibfs/download.do?attachment_key=1636825

Some key details:

1.)Sats will initially be launched to ~350km orbit for checkout before orbit raising.

2.)SpaceX confident in new design for "100% Demisability" - i.e. complete destruction in atmosphere.

3.)"No more than" 75 Sats have already been produced with earlier design that included large iron, steel structures (hall thrusters, reaction wheel) that would survive reentry. It appears they will be used, but they are the old design.

4.)Will still use Hall thrusters (but without large iron parts? Not sure how this works.)

5.)No Silicon Carbide on any (old 75 sats or new design). This was previously to be used on the mirrors for intra-satellite links. Not clear whether they dropped inter-satellite links or are using a 100% demisable material (my bet is on the latter, not sure what material will be used instead.)

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:27:38 2019 No.10488098 >>10488095 Why do they care is parts survive reentry? I'm assuming they have enough delta-v to aim for Point Nemo.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:29:17 2019 No.10488099 File: 2.54 MB, 400x224, heavy erection.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488095 >75 Sats have already been produced

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:30:19 2019 No.10488100 >>10488098 Contingency in case they lose control of a satellite and can't accurately deorbit it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:36:29 2019 No.10488102 >>10488100 Ah k, that makes sense. Thanks anon.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:44:41 2019 No.10488107 >>10488100 Yes, and because there's gonna be 12,000 satellites some of them will malfinction.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 07:54:20 2019 No.10488121
File: 148 KB, 1024x606, Starlink-test-satellites-SpaceX-1024x606[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>SpaceX’s Starlink satellite lawyers refute latest “flawed” OneWeb critique

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-starlink-lawyers-oneweb-critique/

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 08:40:30 2019 No.10488172 >>10488095 Facebook LEO satellite constellation will have 10x faster data rate than Starlink

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 08:56:08 2019 No.10488190 >>10488099 Alright, this made me chuckle

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:42:58 2019 No.10488254 File: 230 KB, 2048x1536, 637b652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://youtu.be/vc4Pzu--rCw New Livestream with activated luvechat. But he seems drunk

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:44:46 2019 No.10488259 >>10488254 what's the countdown for?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:47:14 2019 No.10488265 >>10488259 End of todays launch window i guess

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:50:40 2019 No.10488271 >>10488254 What happened to the top part?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:50:54 2019 No.10488272 >>10488254 Seems a bit windy today

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:51:50 2019 No.10488273 >>10488271 Got rekt

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:54:05 2019 No.10488280 >>10488273 If they didn't need it for the hopper test why did they build it and attach it?

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 09:56:21 2019 No.10488283

>>10488280
>If they didn't need it for the hopper test why did they build it and attach it?
Because they put it together to make it look as SHINY AND CHROME as they could in a very short time span before mucking up the aesthetic with the actual functional parts - avionics wiring, pipes and plumbing for the tanks and engines, pressurization system, etc.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:28:03 2019 No.10488354 >>10488283 >make it look as SHINY AND CHROME Why would they do that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:32:09 2019 No.10488362 >2025 Based

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:34:20 2019 No.10488365 https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1109072812269072385

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:37:00 2019 No.10488367 >>10488354 >Why would they do that? Because the real thing is going to look SHINY AND CHROME too. They're trying to convey that what they're building isn't notional, but what they're actually setting out to achieve.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:43:35 2019 No.10488375 File: 17 KB, 500x400, nasa.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488365 based

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:47:09 2019 No.10488381 >>10488367 An ad? Why? Short on money or something?

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 10:53:16 2019 No.10488391

>>10488381
>An ad? Why? Short on money or something?
They're trying to build a rocket that outclasses the Saturn V, is more reusable than the Space Shuttle, and develop a low-orbit constellation of communications satellites, so, yeah, they're doing a lot without a lot of money for it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:24:14 2019 No.10488436 File: 59 KB, 632x566, Capture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] do not disturb the hopper pls

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:32:29 2019 No.10488450 >>10488362 They are lucky if SLS leaves the launch pad until then. Nasa plans look like this: Social Study until 2026, looking for company until 2030. R&D 10 years. Moon landing 2040. Mars Never or in the 70s earliest

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:35:11 2019 No.10488455 >>10488436 >Generator failure yesterday What do they mean

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:36:54 2019 No.10488462 >>10488455 Big generator that makes electricity failed for whatever reason so they lost power.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:39:54 2019 No.10488473 >>10488450 Imagine if modern NASA was in control of Apollo back then. The Soviets might actually have a chance to get to the moon first.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:40:53 2019 No.10488479

>>10488455
The power and internet infrastructure at Boca Chica is very fragile and unreliable, it frequently cuts out. SpaceX have their own power source in the form of the solar farm and Tesla packs, located near the dishes. One of the things SpaceX is apparently planning to do is connect Boca Chica up to their grid and internet, SpaceX have been running landlines from the dishes recently so it may not be far out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 11:42:06 2019 No.10488482 >>10488473 With the kind of fuck you money NASA got back then every idiot could have landed humans on the moon.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:05:19 2019 No.10488536
File: 53 KB, 895x529, 1442514329598[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10488482
It was only like twice the current budget. We have spent significantly more money on NASA since the end of Apollo than during Apollo itself. Funding is not the main issue, gross inefficiency is.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:08:08 2019 No.10488542 >>10488482 True. But the chronic delays would allow the Soviets to destructively test the N-1 until it finally worked.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:11:46 2019 No.10488549 >>10488536 They spend it all on the Apollo program while NASA nowadays spends most its money on earth sciences and keeping the ISS alive. NASA is spending 4-5 billion into deep space exploration, that's roughly 10% of what they spent in the 60s.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:17:50 2019 No.10488565 >>10488536 >What is inflation

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:19:43 2019 No.10488568 >>10488565 it is adjusted for inflation dummie

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:20:11 2019 No.10488569

>>10488536
Only like twice lol. That's 20 billion more per year, or in other words what all of Constellation + SLS cost up until now PER YEAR in extra budget. Plus, as some other anon already said NASA finances a lot of thins they did not finance back then.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:29:55 2019 No.10488593
File: 140 KB, 1133x695, fghy45h.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10488549
Here is a similar plot but limited to manned spaceflight program only. It still shows roughly the same picture. Certainly we have spent MORE money on manned spaceflight since Apollo than on Apollo itself. Again, size of the budget is not the main issue with NASA at all.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1579/1

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:35:38 2019 No.10488603

>>10488569
>Only like twice lol. That's 20 billion more per year
but only for like 5 years in total, people underestimate how quickly Apollo was developed, to illustrate it: SLS program is now older than human spaceflight was when they landed on the Moon..

I would even argue that this was the reason Apollo was so successful, spaceflight was so new at the time and things moved so quickly that the vultures and parasites did not yet have time to attach themselves to the new agency, but they are well attached now

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:38:03 2019 No.10488608 >>10488603 Apollo program was 150 billion overall, that's a lot of things but not efficient with money.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:43:05 2019 No.10488617 >>10488608 Efficient? No. More efficient than current NASA efforts? Yes. And at least they had an excuse of attempting something unprecedented, which can lead to inefficiency. Current NASA has no such excuse.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:44:01 2019 No.10488621 >>10488608 We did it for the first time ever of course its going to be expensive. There weren't any private rocket companies back then. Fuck, we were barely into rockets at the time.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:44:25 2019 No.10488622 >>10488593 Yeah, now compare the size of "space exploration" at the end and the size of "Apollo" + "Gemini" at the beginning.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 12:48:28 2019 No.10488630

>>10488617
>>10488621
The main manufacturers of Saturn 5 was Boeing, just like SLS is mainly manufactured by Boeing. I'd put it quite differently, the extreme investment in the 60s set the culture to be extremely wasteful with tax payer money that persists to this day.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:08:37 2019 No.10488678 >>10488608 NASA budget is around $20B a year. I know they do other stuff with it, but they're not that far from it while producing nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:10:59 2019 No.10488690 >>10488436 jeez, what did they expect building a giant shiny metal thing in Texas, where every road sign is peppered with bullet holes?!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:12:13 2019 No.10488695 File: 239 KB, 961x816, 1552550038319.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Can this shit fucking hop already? Gib me your cum, musk

