/sfg/ Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.11354939]

SpaceX fleet edition
previous >>11346078

[Anonymous No.11354978]

SN1 parts being churned out. According to that one SpaceX dude at the FL presentation they can make one ring in 10 minutes.

[Anonymous No.11355300]

2 more Starlink will come out this month.

[Anonymous No.11355302]

>>11355300
Oh and the second one will make the 5th time F9 reusable has reflown.

[Anonymous No.11355359]

>>11354978
Saw that. Wasn't the greatest talk, some of his data and slides were outdated.

Bunch of normies who knew nothing, they all rofled at BFR, first time they had heard the name.

[Anonymous No.11355372]

>>11354978
that presentation is private now, maybe he said something he shouldn't have or it wasn't supposed to be public

[Anonymous No.11355399]

>>11355372
Probably the 28m $ price tag of the F9 launch.

[Anonymous No.11355407]

Assuming in the future Elon is inflating tons to orbit on a scale that even the chinese are jelly of, what career choice let's one monopolize on the next frontier. Or is it all gonna be like several hundred chads with the rest automated.

[Anonymous No.11355429]

>>11355407
First in colonists would have to be multi-role due to the limited manpower of a colony and the likelihood of disaster. you'll have electricians, HVAC, but also botanists and geologists and mining engineers. They'll have to know how to repair a conduit or a spacesuit.
Geologists/mining engineers will be able to make bank if they sniff out a valuable deposit, tradechads will always be in demand due to maintenance and expansion needs not fulfilled by machinery

[Anonymous No.11355500]

>>11355399
Probably this. While it‘s nice for us to know that, it‘s a weird slip up though. Might hurt the company in negotiations to have that number out there.
Then again nobody can even compete with whatever they inflate their price to.

[Anonymous No.11355531]

>>11355500
>Might hurt the company in negotiations to have that number out there.
Probably only on new contracts, and by the end of 2020 they should be getting close to both finishing Starship and/or getting Starlink operational, at which point they could just start ignoring getting new contracts for the Falcon fleet. Doubt they want to be pushing for that many more non-Starlink missions on F9 when Starship is done and in need of contracts to fund mass production.
The guy also mentioned Raptor SN20 on that talk, around half of the Raptors needed for a full stack.

[Anonymous No.11355533]

>>11354939
>that pic
How did Elon Musk make ALL THAT happen? The guy really is something else.

[Anonymous No.11355540]

>>11355533
>How did Elon Musk make ALL THAT happen?

He bought some boats and two barges, then upgraded them?

[Anonymous No.11355547]

>>11355540
The point is - the guy knows how to hustle.
Someone like me could never do that. I can't even talk to people, let alone do business.

[Anonymous No.11355550]

>>11355533
Fake boats, Fake fleet. Elon Musk is a fraud. He's not an engineer. Anyone could have done it with his money. The government needs to nationalize his company and force him to sell his share to get our tax money.

[Anonymous No.11355563]

>>11355550
he's an inventor and polymath

[Anonymous No.11355583]

Alright boys here is a question. 28 million for a carbon fiber F9 with re usability rated for 10 times, possibly around 5 in reality. But whatever.
>we wait

Starship hits, and raises the amount of payload to orbit, and the amount of shit you could send.

Suppose sending shit up gets cheaper. A lot cheaper.

Now... Keep this in mind. Star Citizen the faggiest scam/game imaginable has raised 250$ million dollars for make believe shit. Realistically if you could get a a kick starter, for around that amount. Could you not start to get into the territory of funding the preliminary steps for a moon base?

Or maybe a patreon type scenario, there is gonna be 4-6 years before this space starts to unravel and it might be nice to get Ancap as fuck about moon development.

[Anonymous No.11355591]

Someone stopped by the tents to see the first triple stack.

https://youtu.be/HOwbB5Mbv2I

[Anonymous No.11355595]

>>11355591
fuck

https://youtu.be/4YFefso8xfI

[Anonymous No.11355596]

>>11355583
>28 million for a carbon fiber F9 with re usability rated for 10 times, possibly around 5 in reality.

The Falcon 9 is mostly made of aluminium-lithium alloy

[Anonymous No.11355600]

>>11355583
yeah, if you think about it not much stopping even a modest millionaire from spending ~$10-15mil on their own personal launch with inflatable habitats and some willing crew to set it up

[Anonymous No.11355610]

Back in reality...the next dedicated launch thread should be for Solar Orbiter on Feb 9. Firstly because it’s worth $1.5 billion, secondly because it’ll take cool pictures of the Sun (closer than ever before and of the Sun’s poles for the first time) and because the Atlas 411 “Slider” is also very cool.

[Anonymous No.11355613]

>>11355610

[Anonymous No.11355616]

>>11355613

[Anonymous No.11355619]

>>11355616

[Anonymous No.11355657]

>It's 2055, there's several major cities on Mars.
>A spaceport in the asteroid belt to start tapping into its riches
>Lunar bases operate new observatories and refineries
>SpaceX put out a new line of BFRs with microfission NTRs for void travel
>The old Mk. Is are on the surplus market for cheap
>You and several good friends buy a Mk. I and lift off of Earth
>Mars is becoming wealthy from being a big shipyard/fuel depot
>Earth's governments are being jews and putting on trade restrictions
>Mars is debating secession from Earth
Where's your destination and what are you planning to do?

[Anonymous No.11355662]

>>11355563
I refuse to believe that you
a: took the time to highlight/screencap the front wikipedia article on Elon Musk
b: believe that being an "inventor" and "polymath" as evidence of aptitude/competence and credentials, and
c: are retarded enough to take those loosely described, jingoistic titles at face value

if this is bait I absolutely commend you

[Anonymous No.11355664]

>>11355657
Start a cargo hauler service between the belt station and wherever needs the minerals, probably Mars
Space Truckin'

[Anonymous No.11355666]

>>11355531
Don‘t remember where I heard it. Maybe the third row tesla interview. But Elon said they‘re still improving on every Raptor they‘re making. So I don‘t know if you can make a booster with those yet.

[Anonymous No.11355674]

>>11355550
The ocean isn‘t real! Wake up! The earth ends slightly before the supposed """coast"""

[Anonymous No.11355680]

>>11355547
That's why you hire people who can.

[Anonymous No.11355689]

>>11355563
He started out coding as well.

[Anonymous No.11355719]

>>11355595
>when that ring passed in front at the end

[Anonymous No.11355722]

>>11355666
I don't see why not, improvements can be changes to component that make them easier to build but don't impact actual performance much.

[Anonymous No.11355737]

>>11355595
Someone give that guy a hard hat!

[Anonymous No.11355749]

>>11355610
>the Sun’s poles for the first time
I‘m taking bets. Hexagon? Octagon? Square?
What‘s it gonna be, guys?

[Anonymous No.11355775]

>>11355749
goatse

[Anonymous No.11355791]

>>11355662
I think as modern polymath just needs to have multiple college degrees in a few fields. I know someone like that. She's like 'The Librarian' and collects degrees as a hobby it seems.

[Anonymous No.11355807]

>>11355657
Go out exploring and hiring out as a Vanguard, looking for deposits, outpost sites of areas of interest.
Push comes to shove, help fight a guerilla war on Mars as a secessionist, Fuck (((Terra)))

Martian spacesuits need armour and skitarii robes

[Anonymous No.11355816]

>>11355791
shouldn't a polymath have invented/created/discovered new things in multiple fields, instead of just having lots of credentials?

[Anonymous No.11355842]

>>11355816
No, they just need to be educated in many fields. It is just a retarded term.

[Anonymous No.11355854]

>>11355583
The fags that donate to Star Citizen expect to get something out of it though

[Anonymous No.11355882]

>>11355854
Well yeah, IDK, lottery to send people up on rotation or something? Affordable moon housing? Idk man. Point being is you should be able to go private for really large projects. And even public for some.

I think the gateway guys as looney as it may seem might get traction.

[Anonymous No.11355907]

>>11355854
fags that donate to patreon get something but it doesn't cost anything to deliver often, like 'exclusive photos or video' or a discord access or access to the same content as everyone else but a week early

[Anonymous No.11355912]

>>11355550
>Anyone could have done it with his money
No one did for at least 20 years of it being feasible, and there are tons of people with more money than hims

[Anonymous No.11355921]

>>11355882
>gateway foundation
>lol robots will build a gajillion ton space station in orbit
>but look! we have a cool drawing and a pretentious name!
Are they even remotely serious?

[Anonymous No.11355937]

>>11355921
I think they are. But no real industry backing. They showed concepts, and tied it up with NASA plans for robots of a similar type, which would deploy scaffolding for solar panels before they could unfold them.

The lottery system seems goofy. But as a vacation hub for the rich to play basketball or for fuel depots I could see it. Especially if you consider the size of materials and robots a starship could take up to LEO.

Their van braun statition look alike is probably their most plausible one. The giant space station is aspirational to say the least. But I bet you Bezos has similar things in mind post new glenn. he wants millions of people working in space.
Which would put the gateway in perspective.

[Anonymous No.11355947]

>>11355921
>Are they even remotely serious?

No...