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:12:49 2019 No.10488698 File: 161 KB, 1080x750, IMG_0482.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:13:20 2019 No.10488700 Reminder that next July, we'll celebrate 50 years of nothing in Space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:14:35 2019 No.10488705 >>10487203 It looks like a gigantic R2D2

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:16:57 2019 No.10488710 >>10488365 But why?... WWHHHHHHYYYYYYYYY???????!!!!!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:20:59 2019 No.10488719 >>10488593 Fucking ISS needs to die already. Just transfer the experiments to muh gateway or something.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:23:16 2019 No.10488725 >>10488719 ISS is literally SpaceX main income stream.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:24:56 2019 No.10488733 >>10488482 N1 would've gotten there eventually. They would've managed eventually if they didn't run out of funding.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:26:49 2019 No.10488743 >>10488725 I know, but it's too much of a drain. Maybe we should strap some engines on it and boost it to the Moon or something. Then, no need for Gateway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:34:33 2019 No.10488770 File: 2.87 MB, 1280x720, my dick.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488099

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:36:45 2019 No.10488776

>>10488743
It would be impossible to do so, you'd need a vehicle able to send 450 tons to TLI, ISS would break up due to the vibrations caused by the TLI burn and the ISS' shielding, navigation systems and life support would be woefully inadequate for lunar space.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:39:39 2019 No.10488785

>>10488719
ISS provides permanent human presence in space and helps to nurture nascent commercial industry. As far as post-Apollo spaceflight goes, it is the best thing NASA has done (which is not saying much, tough). What needs to die is SLS and Orion.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:43:27 2019 No.10488792 >>10488776 Well, maybe just keep modules that would do same job as proposed gateway? Then other modules can stay in orbit until we find time to send them there/discard them

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:44:35 2019 No.10488794 >>10488785 Yeah, that didn't really do shit for 15 years. And we had Mir before that, so we know it's just a money drain for sure, now.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:45:07 2019 No.10488797

>>10488678
The Apollo program was a mistake. They should have instead invested in mastering the technique of orbital refueling. You could have put people on the moon with much smaller launch vehicles and mastering that technique would have been insanely useful for further space development. Instead we got a giant pork barrel program that ruined the american space industry for 50 years.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:46:20 2019 No.10488801 File: 754 KB, 607x609, 1552456063655.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488785 >What needs to die is SLS and Orion And Boeing, Lockheed Martin and northrop Grumman

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:48:39 2019 No.10488810 >>10488801 >And Boeing, Lockheed Martin and northrop Grumman No. They're providing competition necessary for private space companies to take off.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:50:16 2019 No.10488814 >>10488797 And that being said, we still have zero experience with in-orbit refueling. BFR is supposed to do that, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes a problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:52:56 2019 No.10488824 >>10488814 SpaceX doesn't have the money to experiment with that kind of stuff. If they did, they would already do it with Falcons. A refueled Falcon 9 second stage would make the whole SLS program obsolet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:53:09 2019 No.10488826 >>10488814 ISS is regularly refueled, isnt it? I dont see why it should be a problem.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:54:02 2019 No.10488829 >>10488810 Agree, but hey sucked to much money

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:57:10 2019 No.10488839 >>10488829 Solution: No Cost-Plus contracts to "develop" technology that was already around since the 70s.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 13:58:35 2019 No.10488844

>>10488826
SpaceX deals with deep cryo stuff.
Not sure if true, but my perception is that it's almost jello-like state.
I'm sure they have a plan, and know how to deal with this stuff more than anyone, but I'm sure there's a lot that can go wrong with it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:03:40 2019 No.10488857 >>10488839 when you look that SLS is basically Space Shuttle booster, i just get mad

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:05:11 2019 No.10488864 >>10488826 The issue is that rocket fuel is icecold, and handling that is a whole different thing than putting a a gas cock in and letting it pour out.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:07:11 2019 No.10488871 >>10488857 SLS is a fucking embarrassment. It's just a different arrangement of existing hardware. Yet here we are, Billions of dollars later, and they didn't even start doing anything new, like a second stage.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:10:19 2019 No.10488880 >>10488857 To be fair. The idea seems brilliant and obvious. It's just the execution that was awful.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:16:39 2019 No.10488896 >>10488844 Subcooled propellant will only be used during launch. Orbital refueling will likely use ordinary cryogenic oxygen and methane, which while still cryogenic, will be neither jello-like nor as cold as hydrogen.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:20:34 2019 No.10488903

>>10488824
>A refueled Falcon 9 second stage would make the whole SLS program obsolet.

Expanding on this, they could actually land people on Mars with Falcon 9s if they learn orbital refueling. One big space ship gets into Orbit with a Falcon Heavy, and then additional modules (lander, commando, habitat) get launched with Falcon 9s. Then additional Falcon 9s refuel the assembled space ship. They could easily do that with 10 Falcon 9 and 1 Falcon Heavy launch.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:20:48 2019 No.10488907 >>10488896 Well, it may be a non-issue. But it really makes you wonder why it never happened beside ISS. We could the whole solar system by now.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:22:12 2019 No.10488912
File: 1.17 MB, 2044x1438, lng-carrier-main[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10488864
>The issue is that rocket fuel is icecold

There is an entire mature industry around liquified natural gas already. This is not a new technology at all.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:26:43 2019 No.10488924

>>10488912
There is no need to look at ships, rockets get routinels fueled with cryogenic fuel before launch. Issue is fueling those is actually really difficult and requires technology that is big and heavy and therefore not easy to do in orbit. Doesn't mean it's impossible, somebody just needs to start developing it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:28:06 2019 No.10488928 >>10488912 And gravity is not a part of the equation? I understand spacex wants to fire RCS to feed fuel. I just wonder how efficient the transfer will be.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:29:36 2019 No.10488930 File: 964 KB, 2942x1688, lng-high-res[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488864 you can buy a fucking car that runs on the same "rocket fuel" as Raptor engine right now

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:32:33 2019 No.10488939 File: 28 KB, 620x348, 090216-blowup.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488930 You should go and tell Elon how fucking easy it is to fuel rockets with cryo fuel, because apparently they don't know yet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:36:58 2019 No.10488955 >>10488930 >>10488912 Those are high-pressure tanks. Has 0 to do with rockets, because they are way too heavy for spacecrafts.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:39:32 2019 No.10488962 >>10488939 Go away, blunderf00t.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:43:09 2019 No.10488976

>>10488955
You are confusing CNG and LNG tanks. Compressed gas tanks have high pressures. LNG vehicles on the other hand use liquefied natural gas at cryogenic temperatures and relatively low pressure. It is similar to what a rocket will have, although not the same.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:46:18 2019 No.10488989 >>10488880 YOU KNOW WHO ALSO NEEDS EXECUTION?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:46:54 2019 No.10488990 >>10488976 Compressed natural gas is liquid brainlet.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:49:21 2019 No.10488996 >>10488989 SLS?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:51:35 2019 No.10489004 >>10488990 Wrong, CNG is a supercritical fluid, LNG is liquid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compressed_natural_gas#Comparison_with_other_natural_gas_fuels

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 14:56:53 2019 No.10489018 >>10489004 Cars that run on liquid gas all have high-pressure tanks you idiot.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 15:49:23 2019 No.10489100 File: 862 KB, 1091x1064, gingrich heavy breathing.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488365

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 15:55:37 2019 No.10489111 HOP ON MONDAY CONFIRMED https://tfr.faa.gov/save_pages/detail_9_1046.html NOTAM

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 15:59:18 2019 No.10489120 >>10489111 Says right there 25-27th, so not necessarily monday.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:06:08 2019 No.10489133 >>10488354 because Elon is a big memer

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:26:13 2019 No.10489179 >>10488928 you only need to fire RCS to get your fuel settled, it could stay settled once you start pumping RCS is pretty efficient

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:54:37 2019 No.10489269 File: 953 KB, 1366x768, yq42yx5rfqn21.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] hmmm

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:54:44 2019 No.10489270 >>10486667 I thought they would move forward as quickly as Spacex, especially with Jeffs money, but they don't seem to be catching up as fast as I thought.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:56:09 2019 No.10489276 Space travel violates Newton's 3rd law.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:56:21 2019 No.10489277 File: 148 KB, 564x582, 1480165931908.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10488365 It's about fucking time someone lit a fire under their ass.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:58:29 2019 No.10489282 >>10487050 Sorry, Belgium and Denmark were so small we didn't notice them until we put on our glasses.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 16:59:37 2019 No.10489286