The only people who are currently serious about launching commercial space stations are Axiom, because their getting payed by NASA to do so. Even Bigelow isn’t completely serious, considering their excuse for not competing in the ISS commercial module competition was that NASA weren’t offering enough money.

[Anonymous No.11355979]

>>11355937
>NASA plans for robots of a similar type

NASA’s plans for robotic assembly in space are far more grounded and realistic:

https://spacenews.com/made-in-space-archinaut-one-demonstration/

>NASA awarded a $73.7 million contract to Made In Space to additively manufacture ten-meter beams onboard Archinaut One, a small satellite scheduled to launch in 2022.

https://spacenews.com/maxar-wins-142-million-nasa-robotics-mission/

>Maxar Technologies on Jan. 31 announced a $142 million NASA contract to demonstrate in-space assembly using a robotic arm.

>Maxar’s demonstration contract calls for the in-orbit assembly of multiple antenna reflector dishes into one single reflector. Communications satellites use reflectors to beam television channels and internet connectivity to users.

>But I bet you Bezos has similar things in mind post new glenn.

Blue already has space station plans for New Glenn (pic-related), they likely submitted this as their proposal for NASA’s free-flying commercial space station module competition.

[Anonymous No.11356000]

>>11355979
Neat. I didn't know most of that. My question is, with Blue's eventual goal of millions working in space. What is the evolution on the space station. Is it simply a bigger space station. The structure being the same? Will it ever look at more advanced manufacture.

Ground is different from realistic. At the least in this case.

[Anonymous No.11356018]

>>11356000
>What is the evolution on the space station. Is it simply a bigger space station. The structure being the same? Will it ever look at more advanced manufacture.

Well Jeff Bezos’ ideal evolution of the space station is obviously the O'Neill cylinder, but there’s lots of intermediate steps between such megastructures and today’s space stations. Maybe circular space station modules would be a good starting point?

[Anonymous No.11356053]

>>11355657
Off to Mercury with a hold full of mining robots. I'll tap into the water ice at the poles and the vast mineral wealth of the rest of the planet. Every cent earned from selling raw metal stock will go towards more mining equipment. I'll hollow out the crust of that damn planet.

[Anonymous No.11356057]

>>11355595
*crinkle* is a thing of the past, boys

[Anonymous No.11356079]

Go look at /out/ to see Luddites literally crying about Starlink if that’s what you’re into

[Anonymous No.11356080]

>>11355979
How did cops accomplish this?

[Anonymous No.11356092]

>Starliner's earliest flight date
>June 2020
>Dragon 2's earliest flight date
>April 2020
Nothing can stop them now... r-right...

[Anonymous No.11356097]

>>11356079
Their tears were delicious.

[Anonymous No.11356110]

>>11356092
Idk why your comparing dates that are still up in the air...

[Anonymous No.11356142]

>>11356110
We just want to see Boing get BTFO once again

[Anonymous No.11356340]

>>11355500
afaik someone from Roskosmos mentioned their internal prices too (I think it was 20 or 30 mil for the cheapest Soyuz) but yeah, seems weird to mention such sensitive information to the public

[Anonymous No.11356431]

>>11355600
I wish these kind of renders took into account the fact that the ship will sandblast the base by launching/landing so close to it.

[Anonymous No.11356691]

>>11355595
For some reason this comes to mind

[Anonymous No.11356696]

OneWeb...

[Anonymous No.11356698]

>>11356696
...roll out!

[Anonymous No.11356702]

>>11356698

[Anonymous No.11356787]

>>11356696
Someone should make a chad vs. virgin meme about starlink vs oneweb.

[Anonymous No.11356793]

>>11355775

[Anonymous No.11356797]

>>11355979
Is that a wet workshop, or is it a Gateway module?

>>11356702
The thicc Soyuz 2 fairings look weird compared to the rest of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.11356799]

>>11356793
Oh, hullo Sauron.

[Anonymous No.11356823]

>>11355749
gonfused cows obviously

[Anonymous No.11356852]

>>11356691
If Elon dressed like that, spacex would have at least billion dollars a year more of tax free income.

[Anonymous No.11356855]

>>11356698
>>11356702
Why condom?

[Anonymous No.11356860]

>>11356787
>Someone should make a chad vs. virgin meme about starlink vs oneweb.

Why? Both systems have their pros and cons and are aiming for different initial markets. IMO OneWeb have a superior albeit safer business plan.

>>11356797
>Is that a wet workshop, or is it a Gateway module?

Neither, it’s an extended/lengthened New Glenn 2nd stage, with the extension being a dry hab (idk if the rest of the 2nd stage can be converted on-orbit into a wet lab). Might as well call it New Skylab. It’s not meant for Gateway, it’s Blue’s proposal for a free-flying (unattached to ISS) LEO commercial space station module.

[Anonymous No.11356861]

>>11356860
>Why?
Because, that anon sucks meme cock hard everyday. Why else?

>>11356787
Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.11356863]

>>11356855
>Why condom?

It’s insulation for the payloads, Baikonur can get very cold...

[Anonymous No.11356864]

>>11356861
Based

[Anonymous No.11356870]

>>11356855
>>11356863
Soyuz obviously wears standard fit, whilst this guy needs something XL...

[Anonymous No.11356873]

>>11356870
And Rokot gets it’s own pre-launch puffer jacket...

[Anonymous No.11356912]

>>11356696
>half the satellites per launch
>doesn't have its own rocket twice a month
They've already lost.

[Anonymous No.11356917]

>>11356799
Ringbear safe!

[Anonymous No.11356923]

>>11356912
>thinks the satellite internet game is just about launching the satellites themselves

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.11356941]

>>11356923
>thinks thousands of satellites magically appear in the sky all at once with a wave of the hand

[Anonymous No.11356954]

>>11356941
OneWeb’s first phase is only 650 satellites and all the launches for them have already been booked. I’m pretty sure by the time these constellations reach the 1000s, Kessler syndrome will have kicked in...

[Anonymous No.11356961]

Since nobody has posted it yet, I’ll post the article about the secretive Astra Space, who’ve never talked to the media up until this point:

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-astra-rocket/

[Anonymous No.11357131]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/02/oneweb-joins-the-satellite-internet-gold-rush-this-week/

>"Right now, we’re the largest buyer of launch in the world," Steckel said. "In the future, as we look to our next phase of deployment, we're willing to buy rocket launches from SpaceX, Blue Origin, or whoever."

[Anonymous No.11357140]

>>11356923
>Doesn't understand vertical integration
>Thinks Oneweb can outcompete SpaceX when their service will cost them multiple times the amount to run and their diversity filled staff is devoid of any talent.
Cringe.

[Anonymous No.11357152]

>>11357131
They already have an agreement for future launches with Blue Origin and used to have one with Virgin Orbit, but cancelled it because the launch costs were too high.

The article also briefly explains OneWeb’s business strategy:

>OneWeb has taken a different approach than SpaceX in terms of how it plans to interact with customers on the ground. SpaceX has opted to offer direct-to-consumer services with the intention of selling user terminals to acquire satellite from space and essentially functioning as a new Internet provider. OneWeb plans to partner with existing telecommunications companies, Steckel said.

>For example, Steckel said, if you live on a mountaintop in Utah, you won't be able to go to OneWeb's website and order service. Rather, the company plans to partner with existing service providers to expand its networks and increase capacity. So OneWeb's service in rural areas of Utah probably would be sold through a distributor.

>It's a model the company believes makes sense because the right answer for getting regulatory approval and delivering service in the United States or the Philippines or Indonesia will vary, Steckel said. "We're going to be doing business with partners around the world," Steckel said. "Our style is not confrontational. We're using a different model. It's a big world."

>OneWeb plans to offer its first customer demonstrations by the end of 2020 and provide full commercial global services in 2021.

[Anonymous No.11357158]

>>11357152
Actually SpaceX will partner with ISP's where necessary. They already have a contract with KDDI in Japan.

[Anonymous No.11357163]

>>11357158
Yeah that’s one, OneWeb have contracts with hundreds of internet providers, airlines, cruise ship companies and governments (last week they signed deals with Kazakhstan and Georgia).

[Anonymous No.11357186]

>>11357163
It's silly to assume that SpaceX will cut itself off entire countries just because they prefer the direct method. They're "confrontational" but they aren't stupid.

[Anonymous No.11357207]

>>11356954
I am so goddamned fucking sick of people predicting kessler syndromes in a vain attempt to sound really smart and responsible. Fuck off! You know who doesn‘t want the orbit kesslered? Fucking. Satellite operators.

[Anonymous No.11357216]

A nice aerial shot of ‘Blue City’ at KSC

[Anonymous No.11357219]

>>11356961
>https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1171441833903214592

Flaw in a question on the number of small launchers: choices are “at least 2”, “at least 5”, “less than 10”, “more than 10.”
Shotwell says she picked “less than 10” since it was the only option that included zero.

[Anonymous No.11357245]

>>11357219
>Shotwell says she picked “less than 10” since it was the only option that included zero.

>ahem...fuck divorced roasties, fuck turbopumps, fuck big payloads and fuck retro propulsive landing!

[Anonymous No.11357257]

>>11357216
Kerbal Space Center? The site of many a detonation.