>>10489270
They wont ever catch up, since it's not their money
the jews in charge of the operation have no skin in the game, all their shekels come from Jeff, who does not actually care about the operation

With a guaranteed paycheck from daddy bezos, they have no reason to anything above the bare fucking minimum to not get fired
Musk on the other hand, prowls his factory like a fucking bloodhound and goes nuclear on anyone that decides to slack off, because Musk very much does have skin in the game, and doesn't want to lose it because some faggot decided they wanted to go light a joint on company time

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:05:40 2019 No.10489302 >>10488814 I am unworried due to the conceptual simplicity of orbital refueling. Apply some small propulsive force so fluids settle at the bottom of a tank and pump them over to the other vessel through a connector mechanism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:05:58 2019 No.10489305 >>10488365 >2025 CGI still not up to par? Or are they making it now, giving themselves 6 years to perfect it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:08:40 2019 No.10489309 File: 55 KB, 600x601, 1443958346638.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] ^ Shoo

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:13:48 2019 No.10489318 >>10489309 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zcz0eL_bYsI

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:21:04 2019 No.10489332 >>10488776 >navigation systems and life support would be woefully inadequate for lunar space. I don't understand, how it does affect that versus Earth space?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:40:46 2019 No.10489371 >>10489111 Wasn't it already confirmed for last Wednesday?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:44:20 2019 No.10489376 >>10489371 that was the judge order for road closure. This is an actual NOTAM the past two days of tests have just been tanking tests... NOTAM means shit's popping off

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:48:02 2019 No.10489384 >>10489376 Everyone has been saying the first flights would be this week. What happened to that?

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:49:30 2019 No.10489388
File: 501 KB, 1041x586, nasaorbiterf[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Seems like we are getting a large polar lunar rover:

https://twitter.com/AscendingNode/status/1109093447871406085?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

About fucking time, those frozen volatiles should have been prospected long ago.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:50:57 2019 No.10489390 >>10489111 >>10489376 It's a bit weird though, because Boca Chica is a bit to the right of that defined air space.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 17:52:00 2019 No.10489393 >>10489390 Also, there is no way first hops are going to be high enough to affect air planes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:08:03 2019 No.10489426 File: 182 KB, 1280x960, 1443392718182.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What could have been...

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:12:27 2019 No.10489440

>>10489388
>About fucking time, those frozen volatiles should have been prospected long ago.
B-but that would mean less money towards SLS and "key" contractors. Diverting funding from "America's rocket" is literally terrorism!!!1

Memeing aside, I hope that rover gets done. It seems interesting.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:13:06 2019 No.10489442 >>10489426 a smaller SLS?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:15:02 2019 No.10489446 File: 2.99 MB, 800x1026, CONTRACTORS.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489440 DID SOMEONE SAY CONTRACTORS?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:15:07 2019 No.10489447 >>10489440 Who are you quoting?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:17:04 2019 No.10489455 >>10489447 it's literally right there you fucking idiot, read the post

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:20:33 2019 No.10489464 >>10489446 kek, gib me some

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:31:54 2019 No.10489487 File: 313 KB, 2048x1538, MUSK'D.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:33:03 2019 No.10489493 >>10489487 what's that teeth condition called? Doesn't look right

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:33:14 2019 No.10489494 >>10489487 BLACKED.com

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:34:57 2019 No.10489499 >>10489442 An SLS that would've been faster to develop and cheaper than what we've gotten. >>10489447 No one in particular. I'm just making fun of some people who put their national pride into SLS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:36:35 2019 No.10489501 >>10489499 >An SLS that would've been faster to develop and cheaper than what we've gotten. Says who? That looks exactly like the SLS.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:36:35 2019 No.10489502 File: 825 KB, 840x976, greetings.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:36:45 2019 No.10489503 >>10489499 how is sticking three engines instead of 4 on it cheaper and faster to develope? They would've fucked that one up just as well

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:38:12 2019 No.10489508 >>10489499 >I'm just making fun of some people who put their national pride into SLS. Like who?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:43:27 2019 No.10489517 File: 450 KB, 500x885, yes.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:44:36 2019 No.10489520
File: 8 KB, 299x168, Sls_ad.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10489501
>>10489503
IIRC. Jupiter had a simpler way of attaching the engines and had a simpler upper stage. Also it only used the standard shuttle 4 segment srbs insead of the 5 segment ones.

>>10489508
NASA in general. When I took a tour at Michoud the tour guide kept reminding us about how there are parts of the SLS being made in the majority of states making the SLS a very American rocket. Also advertisements show this attitude.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 18:45:45 2019 No.10489523 >>10489487 He cute!

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 19:55:51 2019 No.10489621 >>10489520 Still has the same issue that that fucking tank was never supposed to be a core fucking stage with engines at the bottom and another stage and payload on top. It was a fucking tank.

Anonymous Fri Mar 22 20:13:49 2019 No.10489653

>>10489621
What are you talking about? The Shuttle external tank was designed to take weight, it had two SRBs and a Shuttle strapped on it.

But even if I grant you that the external tank couldn't hold the weight, just design a new tank. It shouldn't have taken 14 years and billions of dollars to do. The Atlas went from the stage-and-a-half to the rd-180 with stretched tanks pretty quickly and cheaply compared to the SLS.

The delays to the SLS weren't due to some insurmountable technological issue. It was due to poor management.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 20:13:49 2019 No.10489654 File: 380 KB, 3840x1080, 245 - lTlX2HE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489621 Yeah, even if it's meant to be a core it's tough to re-purpose into a new vehicle apparently, see: Falcon Heavy

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 20:53:29 2019 No.10489716 File: 12 KB, 240x240, 562562536342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >Delayed until Monday

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 20:56:08 2019 No.10489718 >>10489716 can't close beaches in Texas on the weekend or something

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:03:23 2019 No.10489727 >>10489718 Who the fuck would want to go to the beach at Boca Chica and get a new anus ripped by over 9000 biting shitcunt swamp insects.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:05:17 2019 No.10489728 File: 1.25 MB, 2108x1122, should I.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] no classes next week...

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:08:34 2019 No.10489730 >>10488698 >my ancestor

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:16:14 2019 No.10489745 >>10488698 what kind of material is intended to be used for the windows, which will be able to stand up to repeated re-entries? Are the black stripes windows or just the part between the fins?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:21:00 2019 No.10489754 File: 58 KB, 750x593, comet-62.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489745 ahem

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:23:47 2019 No.10489759 >>10489745 Could use synthetic sapphire. Its certainly tough enough.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:26:50 2019 No.10489763 >>10489745 ALON Aluminium oxynitride

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:36:31 2019 No.10489784 >>10489759 you mean corundum aka aluminum oxide? no reason not to go for ALON as our good friend below you says

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:40:53 2019 No.10489788 File: 82 KB, 1280x720, Official render of SpaceX Starship approaching Mars Base Alpha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] why do they keep showing a city on the surface? aint no city going to be on the surface.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:41:59 2019 No.10489790 >>10489728 Take US 87/I-27 to Lubbock, then 87 to San Angelo. Then take US-277 from San Angelo to I-10. Shit sucks if you stay on 87.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 21:43:13 2019 No.10489793 File: 499 KB, 500x214, hello_computer.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489745 >>10489763 aka Transparent Aluminum

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:25:56 2019 No.10489853 >>10489784 I was just thinking of some sort of synthetic gem to form the windows, and well, synthetic sapphire was the first thing to come to mind. Forming crystals big enough to actually make the main windscreen is going to be interesting I think.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:35:24 2019 No.10489870 >>10488568 Sorry for being a dumdum ;-;

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:35:25 2019 No.10489871 >>10489853 There's some sintering techs that can make big sheets of the stuff.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:50:22 2019 No.10489898 What are some jobs on an early Mars colony that don't require being a scientist or engineer?

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:54:58 2019 No.10489905 >>10489898 I don't think being a pilot specifically requires being an engineer or scientist, but not being either may hurt your chances at being hired.