[Anonymous No.11357267]

>>11357257
yeah appaerently they made KSP into a real thing

[Anonymous No.11357269]

Astra have also released a very cool promo video today:

https://vimeo.com/388954219

And they now have a website as well:

https://astra.com/

[Anonymous No.11357297]

>>11357269
>come through the door and immediately talk smack about everyone else in the room
Classy.

[Anonymous No.11357310]

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-03/amazon-s-hq2-fiasco-was-driven-by-bezos-envy-of-elon-musk

Lmao Bezos is jealous

[Anonymous No.11357328]

>>11357310
The only reason Bezos’ plan for New York fell through was because a bunch of dumb socialists were elected there recently and they put up sizeable resistance. I’m sure Jeff is fine nowadays, considering he became $12.8 billion richer last Thursday...

[Anonymous No.11357355]

>>11356961
Given SpaceX's general expertise couldn't they just bash out a smol rocket in a few months as an intern project or something and smear these guys like an ant?

[Anonymous No.11357361]

>>11357355
probably not considering their biggest customer is NASA and NASA has repeatedly said they want a diverse number of private entities to compete with each other for the health of the space. SpaceX can't squash them if the government keeps giving them grants and buying their services.

[Anonymous No.11357367]

>>11357355
Waste of effort. Starship, if matured, will shit on everyone regardless of size.

[Anonymous No.11357368]

>>11356961
Cute rocket

[Anonymous No.11357369]

>>11357355
>Given SpaceX's general expertise couldn't they just bash out a smol rocket in a few months as an intern project

SpaceX despise small satellite launchers for some reason. Also, these guys are no ‘ants’, they’ve got impressive pedigree:

>The rest of Astra’s 150-person team includes some legit aerospace veterans—former SpaceX employees such as Chris Thompson (part of the SpaceX founding team), Matt Lehman (propulsion), Roger Carlson (the Dragon capsule), and Bryson Gentile (the Falcon 9 rocket). But there’s also a large contingent of people who came either from gritty, bootstrapped rocket outfits or from other fields entirely. Much of the engine building has been done by Ben Farrant, a former Navy engine man who’s spent the bulk of his career in the auto racing world tuning vehicles. Les Martin, a launch and test infrastructure engineer, built test stands for SpaceX, Virgin Galactic, and Firefly Aerospace after learning electronics in the Marines. Astra's personnel also includes former Space Development Agency and DARPA director Fred Kennedy (now Astra VP of future missions).

[Anonymous No.11357373]

>>11357219
based

>>11357245
cringe

[Anonymous No.11357374]

>>11357355
What's the point? Everyone and their dog are building nanosatellite platforms.

[Anonymous No.11357378]

>>11357367
Could Starship deliver one of those dinky rockets directly to orbit already fueled?

[Anonymous No.11357381]

>>11357367
a New Glenn sized shuttle would be better for small payloads

[Anonymous No.11357384]

>>11357378
easily

[Anonymous No.11357386]

>>11357369
>SpaceX despise small satellite launchers for some reason
They are less economical and don't lead directly to any vast increases in future space economy. Bigger rockets are easier to make reusable because they have better margins, and fully reusable rockets can be made extremely cheap for their payload mass.

[Anonymous No.11357387]

>>11357369
Here’s a detailed list of their leadership:

https://astra.com/team/

[Anonymous No.11357389]

>>11357378
just checked: Falcon 9 can deliver a fully fueled Electron to orbit

[Anonymous No.11357390]

>>11357381
Only if it were cheaper, of course.
Cheaper is everything. If it's a smaller vehicle, more efficient, has higher mass fraction, but it isn't CHEAPER, it's a waste of everyone's time. Of course by 'cheap' I mean 'per kg payload'.

[Anonymous No.11357394]

>>11357384
>>11357389
Bueno

[Anonymous No.11357401]

>>11357390
yes, naturally, but as long as they're playing on the same field (fully reusable shuttles) then they're going to be competitive

[Anonymous No.11357405]

>>11357374
>What's the point?
Y'know, just cos

[Anonymous No.11357406]

>>11357378
Starship could deliver several of those things to orbit. An Electron only weighs 12.55 tons wet, Starship could potentially launch more than ten if they'd fit in the payload bay. Then you'd have the ability to yeet 150 kg payloads at ~ 16.5 km/s out of LEO towards wherever you want, before the payload itself would need to do anything. Decent for delivering a very small flyby probe, I guess.

[Anonymous No.11357407]

>>11357406
can't Falcon 9 hoist almost 20 tons reusable?

[Anonymous No.11357409]

>>11357367
>Waste of effort. Starship, if matured, will shit on everyone regardless of size.
This.
>>11357369
>SpaceX despise small satellite launchers for some reason.
Mostly because Elon wants Mars, and smallsat launches don't get you there. And there's enough people doing that already anyhow.
>>11357389
Imagine Starship delivering a bundle of Electrons to orbit.

[Anonymous No.11357410]

>>11357401
Maybe. Anyone today could try to break into the automotive or air travel industries, but good luck muscling out those companies that are already fully entrenched and have decades of experience and vastly more resources by comparison.

[Anonymous No.11357414]

>>11357406
>>11357409
>10 flyby probe payloads with a single Starship
Sheeeeeit, SpaceX could throw more shit at the outer planets in a year or two than NASA has in 40.

[Anonymous No.11357415]

>>11357407
Partially reusable, but yeah. Starship could carry up >100 tons of payload and be fully reusable, significantly cheaper than a partially reusable Falcon 9 launch.

[Anonymous No.11357416]

>>11357410
the only people with experience flying shuttles are NASA and they spent thirty years doing it wrong, then everybody retired

[Anonymous No.11357418]

>>11357415
Starship doesn't exist yet, if you're going to dab on somebody you need to do it with the stuff you have available

[Anonymous No.11357420]

>>11357405
The way forward is not to bring down the cost of sending tiny payloads into orbit. If we want to get anywhere, we need to bring down the cost of bringing the really big shit up.
Tiny payloads are for nations that want to brag and say they have a space program while at the same time having zero ambitions and not wanting to spend any money on it.
Example, Norway. Their space program is to take rocket expertise from Kongsberg Aerospace (State owned NATO contractor) and build a hybrid nano-satellite launch platform for ESA that nobody will even give a shit about. The tech already exists since Kongsberg has been making hybrid systems since the Penguin missiles and continue to do so with the JSM/NSM. Zero effort, zero money spent, zero space program.

Looks good on paper though. We're helping!

[Anonymous No.11357425]

>>11357416
By the time anyone is playing catch-up with SpaceX, Starship will be close to optimized an will be very difficult to compete with even if you knew exactly what you were doing.
SpaceX is already has far and away the most advanced reusable rocket program, and they're using that expertise as they develop Starship.

[Anonymous No.11357434]

>>11357410
Honestly any modern automotive or aerospace company that can R&D using modern software "fail fast" methodology like SpaceX does will find themselves able to compete with the huge, monolithic established companies. Time-consuming, expensive waterfall development has held back most industries for a long time based on treating wasted material resources as worse than wasted human resources. When modern agile design is implemented correctly, it shits all over other businesses. It just took an industry where the thing that's being engineered doesn't actually have any physical worth to realize the math was wrong.

[Anonymous No.11357438]

>>11357425
propulsive entry at Mach 10 is totally different from aero-entry at Mach 25
then again, NASA got it right on the first try

[Anonymous No.11357445]

>>11357414
Stripped down Starship could enable some very fast trajectories to outer planets.

https://toughsf.blogspot.com/2019/05/starship-lite-from-rapid-interplanetary.html

[Anonymous No.11357446]

>>11357438
>propulsive entry at Mach 10 is totally different from aero-entry at Mach 25

Falcon 9 actually hits the upper-atmosphere at around Mach 6, then the re-entry burn slows it down significantly before hitting the thicker parts of the atmosphere.

[Anonymous No.11357450]

>>11357446
I heard M10 from an official presentation somewhere, but it probably varies wildly.

[Anonymous No.11357457]

>>11357420
Fair do's. Similar stuff going on here with Orbex, mildly innovative in using propane, but still another 'kin smallsat launcher.

[Anonymous No.11357460]

>>11357457
Orbex has some good shit, are they still doing the subcooled propane/lox thing with the bladder

[Anonymous No.11357464]

>>11357450
>I heard M10 from an official presentation somewhere, but it probably varies wild

It does, because of different recovery trajectories. Between 6-7 is the average re-entry speed, I could see a Falcon Heavy core re-entering at M10 tho.

[Anonymous No.11357468]

>>11357460
Looks like it. It's really sad the UK didn't pursue spaceflight - we seem to throw up plenty of innovative engineers.

[Anonymous No.11357469]

>>11357468
looking forward to that
that's happening in Scotland right

[Anonymous No.11357470]

>>11357460
I mean, one of the benefits of hybrid solid boosters is that they can be shut down and reignited, but it's hardly exciting when pic related is the average payload size and weight.

[Anonymous No.11357478]

>>11357469
Yeah just reading about that, hopefully Scotland unless the stupid NIMBYs nix it, in which case they'll launch from Azores or somewhere else. Supposed to have a Surrey Satellites payload on it. So that's almost a completely British launch (they have a design team in Denmark) of a British payload from British soil. They better cover the whole bloody thing with a Union Jack.

[Anonymous No.11357481]

>>11357469
https://spaceportcornwall.com/
pasties on the moon.

[Anonymous No.11357482]

>>11357457
>>11357460
British rocket companies are obsessed with being eco-friendly: Orbex keep bragging about how their bio-propane/lox propellant cuts pollution by 90%, whilst Skyrora are powering their future launch vehicles with ‘Ecosene’, a fuel that is made of non-recyclable plastic.

https://techcrunch.com/2020/02/03/launch-startup-skyrora-successfully-tests-3d-printed-rocket-engines-powered-by-plastic-waste/amp/?guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly90LmNvL2gzYVZCZHZRZG8_YW1wPTE&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAADBiJ0DVq5nBj34jeOQyPm9nfKhxmDkyIogErPzObDgHI_YNgT_GeWpPAhgNHvcMzlET_25EP4gOuvRkBR3VwgQb1mUY56ZgpxJFk76Unw-nrFvcXhCwq18PW2ZSOArqzRvlilaOB4YP4pJSGzu2PEcgqTYSnwcbmo249rn9q57S&guccounter=2

[Anonymous No.11357487]

>>11357482
probably because if they don't then the nanny state will come shove dicks down their throat

[Anonymous No.11357489]

>>11357445
Current situation is that only a very small fraction of space scientists get to see their projects launched. What's going to happen when that restriction is pretty much removed? The average PhD could feasibly end up flinging probes around the Solar System as part of their doctorate. Imagine the explosion in knowledge that could result.

[Anonymous No.11357520]

>>11355596
Only the interstage though is carbon fiber

[Anonymous No.11357532]

Why are there so few companies concentrating on moving shit around the solar system once in orbit? All these small launch rockets but nothing to really get out of orbit.

[Anonymous No.11357543]

>>11357532
Rocket Labs have a spacecraft bus with propulsion they're selling as an integrated third stage + payload bus

[Anonymous No.11357551]

>2027
>NASA Budget hearing in the US Senate
>"Mr. Boeing CEO, you are asking for another $30 billion to get us our first SLS launch, but Elon's moon base is already supports 3,300 humans. Your response?"
>"Well he is a white racist male"
>"Your funding is approved"

[Anonymous No.11357555]

>>11357532
I agree. Shit, send another probe to moon.
Anything.

[Anonymous No.11357557]

>>11357532
the only reasons to leave Earth orbit are either science or mining, the former being not profitable and the latter lacking the technology and scale to mobilize at the moment.

[Anonymous No.11357558]

>>11357532
Virgin Orbit are planning to sell missions to deep space:

'With the addition of a third stage housed within the rocket’s fairing, LauncherOne can send cutting-edge satellites on a ride past LEO into deep space. We’ve run the numbers, and we think we’ve got a solid engineering plan for ways to use a third stage to launch payloads not only into LEO, MEO, and GEO, but even towards the Moon, any of the Earth-Moon LaGrange points, various main-belt asteroids, Venus, or Mars.'

[Anonymous No.11357571]

>>11357551
Need I remind you that the same committee introducing these bills also holds a stranglehold over who gets access to space from the US?

[Anonymous No.11357575]

>>11357489
This will probably be a real effect, some people think small sat launchers will do this but I think in order to get meaningful missions done on a budget you actually need the muscle to throw around big ass probes with half-decent technology for cheap, rather than minimum cost minimum capability launchers like Electron.

Imagine a world where, like you said, a collection of university students could build a 50 ton probe vehicle and land 10 tons of scientific payload onto the Moon, or send 10 tons of whatever on a flyby trajectory of one of the planets? We'd probably get a lot of crazy shit done.

[Anonymous No.11357576]

>>11357571
incorrect, they only have a strangelhold on proposing new legislation that controls who gets to access space from the US
it doesn't matter if the rest of Congress won't pass their bills

[Anonymous No.11357578]

>>11357551
if I'm going to be 32 in 2027, what are the chances they'll let me go to the moon if there's a several-thousand person moon base?

[Anonymous No.11357580]

>>11357576
"The Subcommittee on Space shall have jurisdiction over the following subject matters:All matters relating to astronautical and aeronautical research and development; National space policy, including access to space; Sub-orbital access and applications"

[Anonymous No.11357584]

>>11357578
low you baka hentai hiki neet

[Anonymous No.11357591]

>>11357580
yes, and it means fucking nothing until they can get some legislation beyond the rest of Congress and the President. The current legislation as it stands says that the FAA and FCC get to control who gets to go to space, and they will sign off on literally anything as long as you've done the paperwork and it won't ruin anybody else's day

[Anonymous No.11357605]

>>11357532
Do you mean developing conventional stages meant for long-haul space flight (like providing propulsion after months or years of coasting towards other planet/asteroids) or do you mean the development of entirely new propulsion technologies?

If you meant the latter option, I wouldn't hold your breath. Commercial entities are far more likely to be successful in either turning existing technology into a useful and viable product (eg a deep-cryo methalox powered service module with universal adaptation capabilities for carrying payloads to high Earth orbits and beyond) than they are to develop a brand new and radically different propulsion system.

Anything chemical-based is on the table, and there are still huge improvements to be made in terms of stage longevity in orbit and application flexibility. No space startup is going to bother developing fission-fragment rockets or orbiting laser arrays for accelerating light sail craft. The gains for a purely science driven mission would be good, but for commercial applications there simply aren't any customers for those propulsion technologies yet, any company developing them in the hopes to sell them would be shooting themselves in the foot.

[Anonymous No.11357612]

>>11357575
Yeah I was responding to the post about a stripped down Starship. A few months ago on the Sky at Night they covered a competition for an ESA science payload launch, and it was obviously fiercely competitive with the losers very disappointed. With that bottleneck gone the problem is going to be coming up with exciting new missions, and staying abreast of the explosion of discovery.

>>11357578
>what are the chances they'll let me go to the moon
Depends how sexy you are

[Anonymous No.11357617]

>>11357605
I was imagining a vehicle that sat and refuelled in orbit and customers attached their payloads to it once launched, then this vehicle would bulk move the payloads out into deep space. All using conventional technologies, nothing soience.

[Anonymous No.11357630]

>>11357557
>the only reasons to leave Earth orbit are either science or mining

The moon and Mars must be colonized and brought to heel just as earth has been

[Anonymous No.11357634]

>>11357630
ok, but how does that make anyone money?

[Anonymous No.11357637]

>>11357634
how does California make anyone money?
how does New York make anyone money?

[Anonymous No.11357644]

>>11357637
They've always made money.

[Anonymous No.11357645]

>>11357644
burn them to the ground

[Anonymous No.11357646]

Is nasa really going to pay a billion dollars to boeing to repeat the test they botched? I heard the decision was going to be made these last few days and I'm hearing nothing.

[Anonymous No.11357647]

>>11357634
>ok, but how does that make anyone money?

Same way countries on Earth make money. Primary resource extraction followed by a service and entertainment industry. Eventually, Mooners and Martians won’t have to give a shit if they make money for dirty Terrans anyway. They can sustain themselves.

[Anonymous No.11357652]

>>11357647
The act of colonization is not profitable, though. Resource acquisition can be done without colonization and, as mentioned before, is not ready to deploy at scale yet.

[Anonymous No.11357656]

>>11357652
>The act of colonization is not profitable, though

The mere existence of people somewhere creates economic demand for services and products. Demand is met with supply.

[Anonymous No.11357659]

>>11357617
Won't work unless you have something as cheap to launch as SpaceX wants Starship to be.

[Anonymous No.11357669]

hmmm those crush cores are toast

[Anonymous No.11357751]

>>11357405
Musk has stated recently that the main thing holding his companies back isn't funds or legislation or whatever have you. He says he's only held back by the limited supply of top-of-the-line engineers.
So building out a small sat launcher just cause would only take people away from actually important projects like Crew Dragon or Starship and delay those a bit.

[Anonymous No.11357766]

>>11357389
>just checked: Falcon 9 can deliver a fully fueled Electron to orbit
That's one hell of a kickstage.
'mirin that 5 stage rocket.
How much delta V is that for one cubesat?

[Anonymous No.11357773]

>>11357766
five and a half, I think you need Heavy to make it reusable

[Anonymous No.11357781]

>>11357578
How quickly can you "transition" before then?

[Anonymous No.11357788]

>>11357418
>yet
We'll talk again around December and see where we're at.

[Anonymous No.11357791]

>>11357788
yeah that's my thought as well

[Anonymous No.11357809]

>>11357445
I always found the idea of sending starships to outer planets or even to GEO super weird, "just" make an expendable upper stage with two tanks and one raptor that you launch in a cargo starship and you can give a shitload of dV to anything.
>>11357489
Launch cost are only a part of the cost of a mission. Even if the launch is super cheap and the probe is cheaper because mass optimization is less needed, building and operating a space probe will still be expensive

[Anonymous No.11357816]

>>11357809
trying to bring a whole Starship to GEO and back never made any sense to me, yeah

[Anonymous No.11357827]

>>11357751
Wow ok I see. I was wondering because I saw ESA amongst the backers and wondered if part of their plan is to rob business at the bottom to erode SpaceX's profitability.