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 22:56:00 2019 No.10489910 >>10489898 trap prostitute

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 23:22:19 2019 No.10489952 >>10489898 prostitute

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 23:32:50 2019 No.10489973 >>10489898 Gf (male)

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 23:41:56 2019 No.10489986 >>10489898 cock sleeve

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 23:45:56 2019 No.10489997 >>10489898 wrench banger, although they'll probably send engineers to do a wrench banger job anyway

>>	Anonymous Fri Mar 22 23:47:32 2019 No.10490002 >>10489997 Enforcer/henchmen/ boot licking goon

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 00:11:19 2019 No.10490050 >>10489898 janitor maybe? somebody's gotta keep the base clean

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 00:51:57 2019 No.10490097 >>10489910 >>10489973 >>10489986 Use your hand retards

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 00:57:47 2019 No.10490101 Technicians don't need to be engineers or scientists.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 01:08:56 2019 No.10490109 >>10490097 >He doesn't want to be the trap

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 01:14:29 2019 No.10490113 >>10486162 Any one know were to download apollo11

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 01:26:12 2019 No.10490126 >>10490113 >you wouldn't download a lunar module

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 02:01:27 2019 No.10490163 File: 95 KB, 679x696, sls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490113 >>10486162

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 03:10:42 2019 No.10490249 File: 57 KB, 844x405, hop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1109181926131286018

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 04:17:10 2019 No.10490311 >>10490050 janitors would still need a Ph.D in sanitational engineering from a top ten school to get up there among the first 100k

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 04:24:21 2019 No.10490323 >>10489493 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_fluorosis

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 04:28:27 2019 No.10490325 >>10489788 Any subsurface colony will certainly have lots of surface structures, too. Remember, you can spend few hours outside every workday without blowing through the radiation limits.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 05:09:50 2019 No.10490369

>>10490325
There will be minimal structures above the surface, these would have to be built with a large amount of imported materials, not going to happen. A tunnel can be dug and then lined with concrete from locally sourced materials, the only benefit you could possibly contrive from an above ground structure is for growing crops, but you will still have to provide supplemental lighting with LEDs and the structure will have to be ridiculously robust and built with heavy imported materials even to contain the minimal environment for crops, let alone a proper atmosphere for working without a suit.

All crop production will be done in tunnels lined with LEDs which can be brought in quantity in a single barrel to be enough for a very, very long time. The energy saved by the sun for growing crops vs. the amount of material needed for many huge greenhouses makes this a no brainer.

So what surface structures would there be? A few entrances for people/vehicles and maybe one or two domes for recreation, that's it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 05:16:52 2019 No.10490377 File: 90 KB, 1280x720, Official+render+of+SpaceX+Starship+landing+at+Mars+Base+Alpha[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489788 more blurry pics

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 05:17:56 2019 No.10490379 File: 75 KB, 1280x720, Official+render+of+SpaceX+Mars+Base+Alpha[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490377 spaceport away from the city with a prepared pad

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 05:18:38 2019 No.10490382 >>10490323 Oh so that‘s why my teeth look slightly weird but I don‘t get caries despite occasionally patchy dental hygiene. Guess I have toothpaste built into my teeth.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 05:23:43 2019 No.10490390

>>10489788
>>10490377
>>10490379
It's a PR thing,

>>10490369

Is correct, Elon has done the thinking and come to the same conclusion as all the other autists on NSF, that tunneling is by a mile the easiest way to make scalable, liveable human space off planet. This is why he has invested so much into the boring company. Pretty obvious desu if you think about it for more than a few minutes, bringing materials in from off planet is ridiculously unsustainable and you need literally tens of metres of radiation protection.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 06:36:53 2019 No.10490455

>>10490390
Any one read about the elon and von braun thing its fuxking amazing lots of elons plans are in that book (the mars project a technical tale)
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/7wqnk4/werhern_von_brauns_prediction_about_elon/

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 06:38:55 2019 No.10490458 >>10490455 look, those are all just memes you shouldn't take them seriously please don't worship the space meme man

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 06:44:46 2019 No.10490468 >>10490458 Stay mad your short sell isn't working out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 06:47:40 2019 No.10490472 >>10489270 Jeff Who ?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 08:15:14 2019 No.10490558 >>10490455 >rubbit You have to go back.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 08:36:14 2019 No.10490578

>>10489270
You do realize Blue Origin is actually older than SpaceX right?

Dummy boys will argue that they haven't been seriously funded for as long, but SpaceX accomplished orbital flight on a literal shoestring budget, earned a couple big NASA contracts that kept them going and let them develop Falcon 9, and turned themselves into a lucrative business.
BO on the other hand pretty much wasted their time mucking around with a kerosene-powered suborbital vehicle until they scrapped that work and built hydro-lox New Shepard instead, which is yet to actually be used for its intended purpose of suborbital tourism flights.

Boeing/SLS is a perfect example of how throwing all the money in the world at a project doesn't get anything done any faster, it just lets it get done for more expense. BO is chewing through something like a billion dollars a year to develop the BE-4 engine and New Glenn rocket.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 08:37:27 2019 No.10490579 >>10490382 brush your teeth you fucking neanderthal

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 08:56:35 2019 No.10490595 >>10490579 This. Also ChubbyEmu makes me scared to ever not brush my teeth

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:17:01 2019 No.10490610 File: 110 KB, 960x624, 1547505948131.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10489332 The moon is in motion around the Earth, and you are also in orbit around the moon

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:24:53 2019 No.10490618 >>10490610 no u

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:25:56 2019 No.10490619 File: 135 KB, 1280x720, maxresdefault.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] has elon musk ever heard of bullet train?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:33:06 2019 No.10490625 >>10490619 air resistance and ground level overpressure even at subsonic speeds

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:35:46 2019 No.10490628 >>10490625 but it's still faster than his tube

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:36:47 2019 No.10490631 >>10490628 His tube isn't a production ready model.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:47:49 2019 No.10490645

>>10490619
>>10490625
>>10490628
>>10490631
He hasn't actually attempted to build a proper hyperloop tube yet even though he created the concept, he's built a sub-scale test one but doesn't seem in a rush to build another tube. Other companies are building full-scale tubes for human transportation.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:49:14 2019 No.10490648 >>10490578 Ironically Blue Origin's infinite money is holding them back. If they were financially constrained like SpaceX there would actually be urgency to deliver. They are still better than the money laundering scheme that is sls though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 09:56:51 2019 No.10490657 >>10490645 Japan't new trains are supposed to hit 375 mph. Hyperloop is just not worth the billions in the infrastructure. At least not yet. Maybe in 50 years.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:05:12 2019 No.10490664 >>10490619 It's kind of fascinating watching how the design of the nose just kinda grows longer and flatter with every iteration. Just when you thought they couldn't get it to be any more streamlined they surprise you with something new.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:05:57 2019 No.10490665 >>10490645 >even though he created the concept This is what cultists unironiccaly believe.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:12:47 2019 No.10490672

>>10490665
>A Hyperloop is a proposed mode of passenger and/or freight transportation, first used to describe an open-source vactrain design released by a joint team from Tesla and SpaceX. Drawing heavily from Robert Goddard's vactrain, a hyperloop is a sealed tube or system of tubes through which a pod may travel free of air resistance or friction conveying people or objects at high speed while being very efficient.