[Anonymous No.11357840]

do we still have an L2 anon here?

[Anonymous No.11357842]

>>11357809
>building and operating a space probe will still be expensive
Yeah that's what occurred to me after a bit more thinking - the bottleneck will move to design of the payload and mechanics of retrieving the data - but perhaps we'll get standardisation of payload, with 90% of missions achievable on COTS platforms or something. Likely going to need a shitload more bandwidth though. Wonder if Starlink would help with that

[Anonymous No.11357875]

>>11357842
Starlink won't directly help with that, although the advances in in-space laser links might

[Anonymous No.11357899]

>>11357842
The Starlink design really only works with the planet below it. If it tried to send radio sideways it would interfere with multiple satellites at multiple altitudes. That's why the interlinks need to be be lasers.
If you want to talk to other planets you will need a different satellite, plus you will need some kind of store-and-forward system to deal with the multiple-minutes latency.

[Anonymous No.11357986]

>>11357269
>https://vimeo.com/388954219
Nice video, hopefully they can compete with electron

[Anonymous No.11358004]

>>11357986
Wait, isn't the alameda runway the one that the mythbusters used? If so, neat.

[Anonymous No.11358086]

>>11355979
Is it Maxar doing this, or MDA under Maxar? Because there was an announcement a couples weeks ago that MDA was sold and are going to be independent again, and as far as I'm aware MDA is Maxars space robotics guy. they just haven't left them yet for another few months

[Anonymous No.11358094]

>>11355600
>not much stopping even a modest millionaire
Outside of the US, probably. As long as the US federal govt. has any link to a space launch, shits not going to happen unless its on a Boeing approved expendable rocket with a cost-plus contract.

[Anonymous No.11358131]

>Going max hardcore on design/production Starship here in Boca. It’s awesome! Feels a bit like a Mars simulator.
t. Musk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4u35aiVg0g&feature=emb_title

[Anonymous No.11358147]

>>11358131
>Feels a bit like a Mars simulator.

???

[Anonymous No.11358151]

>>11358147
He clearly means like Kerbal

[Anonymous No.11358152]

>>11358131
did those crazy bastards put a crane inside a building

[Anonymous No.11358164]

>>11358131
>*wobble wobble WOBBLE WOBBLE W!O!B!B!L!E! W!O!B!B!L!E!*

[Anonymous No.11358167]

This is your daily reminder that chemical propulsion is a dead end technology.

[Anonymous No.11358187]

>>11358164
the onomatopoeia for sheet metal flexing is "wibble"

[Anonymous No.11358189]

>>11357367
>Starship, if matured, will shit on everyone regardless of size.
>the 747, if matured, will shit on everyone regardless of size.
This is how retarded you sound.

[Anonymous No.11358195]

>>11358187
Ok brit.

[Anonymous No.11358197]

>>11358167
>unnatural capitalism growth mindset
Nothing wrong with a dead end tech. It just means you've perfected it.

[Anonymous No.11358202]

>>11358187

[Anonymous No.11358204]

>>11358189
>Boeing product shitting on anything
Herp, sure thing.

[Anonymous No.11358205]

>>11358195
I've never even been outside of the United States

[Anonymous No.11358206]

>>11358204
your words not mine :^)

[Anonymous No.11358207]

>>11358167
it is, but there is no way in hell we're using nuclear propulsion for surface to orbit any time soon. NTP is happening though, just slowly.

[Anonymous No.11358219]

>>11358189
If an airplane came along with operating costs so low that it meant tickets to fly on it were 10% the cost of a ticket to fly on any other plane, it would shit on everything else.

Competition to a matured Starship would have to come in under Starship's range, fuel, and amortized build costs, and doing that with an expendable vehicle is going to be very difficult.

[Anonymous No.11358225]

>>11358204
>actually dissing the 747

[Anonymous No.11358286]

>>11358167
sure, but the end is so far away it's out of sight.

[Anonymous No.11358289]

>>11358189
Don't make me break out the expendable plane analogy again, anon

[Anonymous No.11358307]

>>11358289
>small rockets can't be reusable

[Anonymous No.11358310]

>>11358307
correct, at least not fully reusable.

[Anonymous No.11358312]

>>11358289
I just don't understand this reusable airplane meme.

The amount of money you can save from reusing planes isn’t enough to justify how much harder it makes it to complete the difficult flights that usually make money in the air travel world. I’m sure one day reusability will be more effective, but the truth is that when you have all the challenges that come with aeronautical engineering in general, it’s almost always much more effective to throw away the plane after it’s done its job than to figure out how to make recovery part of the mission. I know of no major technology on the near term horizon that would change that.

Even if reusable planes are possible now, but when reliability is THE number one priority (in this case the cargo takes up 2/3rds of the cost and the actual plane only 1/3rd) it makes absolutely no sense. Like, look at this jet engine (pic related). This represents some of the most advanced technologies in the propulsion engineering world. Do you honestly think that such a complicated machine can be made tough and reliable enough to be reusable? I doubt it. Best example in my opinion is condoms, sure you could reuse them but making sure that they do not suffer a drop in reliability will cost a lot of money and time.

Just because some company made reusing planes popular, then that doesn't mean that we will have the sci-fi future of millions of flights per year. We'll be lucky to see more than a couple dozen per year. Dial down your expectations, don't buy into the 'reusability for airplanes' meme.

[Anonymous No.11358314]

>>11358310
source?

[Anonymous No.11358315]

>>11358312
>muh strawman

[Anonymous No.11358318]

>>11358315
Its just a silly copypasta. Calm down.

[Anonymous No.11358328]

>>11358314
Electron has a maximum payload of 150 kg. Let's completely ignore the first stage and assume we only need to add mass for TPS and recovery hardware to the 2nd stage. We'll also ignore the battery pack staging, because if you aren't using electric pumps you aren't doing that, and we're talking about a general case here. To make the upper stage reusable we're gonna need to add a heat shield that can protect both the stage tanks and the vacuum engine bell, as well as not significantly erode during each reentry. The stage needs a system to control reentry, and all the hardware and complexity involved with that. It needs parachutes to reduce speed either for a soft water landing or to let it be snatched by a hook from a helicopter or carrier plane.
How much payload will this vehicle have once all these changes are made? How expensive will it be per kilogram? The engineering and physics do not support the idea that these changes would be worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.11358337]

>>11358328
>How expensive will it be per kilogram?
A functionally useless metric unless the satellites are purpose built to fit exactly inside the fairing like starlink.

[Anonymous No.11358353]

>>11358337
It's functionally useless unless your launch vehicle is large enough to be used to launch bulk resources like propellant, in which case you can load it to the tits every time you launch and actually get a decent amount of payload for your money

[Anonymous No.11358361]

>>11358353
>load it to the tits
Why the misogyny?

[Anonymous No.11358365]

>>11358361
um, excuse me, but are you trying to imply that rockets are only male?

[Anonymous No.11358369]

>>11358164
These look super sexy

[Anonymous No.11358377]

>>11357875
>>11357842
>>11357809
>>11357816

using a starship literally for anything else that isnt putting stuff in LEO is literally ultra retarded. (once you have several different starships of course.

[Anonymous No.11358389]

>>11358377
Off the shelf Starship makes sense as a LEO truck and also as a Moon surface delivery vehicle, because the Moon is only about a week away round-trip. By devoting even one Starship to Moon-ferry duty, we could land there 52 times a year with >100,000 kg payload each time. That's easily worth it.

Going to Mars with Starship would be in some ways squandering Starship's potential, but Starship will be the first and only Mars-capable manned vehicle to exist once it's operating, so in light of the fact that there will be nothing else, fuck it, buy a few Starships outright and go to Mars, set up the propellant resupply plant, and then do two-way Mars transport using Starship until such time as a better option is developed.

[Anonymous No.11358396]

>>11358389
>propellant resupply
SHHHHH Don't let Shelby hear about that.

[Anonymous No.11358420]

>>11358396

[Anonymous No.11358425]

>>11358389
>p would be in some ways squandering Starship's potential, but Starship will be the first and only Mars-capable manned vehicle to exist once it's operating, so in light of the fact that there will be nothing else, fuck it, buy a few Starships outright and go to Mars, set up the propellant resupply plant, and then do two-way Mars transport using Starship
yeah i agree, for a couple of boots on the ground just do it. but you should quickly be using starship to ferry mars mission modules into orbit.

[Anonymous No.11358426]

>>11355657
Drop an asteroid on earth

[Anonymous No.11358433]

>>11358425
Why?
If the modules can't come back, people can't come back, fewer people will want to go. Therefore mission is hampered. Also you need to spend a shitload of money and time developing 'Mars mission modules' instead of just packing Starship full of supplies.

Honestly the best use of Starship for Mars missions will probably *eventually* be the shipment of engines, raw materials, and propellant into LEO shipyards wherein truly massive (~50m diameter) spacecraft are being welded together out of rolls of sheet metal, which couldn't land on Earth but which can survive atmospheric braking passes and launch themselves back into orbit from the surface of Mars, as well as perform missions from Mars orbit out to the asteroids and even Jupiter's moons. That's the scenario in which Starship's ferocious LEO mass shipment capacity could be fully realized, but that's going to be a long ways off, and until then we can use a decent fraction of Starship's launch capacity to just refuel other Starships and send them to the Moon and Mars and a few other places (like NEOs, maybe).

[Anonymous No.11358434]

is it too early for tritium and deuterium mining on the moon? I can't really think of any other economic reason to actually settle the surface.

[Anonymous No.11358436]

>>11358434
yeah, moon is only useful if you're looking for bulk oxygen, titanium or aluminum

[Anonymous No.11358442]

>>11358433
>If the modules can't come back, people can't come back,
>>11358433
>Honestly the best use of Starship for Mars missions will probably *eventually* be the shipment of engines,

THATAS EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING YOU IDIOT YOU PUT UP MODULES TO MAKE A BIGGER SHIP YOU RETARDED ASSHOLATOR

[Anonymous No.11358449]

>>11358442
nah, you shouldn't need to move that much shit

[Anonymous No.11358460]

>>11358442
The way you said it made it sound liek you wanted to throw modules at Mars as launched by Starship. That's wrong. You don't lob cans at Mars, you don't even string a bunch of cans into one big conglomerate then fling that at Mars, what you do is launch construction materials into LEO and then build one giant vehicle at a time, much bigger than what can practically be launched, and you use that big vehicle to go back and forth between Earth orbit and Mars surface.

[Anonymous No.11358463]

>>11358460
YES I AGRESIVELY AGREE I WANT TO SAY YES TO YOU, FRENCH KISS YOU THEN MURDER CREMATE YOU AND CUM ON THE REMAINS, THEN USE THAT PASTE TO MAKE A SCULPTURE CONSISTING OF THE LETTERS Y-E-S

[Anonymous No.11358468]

>>11358434
>tritium and deuterium mining on the moon?
There is no tritium on the Moon, and very very little deuterium. Tritium doesn't exist naturally outside of the cores of stars, because it has a half life of only 12.3 years. Deuterium on the other hand is common as shit here on Earth, no reason to go anywhere in space to get it.
You're probably thinking of lunar helium-3, which is also a shit idea because there's hardly fucking any of it there (parts per billion at best) and helium-3 is a significantly more difficult fusion fuel than what we have on Earth, meaning it's not actually going to solve any energy problems.

The Moon is useful for mining metal ores (common shit like aluminum and iron), smelting them in solar vacuum furnaces, and lobbing slugs of them onto elliptical Earth orbits to be picked up by unmanned vehicles and pushed into shipyard orbits where they can supply large zero G factories producing sheet metals for propellant tanks and beams for thrust structures etc. Shit we don't wanna launch from Earth.

[Anonymous No.11358472]

>>11358468
>shipyard orbits
WHEN

[Anonymous No.11358473]

>>11358463
I just feel like you're not agreeing with me

[Anonymous No.11358476]

>>11358472
After Starship economy has been well established;
Starship to Moon flights happening at least once per month, Mars missions using multiple simultaneously departing Starships every launch window, all kinds of big mass produced science probes being launched and lobbed towards the planets of the solar system per year, at least one decently sized station having its superstructure fabricated entirely in orbit to figure shit out and serve as a toehold in terms of zero G construction, etc.

[Anonymous No.11358485]

Jesus Fucking Christ, Boeing.

No way it flies until Q4 of 2020 at the earliest.

[Anonymous No.11358488]

>>11358485
What, they fucked up their explosive bolts? What the fuck? How does Boeing continue to exist?

[Anonymous No.11358495]

>>11358485
>subject: problems detected
>problem 1: spacecraft kills occupant
>problem 2: may miss target orbit

[Anonymous No.11358497]

Starship has a flight test permit from the FAA now

[Anonymous No.11358499]

>>11358497
for what, big hops? orbit?

[Anonymous No.11358503]

>>11358499
Brachistochrone to Alpha Centauri

[Anonymous No.11358504]

>>11358503
aw shit

[Anonymous No.11358506]

>>11358164
>>11358369
These rings are looking much better already, they probably just need to slap in some stiffening struts to hold the shape and make 'em stronk.

[Anonymous No.11358507]

>>11358495
>problem 3: may shower ISS with metallic debris fragments

[Anonymous No.11358512]

>>11358506
Rangs look great, hopefully stacked barrels also look great, I'm sure a bit of internal structural stiffening will be done even if it's just anti-slosh baffles. Pressurization will do wonders for these tanks during actual flights, of course.

[Anonymous No.11358514]

>>11358507
>problem 4: costs the GDP of Greenland

[Anonymous No.11358515]

>>11358503
lol i laughed like a retard, and ill never be in the same room with someone that understands this joke.

[Anonymous No.11358527]

>>11358488
>initiators that trigger separation events
Oh shit, that's what that means.
>generate debris and damage the spacecraft
It's like your own personal Kessler syndrome!
>they accepted this risk for the uncrewed flight test
So this problem has been known for a while?
>June 2019
ah
Now I really need to find that episode of Space Brothers with the capsule doing lithobraking.

[Anonymous No.11358571]

>>11358527
So technically this is the wrong crash (it's a test that failed before the landing that failed), but it's good enough. Boing!

[Anonymous No.11358577]

>>11358472
I'm fucking WORKING ON IT, chill

[Anonymous No.11358589]

>>11358577
>77
E-Elon is that you?

[Anonymous No.11358592]

>>11358506
Out with the wrinkles, in with the s m o o t h, it's going to be a good year.

What happened to the trashcan? I know Elon said it would get turned into a vertical test stand but do they still have it sitting around somewhere visible on the Boca Chica site? I hope they have the good sense to preserve that thing mostly intact so it can sit in the Udvar-Hazy Center one day.

[Anonymous No.11358597]

>>11358589
No but lunar mining is part of my 25 year plan, after the MEO satellite junkyard business, which follows the real estate empire that's currently starting up.

[Anonymous No.11358601]

>>11358514
Worse than that, Greenland has a GDP of $2.7 billion, while Boeing got over $4 billion for the commercial crew capsule.

[Anonymous No.11358603]

>>11358601
Christ I thought they were sitting at $4-5b GDP, I stand corrected.
>problem 4: costs MORE than the GDP of Greenland

[Anonymous No.11358614]

>>11358592
All I want is a video of trashcan popping but with a soda can popping noise dubbed in.

[Anonymous No.11358615]

>>11358512
I really hope they sort out all the potential vibration modes problems before the actual flight. Won't be fun if it passes all the static pressure tests but fails mid-flight because some weird fancy resonance made it wobble

[Anonymous No.11358619]

who in the dem field is the best for space? I'd assume Wang because he and Elon are buddies. I recall seeing a compilation article in 2016 of the candidate's positions on space but there doesn't seem to be one for 2020 yet.

[Anonymous No.11358622]

>>11358619
It doesn't matter too much really because if any of them actually instituted their policies they'd crash the economy with no survivors and there wouldn't be enough left for space. Best case scenario you get another Obama era stagnation with really small scale projects plodding on for years past their due date, 90% of which get canceled, while anything really promising gets canned just weeks before completion, wasting all of the taxpayer money sunk into the project.

[Anonymous No.11358630]

>>11354939
spaceflight general will soon become spacex general.

i mean seriously, if starship succeeds who the fuck cares what other space agencies do:

Nasa: 5 billion dollars to put send another thermometer to uranus, it arrives in 50 years. Oh and also 150 billion dollars to get a man to orbit the moon in 70 years(if all goes well)

Roscosmos: 130.000.000 trillion rubles to launch a crewed LEO rocket that isnt the basedus... thats it

China: exactly same as nasa in half the budget double the time.

Every other public and private provider: we managed to make a new micronano sat that can fit 15% more gender neutral pronouns, if the crowdfunding succeeds we will put it in orbit.


Spacex: fucking what do you want? 1 million to the moon? how about 500 million to the moon? 200 million to the moon? 500 million to mars, crewed, multiple manned space stations and bases around moon, mars, mars moons and venus. probes to the fuck of fucks, for 1/100 nasas budget theyre gonna send 50 times more probes each year than every other country launched ever, and the probes will be bigger faster and better, they will very soon grow tired of sending probes when theres nothing else to map.

holy sheet how can compete

[Anonymous No.11358637]

>>11358630
Blue Origin is the other big competitor. Unlimited funds, and Bezoz is just as dedicated towards making oneil cylinders as Musk is colonizing mars

[Anonymous No.11358638]

>>11358630
It's worth it to keep an eye on other competitors if only to see what new strategy they'll try and come up with to stay in the game. Who knows, the best space innovations of the next space race might not come from SpaceX, but from people fighting tooth and nail to stay competitive with SpaceX. Competition is healthy and generates value, it should never be ignored even if one competitor is starting off with a significant advantage.

[Anonymous No.11358641]

>>11358619

Bernie, then Warren.

[Anonymous No.11358647]

>>11358637
If they both dump their fortunes into spaceflight, I'm good with that.