>Elon Musk's version of the concept, first publicly mentioned in 2012, incorporates reduced-pressure tubes in which pressurized capsules ride on air bearings driven by linear induction motors and axial compressors.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:21:42 2019 No.10490680 >>10490672 >Drawing heavily from Robert Goddard's vactrain AKA they completely stole it.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:29:30 2019 No.10490690 >>10490672 First of all, your source literally says it's not Elon Musk who came up with it, but his employees. Second of all, it also says it's basically a vactrain.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:44:13 2019 No.10490706 >>10490648 SpaceX has easily 3-4x the money that Blue Origin does.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 10:54:28 2019 No.10490721 >>10490680 >>10490690 I guess popularised would be a better term for what he did, but nevertheless hyperloop wouldn't be a thing today without him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:02:07 2019 No.10490725 File: 3.78 MB, 5184x3888, IMG_6800 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] They are now working on two separate tapered sections. - NSF bocachicagal

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:04:53 2019 No.10490728 File: 3.80 MB, 5184x3888, IMG_6795 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490725

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:05:44 2019 No.10490730

>>10490706
They are also actually spending it on business rather than faffing around. It takes a lot of money to build a Falcon 9 and launch it. They also don't make any money unless they are launching rockets.
BO on the other hand has been operating by being fed money with no return on investment until very recently if even now (IDK the details of how they sell their engines to ULA)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:06:51 2019 No.10490731 File: 3.73 MB, 4666x3500, IMG_6793 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490728

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:09:14 2019 No.10490736 >>10490728 Have all of the new shiner panels had that protective sheet on them or just those?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:11:10 2019 No.10490739 >>10490721 Hyperloops aren't a thing.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:12:21 2019 No.10490741

>>10490730
>They are also actually spending it on business rather than faffing around.
What?
>It takes a lot of money to build a Falcon 9 and launch it.
They haven't reduced the price of Falcon 9 on their website since they first advertised the price. Most of their launches are priced at well over $100 million even when they recover the booster. They are making easily $50 million+ on each launch.
>They also don't make any money unless they are launching rockets.
Except for the ~$1 billion per year from various government sources. ~$1 billion per year from private investment, and ~$500 million per year in free fixed assets from NASA and others.
>BO on the other hand has been operating by being fed money with no return on investment until very recently if even now
Still much less than even the private investment in SpaceX to date. They had less than $500 million in total money to work with from 2000-2014 whereas SpaceX has $4 billion over that same time period.
>(IDK the details of how they sell their engines to ULA)
They got less money from the federal government than SpaceX did for the raptor upper stage that will never be used.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:13:21 2019 No.10490743 >>10490648 BO doesn't have infinite money. They are getting 1 billion a year, which isn't that much considering they are building a new launch pad, new factories, while developing the most capable american rocket since the Saturn 5.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:16:11 2019 No.10490749

>>10490741
>What?
Translated, operating expenses make up a big part of SpaceX's manpower and hardware budget. Even though they're making money, they're spending a lot of it just as quickly, and Blue Origin doesn't yet have all of the same operating expenditures (though they do have very large Capital Expenditures right now getting their factories up and running and their vehicle R&D completed).

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:21:48 2019 No.10490757 >>10490749 Why do you think the money spent on manpower is somehow lost or a waste/impediment compared to where Blue Origin spends their money? Do you really think SpaceX pays people to sit around doing nothing?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:23:57 2019 No.10490763 >>10490736 All of them, it comes from the factory. Seems like recently they've started welding them together before they even peel the coating off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:25:13 2019 No.10490764 File: 3.07 MB, 5184x3888, IMG_6809 (2).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] No drone footage anymore... >A new sign has been posted off hwy4 before you reach SpaceX control center area. I think we all knew this was coming.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:26:01 2019 No.10490766

>>10490757
Nobody said that, we're sayign most of the money SpaceX is spending is just on 'business as usual' production costs for their rockets and capsules and overall operation. Only a fraction is actually R&D for new technology.

BO on the other hand is close to 100% R&D spending at this point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:26:52 2019 No.10490769 >>10490757 I don't think anything of the sort. I'm a different Anon than the one you originally replied to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:27:16 2019 No.10490772 >>10490764 I blame the fagtarded assholes who fly their drones directly over the site

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:27:26 2019 No.10490773 >>10490766 as I said before, SpaceX easily approaches %50 profit or more on every launch

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:27:40 2019 No.10490774

>>10490730
SpaceX so far went through 12 billion in expenditures over its existence, most of that (8 billion) being government money one way or another. If we assume they have operating costs of 50 million per F9 launch on average, they spent 3.5 billion on operating costs related to missions and the rest (8.5 billion) on development of F9 through Block 1 to Clock 5, Falcon Heavy, and two Dragon capsules, and starting Raptor development. That's not horribly bad but also not that super efficient.

I dont have a definitive source on it, but BO propaply got something like 3 billion so far, and will get another 2 billion until the end of 2021. So they are spending 5 billion on developing the New Glenn and setting up the related production lines, launch pads, etc. That's not much better or worse than SpaceX did.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:28:06 2019 No.10490776

>>10490743
>By September 2017, Bezos had invested US$2.5 billion into New Glenn.

>Jeff Bezos will invest “just over $1 billion” next year in Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket program-September 2018

This also doesn't count for the $500 million from the airforce for EELV 2 and $250 million for BE-4 development.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:28:19 2019 No.10490778 >>10490773 What does that have to do with anything?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:28:27 2019 No.10490779 >>10490764 BASED SpaceX cracking down on their own retarded fan base. Even they realize things are getting out of hand. These incels need to get a real hobby.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:28:46 2019 No.10490780 >>10490773 Lol, no.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:29:26 2019 No.10490786 >>10490774 >source, you're ass

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:29:29 2019 No.10490787 >>10490774 Don't forget that they are building their heavy launch pad, engine test site, factory, ect. from scratch whereas SpaceX basically got their sites for free from NASA and Texas.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:30:29 2019 No.10490789 >>10490780 Source? >>10490778 >"spacex spends all their money on operational costs!" >no they don't >"What does that have to do with anything?"

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:32:06 2019 No.10490792 >>10490774 Your comparing one rocket (New Glenn) to a whole family of capsule and rockets, also the original Falcon 9 and both Dragons were built with NASA oversight which would hike up the initial development costs significantly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:32:58 2019 No.10490794 >>10490773 Maybe on government missions, but certainly not on the commercial missions.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:34:10 2019 No.10490797 >>10490792 So? That one rocket outperforms your whole family from day 1.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:34:43 2019 No.10490799 >>10490794 They still charge at least $60 million on commercial missions, usually more, and that's even when they reuse the booster and recover the booster and fairings.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:35:09 2019 No.10490800 File: 112 KB, 998x1112, 1537350616811.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490787 >Texas is building SpaceX's launch pad

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:35:17 2019 No.10490802 >>10490789 >SpaceX spends a lot on operational costs so the amount of money they spend annually on new developments is not as high as one would naively think >"but they spend money besides operational costs tho" okay

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:35:37 2019 No.10490803 >>10490794 They charge more on government missions not because they can, but because they have to as the government requirements bump up the costs e.g. more rigorous testing and oversight during the build phase. The profit isn't necessarily more.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:36:19 2019 No.10490806
File: 27 KB, 456x810, 1549332435720.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10490792
>also the original Falcon 9 and both Dragons were built with NASA oversight which would hike up the initial development costs significantly
Source?
Also, NASA paid for all of that development so it was never going to be an impediment anyways.

>>10490800
>Texas didn't give SpaceX the McGregor site for free

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:36:19 2019 No.10490807 >>10490797 >first NG rocket to reach the pad explodes a la AMOS-6 during a propellant loading test rip

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:36:36 2019 No.10490808

>>10490799
They don't recover the fairings, and it is unknown if SpaceX is reusing their boosters profitably (e.g. spending less on refurbishment than building a new one would cost). There was indications that they were hoping to reduce launching costs to 50 million after Block 5 is introduced, but that did not happen.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:36:54 2019 No.10490809 >>10490799 A reused booster starts at $50 million now

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:37:41 2019 No.10490812 >>10490807 Daily reminder New Shepard landed before F9.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:38:00 2019 No.10490813 >>10490808 >Source: Bullshit

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:38:06 2019 No.10490814 >>10490803 this

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:38:23 2019 No.10490816

>>10490808
>They don't recover the fairings
they recover most of them, but haven't reused them yet. obviously that will change soon
>There was indications that they were hoping to reduce launching costs to 50 million after Block 5 is introduced, but that did not happen.
why reduce price when they are already the lowest in the business?
>>10490809
Source?
Their own website still says $60 million

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:39:01 2019 No.10490818 >>10490812 >Reminder Delta Clipper landed in the 90s

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:39:24 2019 No.10490820 >>10490809 No, it doesn't. They didn't lower the prices.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:39:27 2019 No.10490821 File: 1018 KB, 1080x793, 1528681152387.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490807

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:40:39 2019 No.10490823 >>10490816 >why reduce price when they are already the lowest in the business? They aren't anymore since Arianespace cut their prices by 40%. There is a reason why the launch manifest of SpaceX has become so empty.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:40:49 2019 No.10490825 >>10490818 >Reminder the Space Shuttle landed in the 80s

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:41:04 2019 No.10490827

>>10490812
DC-X landed earlier than both, so did Grasshopper and Xombie and a few others. A rocket powered VTVL vehicle isn't the challenge to beat, it's making a rocket powered VTVL booster stage that also has the mass margins needed to function as part of an effective launch vehicle.