[Anonymous No.11358652]

>>11358637
I don't know where this meme of blue origin competing with SpaceX comes from, they haven't got anything to orbit yet and anyone who thinks they're gonna nail orbit with NG on their first try and then just proceed to develop a vehicle capable of competing with Starship isn't thinking their idea through.

[Anonymous No.11358653]

>>11358637
>Bezoz
besos is shit, invested 10 times the money elon invested and in twice the time accomplished NOTHING, and it looks like his design has got a lot of problems, better quadruple the budget and quintuple the deadlines!

>>11358638
the only space "race" would be between all non spacex organizations trying to emulate it as fast as possible.

if the us goverment has any brains left they will cancell all other usa programs and put the effort into building nerva rockets, probably with uranium mined off world

[Anonymous No.11358656]

>>11358619
If space is your priority, don't look to any of the Dems. Like it or not, Trump is putting political infrastructure in place that'll increase US involvement in space or at the very least keep it from declining as it has been. He sees growth of national space power as one way to create a legacy for himself, which is a pretty reliable indicator that he's not going to abandon it.

[Anonymous No.11358657]

>>11358656
trump fucking asked sls to land on the moon
trump is anti elon musk(aka the number one, youre automatically an idiot who deserves to die if you disagree, king of space)

kennedy brought us the moon, trust dem

[Anonymous No.11358659]

>>11358657
>youre automatically an idiot who deserves to die if you disagree, king of space
Anon, quit it.

[Anonymous No.11358661]

>>11358657
None of the current candidates are anything even remotely like Kennedy, at least with Trump he could be persuaded to into space just because it would make him personally look good, an accolade to add to his list of accomplishments.
>Look, it's gonna be bigly, we're going to the Moon again, that will be yuge, we're going to Mars, it's gonna be yuger, we're going to make space great again.

[Anonymous No.11358666]

>>11358661
>"nobody's ever had a moon-landing like this one, we have the best rockets, they'll bring back the best rocks. Nothing like Rocketlabs, low-energy pussy-rockets, WEAK. Kiwis keep out of the way, AMERICA FIRST"

[Anonymous No.11358667]

>>11358661
>just because it would make him personally look good
the same can be said of literally anyone you fucktarde piece of shitttard

[Anonymous No.11358668]

>>11358666
electron is american

[Anonymous No.11358670]

>>11358668
That detail is irrelevant, hobbits back off we own all space.

[Anonymous No.11358672]

>>11358667
Yes, but Trump in particular is an ego man, he likes to show off and outdo other people. It's not an insult or a knock, a lot of powerful people are to a greater extent then fucking normies, what I'm saying is that for him as a president in particular, it would be easy to convince him to invest yet more in space by massaging his ego. Left wing candidates are primarily interested right now in virtue signaling to pretend victim groups, and those people don't give a flying absolute fuck about space, they're the same shitheads who showed up to Apollo waving signs about muh starvin chilluns while simultaneously being morbidly obese.

[Anonymous No.11358674]

>>11358672
I voted for him and I think this is an accurate assessment. I hope his second term includes further manned spaceflight that doesn't get axed like Constellation was.

[Anonymous No.11358675]

>>11358672
>Left wing candidates are primarily interested right now in virtue signaling to pretend victim groups
left wing is interested int he betterment of all mankind.

which mean putting money in the pockets of the poor workers who make this country possible

right wing is about ending progress and putting money into old farts who do shit


peaceful unironical star trek space life is left wing

keep sending one apollo mission every 50 years is right wing. you choose

[Anonymous No.11358676]

>>11358675
>left wing is interested int he betterment of all mankind.

[Anonymous No.11358677]

>>11358676
yes, you are allowed to read, even if your rigth wing buddies will say "its for faggots"

[Anonymous No.11358680]

>>11358675
>left wing is interested int he betterment of all mankind.
I agree this is their intended end-goal, but disagree on the methods thought to lead us to said-goal. I believe this is the fundamental split between right and left, though demagogueing has led us to believe one another to be either rabid communists or frothing nazis, leading to a lack of desire to even attempt communication with the opposing viewpoint and instead taking the easy route of dehumanization and outright dismissal spiraling into unhealthy echochambers for each broad 'side' being established to reinforce these misconceptions.

But hey, check out this pic of a bike next to a single F1 engine, shit is huge. I wonder what the bottom of the Starship stack will look like at ground-level like this?

[Anonymous No.11358686]

>>11358167
It's got a ways to go-the ideal replacement, fusion, is quite a ways from flying even assuming that the SFS Z-Pinch works out and we get a net gain prototype in the next couple of years.

[Anonymous No.11358695]

>>11358675
You are unironically fucking retarded.
>Trying using Star Trek as evidence for why left wing influence will be better for space.
>Ignoring the fact that it's usually left wing governments who are the first to cut space related funding

[Anonymous No.11358698]

>>11358695
It's like he was being stupid on purpose or something.

[Anonymous No.11358701]

>>11358698
Never assume that people who make stupid posts without a hint of irony or humor are doing it intentionally. It's much more likely that they are just dumb.

[Anonymous No.11358712]

>>11358701
Still, for some reason some anons still use the old forulma
>say retarded thing
>replies calling anon retarded
>"haha I troll you because I didn't mean it"
>???
>victory

[Anonymous No.11358734]

>>11358619
Biden because >>11358656

[Anonymous No.11358738]

>>11358712
I'm a firm believer that someone 'pretending to be retarded' still just means they're retarded. I guess we'll have to see how much effort he is willing to put into defending his point, since usually that indicates they're serious.

[Anonymous No.11358747]

>>11358675
Stated intents and actual purposes may differ.
You'll figure that out in 10-20 years, don't you worry.

[Anonymous No.11358759]

>>11358686
If we get net gain fusion of any kind, especially on the scale where it'd be useful as a propulsion system, we will immediately revolutionize human power production. The use of fusion power for propulsion would be a side note compared to the ridiculous applications on Earth for power that cheap.

[Anonymous No.11358775]

>>11358657
>kennedy brought us the moon, trust dem
In case you missed it, there was a race for prestige going on with the Soviet Union at the time and the US had lost several milestones such as first orbit, first person in space, first EVA. That's not going on anymore.
If it wasn't for the cold war, Kennedy would have stayed in bed with 5 women getting fucked up on coke and Wernher would have been relegated to firing off a sounding rocket based off the old V-2 design every now and then.

Trusting party politics regarding space is stupid anyway.

[Anonymous No.11358935]

>>11358675
>muh hegelian dialect

It's literally all the same corrupt fuckers on each side with a few minor differences. Fucking kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.11358937]

>>11358641
>Voting for Bernie "voted against literally everything space at every single opportunity" Sanders

Redditor detected

[Anonymous No.11358979]

>>11358497
>>11358499
The 20 km hop. Launch/Landing/Recovery. March 16.

Looks like we going big.

[Anonymous No.11358980]

>>11358615
What are you even talking about? lol

[Anonymous No.11358984]

>>11358980
No one ever tried launching water towers this big before, so who knows what problems never encountered before might arise. Combustion instability wasn't a thing until they tried making a really fucking huge engine aka F-1 as a closely related example.

[Anonymous No.11358989]

>https://www.newscientist.com/article/2232324-legal-action-could-be-used-to-stop-starlink-ruining-telescope-images/
Reminder luddiites are at every corner. "Muh beauty of night sky is being ruined."

[Anonymous No.11358997]

>>11358984
Disregard this FUDpost

[Anonymous No.11358999]

>>11358615
>>11358980
>>11358984
To work out wether or not Starship will shake itself apart during flight they could do modal testing to find out it’s vibration characteristics, this is what NASA have done with the SLS CS-1.

[Anonymous No.11359001]

>>11358997
ULA sniper detected

[Anonymous No.11359006]

>>11358989
>The group says that to halt mega constellations, a case could be brought to the International Court of Justice to argue that the night sky is a shared human right under the World Heritage Convention.
absolute state of this lot.

[Anonymous No.11359011]

>>11359006
>>11358989
In that case they need to start executing people in the streets for creating smog and light pollution.

[Anonymous No.11359013]

>>11359006
Lmao fuck astronomers. Cunts should have been crowdfunding non porkbarrel orbital scopes rather than blowing 10k+ to take pretty pictures of Jupiter in their yard and whinge about light pollution despite living in a city.

[Anonymous No.11359015]

>>11359011
>starlink provides large and consistent revenue stream for space x
>allowing further r&d
>which lowers launch costs
>so we can put larger and better telescopes in space, possibly at the amateur/low budget level eventually
nah fuck all that just ban it lol

[Anonymous No.11359018]

>>11358999
They really should. Luckily, we have a much better understanding of vibration and resonances now and modern computers are one step from a literal miracle compared to what we had in the 60-s

[Anonymous No.11359022]

>>11358989
>"Muh beauty of night sky is being ruined."

Ruralfag here, if you have seen the sky 200km+ from any major sources of light then you know what I am talking about is true. Unadulterated skies are fucking PACKED, I have a half-solid band of the milky way shitting itself across the night sky and masses of stars across the rest. Even 200 satellites would be totally unnoticeable and because of the low orbit I gather only maybe a dozen or so would be even in the visible plane, let alone actually visible (protip they won't be). Astronomers are city dwelling bug people and should kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.11359027]

>>11359022
However, that being said, orbital billboards violate my NAP and will be met with appropriate force.