So far the only one that exists is Falcon 9 and the most likely to happen ones in development are New Glenn's first stage and Starship Super Heavy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:41:22 2019 No.10490829 >>10490816 The website is hilariously out of date most of the time, Elon announced a $50 million starting point for reused Block 5s

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:43:01 2019 No.10490832 >>10490829 Source? Do you have any contract documents showing that price to back you up?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:43:06 2019 No.10490833 >>10490823 go seeth somewhere else eurofag

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:44:19 2019 No.10490835 >>10490832 https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/05/11/full-elon-musk-transcript-about-spacex-falcon-9-block-5.html

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:44:40 2019 No.10490836 >>10490823 >>10490833 I actually feel bad for Arianespace. It's like watching NASA try to compete in the modern launch market. The government politics involved make it practically impossible.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:45:02 2019 No.10490837 >>10490827 Hovering above the ground and actually shooting a rocket so that it reaches supersonic speeds and then landing it again are different things.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:46:36 2019 No.10490838 >>10490836 >>10490833 I'm not seething. Arianespace is getting every new commercial mission.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:46:54 2019 No.10490839 >>10490837 >MY goalposts have wheels!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:47:19 2019 No.10490842 >>10490835 Where in that article does it say a $50 million price tag? If anything it shows they are making massive amounts of profit on each launch. >>10490838 >Arianespace is getting every new commercial mission. Source?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:48:35 2019 No.10490844 >>10490839 You know, if you put a Mentos in Coca Cola bottle and catch the bottle again that doesn't count as "landing a rocket".

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:49:54 2019 No.10490846 >>10490842 SpaceX has 0 commercial missions beyond 2021, while Arianespace has 12.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:51:40 2019 No.10490848 >>10490846 Source?

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:51:54 2019 No.10490849

>>10490842
Sorry that was a shitty article, here's another about the same conference:
https://spacenews.com/spacex-targeting-24-hour-turnaround-in-2019-full-reusability-still-in-the-works/

>Musk said SpaceX lowered prices from “about $60 million to about $50 million for a reflown booster,” and expects “to see a steady reduction in prices” going forward.

Also the Arianespace guy is just trolling, if you look at Ariane 5+6's future commercial manifest it's equally barren as Falcon 9.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:52:24 2019 No.10490850 >>10490844 Wait, BO didn't go supersonic? I thought you were That Guy. Because I know DC-X sure didn't go supersonic.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:52:57 2019 No.10490851 >>10490764

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:53:26 2019 No.10490853 >>10490848 See each companies launch manifesto. I'm not going to do the googling for you, anon.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:54:29 2019 No.10490854 >>10490849 >Also the Arianespace guy is just trolling, if you look at Ariane 5+6's future commercial manifest it's equally barren as Falcon 9. Now go on and count how many of those missions are commercial.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:55:27 2019 No.10490857 >>10490849 that article also says they are going to fully reuse falcon 9, which isn't true anymore do you have any source for a real launch that's sold for $50 million or less in the past year?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:55:32 2019 No.10490858 File: 927 KB, 1565x686, IMG_0494.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490851

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:55:54 2019 No.10490859 >>10490849 I'm not trolling. For beyond 2021 SpaceX has 0 commercial missions scheduled. That's just a fact.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:58:04 2019 No.10490864 >>10490857 Nobody releases their launches prices on a per mission basis, that's a strictly private thing between the customer and launch provider. They release baseline prices for certain configurations and BO doesn't even do that...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 11:59:56 2019 No.10490867 >>10490864 That's because BO will sure as fuck sell the first few launches on a loss. That's normal, since nobody is going to book a flight on a rocket without a track record. SpaceX did that, too, sold flight for as low as 30 million.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:01:26 2019 No.10490870 >>10490858 far more interesting than the shitty mockups is the pile of structural steel for a new building sitting down there

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:03:41 2019 No.10490874 >>10490870 I wouldn't make assumptions about what things at BC are for, hasn't worked out well in the past...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:04:04 2019 No.10490875 >>10490858 Why the american flag? are these people racists?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:05:39 2019 No.10490880 >>10490874 What? Who gives a shit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:07:43 2019 No.10490882 >>10490874 It's all mock-ups to find some gullible idiot to give them billions so that they actually can start on real prototypes.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:08:57 2019 No.10490885

>>10490838
>I'm not seething. Arianespace is getting every new commercial mission.

Bullshit. Ariane 6 so far only got some Eutelsat geostationary satelites (because they are European and GEO orbit dual launch which is a strong point of Ariane), Galileo launches (which would not launch on anything else than Ariane no matter what), and OneWeb launches (their CEO and Musk dislike each other so it would not launch on Falcon anyway).

Has nothing to do with launch costs.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:10:55 2019 No.10490889 >>10490885 not him, but why didn't Falcon 9 get those Eutelsat launches?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:14:55 2019 No.10490892 >>10490882 >real prototypes lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:15:59 2019 No.10490894 >>10490885 Ariane 5 will operate until 2023 and has 24 missions scheduled until then, it is being sold now at the price they are going to charge for Ariane 6 (90 million that gets split between two customers depending on each customers payload size).

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:17:52 2019 No.10490896

>>10490889
Ariane upper stage can do dual launch to geostationary orbit, so Ariane is almost competitive with SpaceX on cost for this particular mission type. Also, Eutelsat being an European company has a bias towards Ariane, and it would use Ariane for some of their launches no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:17:56 2019 No.10490897 >>10490889 Because the EU government has been lobbying European satellite companies to launch on Ariane 6 due to it's sparse manifest, they keep trying to pass legislation to force them to but it hasn't succeeded yet.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:19:53 2019 No.10490900 >>10490897 >government lobbying companies I don't think that's how it works...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:20:13 2019 No.10490901 >>10490897 there is no EU government and nobody there gives a shit about Arianespace getting launches or not.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:21:13 2019 No.10490903

>>10490846
>SpaceX has 0 commercial missions beyond 2021

They do have a possible Viasat mission.

http://investors.viasat.com/news-releases/news-release-details/viasat-spacex-enter-contract-future-viasat-3-satellite-launch

More importantly, 2022 and later is still too far to have any real idea about how the manifest will look like.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:22:34 2019 No.10490906 >>10490900 >>10490901 Lol https://advanced-television.com/2018/04/23/macron-insists-arianespace-must-compete-with-spacex/ >Nobody cares

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:24:01 2019 No.10490912 File: 67 KB, 600x725, maezawa.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10490846 >SpaceX has 0 commercial missions beyond 2021

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:25:31 2019 No.10490915 >>10490858 Looks like a screenshot from a video, is there more?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:26:07 2019 No.10490916 >>10490906 Did you actually read the article?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:26:54 2019 No.10490918 >>10490915 No, it's just a cropped drone shot

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:27:10 2019 No.10490919 >>10490903 >More importantly, 2022 and later is still too far to have any real idea about how the manifest will look like The commercial missions for that period are already being distributed and SpaceX isn't getting any.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:28:27 2019 No.10490922 >>10490916 Yes, you argued that nobody in the EU governments gives a shit about Arianespace and I refuted it...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:29:28 2019 No.10490925 >>10490919 What commercial missions? Apart from constellations there are seemingly none apart from a couple of GEO satellites...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:30:51 2019 No.10490927 >>10490912 yeet

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:33:21 2019 No.10490933 >>10490922 No, you didn't. That article says something completely different, try reading them and not just the headlines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:37:01 2019 No.10490947 >>10490933 Cope.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:47:35 2019 No.10490965 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 12:58:35 2019 No.10490986 >>10490965 reddit tourists need to get the fuck out

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 13:04:27 2019 No.10490998 >>10490986 bump

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 13:09:55 2019 No.10491009 >>10490986 le bump

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 13:28:36 2019 No.10491041
File: 7 KB, 473x454, 1465788758833.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

https://spacenews.com/air-force-poised-to-release-final-solicitation-notice-for-national-security-space-launch/
>Air Force wants "competitive" launch procurement
>says it will spend $2 billion on three new rockets and let them bid on new launches
>"LMAO just kidding. Fuck you. only existing rockets can bid on these launches for the next 5 years"
>"by the way you have to refund us all that money we spent on you since you weren't selected :^)"
SpaceX is getting really good at the lobbying game. The Air Force is practically in their pocket at this point.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:04:33 2019 No.10491098

>>10491041
SpaceX can't lose and they don't even need to lobby, here's why: part of the paperwork in EELV 2 says that the airforce must have redundancy when it comes to launch vehicles, to ensure access to space in case one of the chosen providers has a failure. This essentially means the airforce have to pick 2 launch vehicles with different engine suppliers, as if they hypothetically picked both ULA and BO and the BE-4 later had a failure, the airforce wouldn't have any ability to launch during the investigation downtime. Therefore, another launch provider who doesn't use BE-4 is needed. So essentially, it's not SpaceX vs everybody, but BO vs ULA for the BE-4 launcher and SpaceX vs Northrop for the redundant one. SpaceX not only have the power of existing rockets and experience to their advantage here, but the power of redundancy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:12:53 2019 No.10491127 >>10491098 It will obviously go to SpaceX and ULA. The rest of this shit is showboating by the Air Force.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:13:55 2019 No.10491129 >>10491098 >>10491127 Also I will add, Omega and all of ULA's rockets use RL-10s so there's also no redundancy there.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:22:28 2019 No.10491146 >>10491127 >>10491129 Northrop will likely get an ICBM contract on the same day they get booted and we'll find out their awarded funding was just a facade for military SRB development.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:34:38 2019 No.10491173 405

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:50:09 2019 No.10491195

>>10491098
No, one spot is going to go to OmegA guaranteed. It's a solid rocket booster and the Air Force absoluetely loves their solid rocket boosters, so they are getting it 100%. Second spot will be between ULA, BO, and SX, though SX can only compete with Falcon Heavy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 14:55:59 2019 No.10491198 File: 384 KB, 2100x1182, Block1_Cargo_Mission_web.50pct.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Imagine wanting to cancel this.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:10:53 2019 No.10491220 >>10490731 Welding seams look so bad. They need that Canadian welder guy from /biz/

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:12:29 2019 No.10491222 >>10491220 you're not seeing welding seams, you're seeing heat affected areas

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:13:45 2019 No.10491225 new thread when?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:18:23 2019 No.10491234 >>10491225 when the current one gets pruned (hopefully later). There's no reason to keep generals going on subjects where nothing happens for weeks. It only invites useless shitposting.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:24:12 2019 No.10491246 >>10491198 It's pretty hard to cancel something that doesn't exist (a SLS for Europa Clipper)

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:26:48 2019 No.10491248

>>10491195
To expand on this, ULA will probably get the second spot. The whole business case of Orbital and ULA is that they don't get involved in the commercial market so they aren't distracted for government missions. Vulcan and Omega might be expandable but will probably still be fairly cheap. The US Air Force won't take compromises on the reliability to save a few dozen millions per launch, that kind of money means nothing to the Air Force.

Also, I'm pretty sure the only reason BO got money in the first place was because they are developing ULA's engine.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 15:48:19 2019 No.10491290

>>10489788
>>10490377
>>10490379
>Elon presenting new stuff to literal children of all people
I know there's video around of this, but why? At least new renders probably means new legit presentation soon, because they wouldn't make that for a school visit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:00:43 2019 No.10491317 >>10491248 >the only reason BO got money in the first place was because they are developing ULA's engine. Source?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:09:15 2019 No.10491340 >>10491290 >wouldn't make that for a school visit You're right, they probably made them for internal company use and threw them in cause they already had them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:10:19 2019 No.10491348 >>10491317 https://www.ulalaunch.com/uncategorized/faq-ula-and-blue-origin-partnership

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:13:25 2019 No.10491354 >>10491348 that doesn't talk about the LSA program at all

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:23:43 2019 No.10491375

>>10491195
>>10491248
I would think they would avoid OmegA, as choosing it over SpaceX and BO would bring down the wrath of both Elon and Bezos on the airforce. This would likely result in multiple federal lawsuits and a chance for Elon to go 2 for 2 against the airforce...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:24:14 2019 No.10491378 >>10491317 Source is my own speculation. I just dont think they are going to pick commercial companies over ULA and Omega.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:26:56 2019 No.10491383 >>10491378 As much as I would love for them to pick Omega over SpaceX, it's not going to happen. I just want to see the people here chimp out but it's a fantasy at this point.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:27:03 2019 No.10491384

>>10490859
Just because that aren't scheduled for a somewhat specific timeframe and aren't published in a website doesn't mean they don't exist.
There are plenty of companies going with falcon 9, but nothing set in stone, that's why nothing is published yet

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:35:54 2019 No.10491401

>>10491375
They would have no case here. Omega and Vulcan will be fairly cheap and unlike New Glenn and Falcons, they won't be serving commercial customers that can cause delays and difficulties. Especially with both of them reusing their boosters, one delay or lost booster can fuck up the whole schedule and the Air Force won't take that risk.

The thing also is, the commercial companies will keep themselves alive, Orbital and ULA will go bankrupt without government missions. So to really have the most amount of redundancy (e.g. 4 different companies that can launch satellites into space) they need to guarantee Orbital and ULA income.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:36:04 2019 No.10491403 >>10491098 >BO vs ULA for the BE-4 launcher You mean the booster that hasn't actually been used in anything?

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:37:09 2019 No.10491407

>>10491384
SpaceX are very bad at keeping their manifest up date, e.g. None of the recent military launches they've won are listed. The number of commercial launches has definitely decreased but they've probably got a few more in the works that we don't know about.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:40:16 2019 No.10491411 @10491401 Who actually puts this much effort into a blatant troll comment? >>10491403 It will be used by at least one of the EELV 2 launch providers, the USAF wouldn't have pumped so much money into the engine otherwise...

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:40:16 2019 No.10491412

>>10491407
This is not true, all of them are listed:

https://www.spacex.com/missions

At the bottom of the list:

U.S. AIR FORCE (AFSPC-52) KENNEDY SPACE CENTER (39A) FALCON HEAVY

U.S. AIR FORCE (GPS III-3) CAPE CANAVERAL (40) FALCON 9

U.S. AIR FORCE (GPS III-4) CAPE CANAVERAL (40) FALCON 9

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:41:18 2019 No.10491414 @10491412 >He doesn't know

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:41:20 2019 No.10491415 >>10491411 >Who actually puts this much effort into a blatant troll comment? What exactly makes you think I'm trolling? You really think they are giving ULA and Orbital almost 2 billion to not use their rockets?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:42:49 2019 No.10491419 >>10491414 These are the three missions that were assigned one month ago you shithead.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:44:31 2019 No.10491424 @10491415 ULA will be picked, but then again explain why BO received half a million if they're not going to be picked?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:44:31 2019 No.10491425 >>10491401 They would have a case, because there has been the same scenario in the past with a different government agency, and the contact had to reversed. If there is a competition and government money involved, they have to justify their choices.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:46:49 2019 No.10491429 @10491419 He's literally this retarded... >SpaceX will receive $297 million to launch AFSPC-44, NROL-85, and NROL-87.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:48:54 2019 No.10491436 >>10491425 The case was different. Air Force gave ULA all their missions without any competition. Here, they would have competition between ULA and Orbtial.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:49:01 2019 No.10491437

>>10491411
Oh I know that they will be used, I'm not arguing that. I'm just blown away that they are already getting picked up and ordered for use when they have only been fired in closed testing environments, not on actual in-the-field rockets.
You can test all you want, but until you use something for it's intended purpose, it could fail horribly

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:49:23 2019 No.10491438 >>10491429 >>10491424 >>10491414 >>10491411 Reddit tourists get the fuck out.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:53:56 2019 No.10491447

>>10491436
You're correct, there were different reasons for the lawsuit, I was mistaken

However, I do believe SX it's still actively involved in a lawsuit for not awarding them certain contacts, even though they meet the requirements and were vastly cheaper
But I'm not sure how that is playing out

I do understand the need for redundancy, but this government spending mindset is bullshit. I work for the DoD and see this shit daily

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:54:06 2019 No.10491448 @10491438 >f-uc-k...yo-u...p-le-bit-tors...go..b-ack...t-o...plebbit! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:57:28 2019 No.10491453

>>10491447
The fact that taxpayer money is funding the development of a useless overgrown firecracker (OmegA) and the richest man in the world's hobby rocket (New Glenn), both of which will probably be eliminated from the program is the biggest bullshit here...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:58:09 2019 No.10491457 >>10491447 >my dad works for DoD >>10491448 Seek help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 16:59:11 2019 No.10491458 >>10491453 The money has to be refunded if they don't win. The real question is why have the program at all? Air Force is obviously in SpaceX's pocket at this point.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:00:43 2019 No.10491461

>>10491447
I think they made a complaint or whatever for the launch of a NASA probe, don't know about anything else.

I mean sure it looks like a waste of money but the Air Force doesn't really care about that, they want their own private launch providers that do nothing but launch for them. That was supposed to be ULA but they didn't get away with it, but now that Vulcan and Omega will be fairly cheap and it is formally competetive there is no case to be made here, Air Force will eventually get their private rockets.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:02:15 2019 No.10491465 >>10491457 My dad is dead. I work for the Army as a civilian, as reverse engineer. We both spend our days in underground buildings, except mine is for a well paid career with benefits. Yours is just your parents basement.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:02:40 2019 No.10491466 >>10491461 >they want their own private launch providers that do nothing but launch for them What?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:05:56 2019 No.10491472 >>10491448 >>10491429 >>10491424 >>10491414 fuck off annoying bitch

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:06:32 2019 No.10491473 @10491472 Lol

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:07:50 2019 No.10491476 >>10491407 compare this you bitch: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=8184.2220 https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=6114.1600

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:08:29 2019 No.10491477 >>10491473 see >>10491457 >>10491465 Sure you do sweetie :)

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:11:33 2019 No.10491483 it’s literally been like three years of the same shit, stop replying to the arianespace obsessed manifest shitposter ffs

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:12:24 2019 No.10491486 >>10491483 >It's the schizo again

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:19:58 2019 No.10491502

>>10490645
Yeah he isn't focusing his attentions and efforts on it.
Thats why he has a competition for it for third parties, and just has a tunnel making company.
Just foundational "work" on his part
I honestly don't know if hyperloop will work. But criticisms of it and productive ways to counteract problems are better than just just outright saying it will never work because x is a problem

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 17:28:48 2019 No.10491520 >>10491502 People have built functional prototypes before. The question is do you want to spend several times the amount of a highspeed-rail but not get a several times faster transport.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:05:48 2019 No.10491622 >>10491290 >At least new renders probably means new legit presentation soon He promised public presentation of the new starship after first hopper hops, which should be soon

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:10:01 2019 No.10491633 >>10491453 >and the richest man in the world's hobby rocket (New Glenn) New Glenn is at the forefront of aerospace technology (along with SpaceX), which makes it some of the best spent taxpayer money ever. OmegA and Vulcan on the other hand..

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:15:35 2019 No.10491648 File: 3.83 MB, 1920x1080, KirniuQ[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Starship interior views from Flint presentation

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:19:53 2019 No.10491662 >>10491648 who cares about some shitty cgis anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:22:15 2019 No.10491670 >>10491662 Because it gives us insight into what it will look like in the future, if the Dragon 2 is anything to go by SpaceX take their spacecraft interior aesthetics very seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:23:25 2019 No.10491672 >>10491648 they seem to be extra artisty. No handholds or loads of secured cargo everywhere

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:24:53 2019 No.10491676 >>10491672 Yeah no shit. It's literally some shitty CGI that is supposed to look cool.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:25:06 2019 No.10491677 File: 2.84 MB, 1920x1080, LJzibyu[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10491648

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:25:11 2019 No.10491678 File: 242 KB, 630x400, 73645756456543.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10491670 >if the Dragon 2 is anything to go by SpaceX take their spacecraft interior aesthetics very seriously.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:26:48 2019 No.10491685 >>10491677 >>10491648 Ridiculous thing is those shitty CGIs will be guaranteed used in the upcoming presentation and cultists will lick Elons bumhole because of them.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:26:50 2019 No.10491686 File: 3.05 MB, 1920x1080, 1CIHgal[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10491677

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:28:41 2019 No.10491690 File: 41 KB, 782x521, IMG_0496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] @10491678 ??? >>10491677 Seems like their going for a similar minimalist theme...

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:30:03 2019 No.10491694 >>10490874 Steel beams rocket is go!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:30:13 2019 No.10491695 >>10491690 Do you not know how to reply properly?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:30:22 2019 No.10491696 >>10491648 Wow, they are going to have plants there? And UV lights? Fuck me, I'm sold.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:35:30 2019 No.10491709 @10491695 I'll reply properly if you post something worth a (you) >>10491696 I guess they're going to build a closed-circuit life support system then.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:37:36 2019 No.10491718 >>10491690 >>10491709 Seek help.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:39:15 2019 No.10491726 >>10491718 >>10491685 >>10491676 >>10491662 OldSpace is literally S E E T H I N G E E T H I N G

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:39:46 2019 No.10491729 >>10491709 >I guess they're going to build a closed-circuit life support system then No way dude, how did you have such a brillant idea?! A recycling life support system for space travel! NASA should hire you, you're a genius.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:41:26 2019 No.10491731 >>10491686 Wow look at this diverse crew! Surely these people will have no problem on the Martian frontier, diversity is such a strength!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:42:55 2019 No.10491735 >>10491729 Well NASA would do well to hire him indeed.Considering that they have squandered decades and countless $ billions without seriously attempting to design a closed loop life support system yet..

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:44:16 2019 No.10491739 >>10491735 Fuck off you dumb cultist. Developing life support is the one thing ISS was good for.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:46:00 2019 No.10491741 >>10491739 Oh is that why they are still using those piece of shit carbon scrubbers that literally constantly fail? All that time it's been up there they haven't managed to make an air recycling system that isn't a massive joke. Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:46:33 2019 No.10491747 >>10491739 lol nope, ISS vents hydrogen and carbon dioxide overboard, hence why they are so dependent on regular resupply from Earth

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:47:27 2019 No.10491750 >>10491741 Yeah, don't those NASA fools know a proper life support system needs to look like an iPhone? What do they know with their decades of experience of keeping humans alive in space?!

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:49:47 2019 No.10491762 >>10491750 Not an argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:50:23 2019 No.10491763 >>10491747 Cultists believe now Starship is going to be a flying biodome because of a blurry CGI of some plants. Holy shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:51:26 2019 No.10491768 Will we ever be free of this faggot? Reminder to filter him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:53:49 2019 No.10491772 >>10491768 There are at least two people here laughing at you, you loser.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 18:59:53 2019 No.10491792 >>10491731 When they'll have a potential number of mates in the dozens at most it won't matter that much. A female is a female.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 19:18:05 2019 No.10491830 >>10491686 It‘s odd to me that somebody looked at Starship and as the first thing thought about people having dinner parties on it.

Anonymous Sat Mar 23 19:22:22 2019 No.10491836

>>10491695
People get a small hit of dopamine evertime they read the (You) indicating that someone deemed their response worthy of reply.
If you don‘t properly link the post, the hope is that the extra step of checking which post was quoted deminishes that hit for the person replied to, so trolling becomes less rewarding.

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 19:29:16 2019 No.10491847 >>10491234 Shit has been happening faster lately than ever before

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 19:32:18 2019 No.10491853 >>10491438 you realize he's doing that to avoid giving any (you)s, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:19:55 2019 No.10491930 >>10491677 We wuz

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:30:15 2019 No.10491955 >>10491520 But none of them are selected yet

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:43:15 2019 No.10491979 new thread when?

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:45:46 2019 No.10491985 >>10491930 astronauts n shieeet

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:48:51 2019 No.10491989 >>10491438 spotted the newfag

>>	Anonymous Sat Mar 23 20:52:37 2019 No.10491994 File: 6 KB, 196x185, 081 - fjhVAZ6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >last thread on /sci/ new thredd??

>>	leo Tue Dec 17 03:55:23 2019 No.10491994,2 http://thegreatamericanshoutout.org/ http://www.colnagocsf.com/

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math