[Anonymous No.11359028]

>>11359022
There's a shitton of satellites in the sky already even without starlink anyways and anyone relevant in the astronomy learned to deal with them ages ago

[Anonymous No.11359029]

>>11358989
>TECH BAD!!!

[Anonymous No.11359030]

>>11358935
>they are all the same
im sorry you didnt have acess to an education

[Anonymous No.11359044]

>>11359022
>>11359028
>>11359027
There's something like 2,000 sats up right now from like every company and country in the world. If you stare at the sky long enough and have okay vision then you can normally see about a dozen of them.

[Anonymous No.11359049]

>>11359030
>Vote democrat
>Fucks you in the ass raw for whatever his donors want

>Vote republican
>Fucks you in the ass raw for whatever his donors want

I know you like to pretend how enlightened and educated individuals vote Democrats to save America but anyone with an IQ over 90 can see through this corrupt pozi scheme.

[Anonymous No.11359060]

>>11359049
Fucking this.
Anyone who votes for a person based on their 'political alignment' is an uneducated pile of flesh.

Maybe years and years ago there was a difference between parties, but modern days are all about keeping the masses controlled and on puppet strings, regardless of the party.

But this is not /pol/, I shall shutup

[Anonymous No.11359062]

>>11354939
Haven't heard of Hawk before. Is that some spy boat?

[Anonymous No.11359108]

>>11358759
Fusion power won‘t be cheap. The fuel cost is negligible, but the construction cost of a power plant itself will likely be comparable to or even higher than existing fission reactors, with construction times just as long.
Also the energy output of a plant won‘t be much more than what existing large coal or nuclear plants put out. Yes it‘s an incredible amount of energy per gram of fuel, but reactors won‘t be able to accept much fuel at all at any given time. It‘s an efficient energy source, but not necessarily a super powerful.
I like to follow fusion research and I do want to see it succeed. That‘s why I take even more issue with people making wildly fantastical claims about what it can do and what can be expected.
Fusion isn‘t going to transform society over night. Especially when a plant will take 10-20 years to build...

[Anonymous No.11359113]

>>11358979
Best birthday present. Bet it‘ll slip though.

[Anonymous No.11359114]

>>11358979
I like how Starship is currently three rings and some bulkheads and they say it‘s going to fly in a month and a half.

[Anonymous No.11359123]

>>11359108
Most of the cost of a fission plant is in the radioactive shit, dealing with it and the waste. Fusion more or less eliminates that. In a SPARC type reactor the only thing that receives heavy radiation is the vacuum chamber but that is very small and designed to be easily removed. The surrounding FLiBe fluid would take a large amount of neutron bombardment but doesn't really become very radioactive and even then there is not that much to dispose of when the time comes to do so. I think fusion will be a huge boon and there are a few ones that are looking extremely positive over the next few years but yes muh magic bullet fusion rectors replace everything once they are available is a pipe dream. However they will not take 10-20 years to build once a standardised design is figured out and can be factory produced unlike one off speshul fission designs.

[Anonymous No.11359140]

https://fcc.report/ELS/Space-Exploration-Technologies-Corp-SpaceX/0150-EX-ST-2020

holy shit its happening, starship will launch in a month or two

[Anonymous No.11359165]

>>11359140
Yep, they have a bunch of raptors sitting there waiting to go, tank bulkheads are strong enough and already made, sitting there waiting to go, rings made in 10 minutes a piece, seems pretty logical to conclude it would only be a month or two until they have a basic vehicle ready.

[Anonymous No.11359171]

>>11359022
Urban bug creature here. These people not only live their entire lives with light pollution, but even then they‘ve never looked at the sky in earnest. Even in a 7 or 8 you can make out upper stages, the ISS and satellites already. Just need to look at the sky for 20 minutes once in your life.
Oh no, but if Elon Musk does it, it has to be a dumb idea, ill-conceived and doomed to fail!

Why are people like this? I swear these days any project that‘s supposed to improve anything past supplying the basest needs is met with resistance.
It‘s always the dumb pseudo-intellectual counter-arguments that get passed around everywhere and get repeated ad-nauseum. While the replies to these and the positive sides just get forgotten about. No, anything we do has to be without any downsides at all. And even then most of the time people will just make shit up to rally around and fight you anyway.
I‘m so tired of this.

[Anonymous No.11359189]

>>11359140
3/16 - 9/16
That‘s quite the window...

[Anonymous No.11359202]

>>11359114
>this
no sooner than july/august, screencap this
also remember that the first prototype will definetely fly before the end of 2019

[Anonymous No.11359215]

>>11358592
the first trashcan, the Hopper, is still at the launch site

[Anonymous No.11359272]

>>11358485
Starliner never ever

[Anonymous No.11359299]

>>11359060
>>11359049
Deosn't matter, your vote literally does not count. If it did then Al Gore and Hillary would have been presidents.

[Anonymous No.11359302]

>>11358601
JWST'd

[Anonymous No.11359353]

The Europa Clipper is experiencing cost problems. The Europa Clipper is congressionally mandated to fly on SLS, however, NASA wants to fly it on a commercial vehicle. Having to design for an as of yet undecided launch vehicle may make things harder for the engineers. It doesn't say what the current problems are, but it's possible they could be having RF interference issues. You need some really sensitive radars to do the Europa Clipper mission and there a bunch of things that can cause interference. Even the solar panels interacting with jupiter's radiation might cause interference(inb4 RTGs, they were too expensive). These are difficult engineering problems, but there is no reason for any problems associated with designing it for multiple launch vehicles.

https://spacenews.com/europa-clipper-seeking-savings-as-cost-reserves-plummet/

[Anonymous No.11359354]

>>11359108
Bro, I'm talking about a net fusion power THRUSTER. If we have something that fits on a spacecraft, that thing can be built quickly, for cheap, and at the very least could be mass produced, before we consider things like scaling up a terrestrial version for power production.
My point is that before we have anything fusion power related that fits onto a spacecraft, we would have a fusion power source that beats everything nuclear and non-nuclear on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11359357]

>>11359299
Thank god it doesn't count.

[Anonymous No.11359380]

>>11359354
Oh. Fair enough then.

[Anonymous No.11359394]

>>11359353
>congressionally mandated to fly on SLS,
This is not how these decisions should be handled, who needs the be lined up and shot in order to put a stop to this kind of thinking?

[Anonymous No.11359397]

>>11359299
WAIT, ARE YOU TELLING ME WE GOT SOME KINDA
ELECTORAL COLLEGE SYSTEM 'N SHEEEIT?

[Anonymous No.11359413]

>>11359394
Glorious spaceflight armed revolution when?

[Anonymous No.11359424]

>>11359394
>This is not how these decisions should be handled, who needs the be lined up and shot in order to put a stop to this kind of thinking?

The only reason Europa Clipper exists is because of a certain Republican politician who has a passion for the aforementioned Jovian moon, to sell the idea to his colleagues he suggested it fly on SLS. This politician was recently unseated, leading to the death of follow-on mission (Europa Lander) but it’s predecessor is safe. It’s not like there aren’t legitimate technical reasons for flying it on SLS, as it’s payload to C3 is unmatched by any LV that exists or is planned to exist, making it the only LV that can send the 6-ton Clipper on a direct trajectory to Jupiter with no gravity assists; choosing any other vehicle to launch it will add years to it’s journey, this will force NASA to redesign the probe. The main problem with SLS for launching EC is core availability, with all the SLS cores currently being earmarked for crewed Artemis missions to the Moon. If it makes you happy, the infamous authorisation bill actually has language which will allow the White House/NASA to choose which LV it launches on.

[Anonymous No.11359438]

>>11359299
Weren‘t a few states gonna ally to subvert the electoral college for this election and make it pointless? Or is that not going to come together in time?

[Anonymous No.11359449]

>>11359424
It's not so bad so long as the reason for mandating that it use SLS is something more than "we have it, we have to use it".

[Anonymous No.11359457]

>>11359449
The entire purpose of the SLS is "Well, we have a hell of a lot of left over shuttle parts laying about in storage".

[Anonymous No.11359471]

>>11359424
Except the SLS that was supposed to launch Europa clipper can't because it's now part of Artemis 1. The engineers involved also want to use other launch vehicles. GAO has a nice write up of how they could save costs by not using SLS
>>11359449
that's why they mandated it, to give SLS something to do.

[Anonymous No.11359478]

>>11358657
>trump is anti elon musk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxEwTFJG1DQ
From 2 weeks ago. They've had disagreements, but Trump seems to respect Musk because he's a businessman who doesn't attack Trump at every opportunity.

[Anonymous No.11359481]

>>11359438
A state alone can't subvert the electoral college. Anyway, the entire electoral system is fairly outdated, given the assumptions made by the founding fathers:
>The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States.
Federalist 68
If they lived long enough to see the television or the internet, they would probably change their opinion. Of course the solution is a less democratic process, but that's never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11359498]

>>11358657
>kennedy brought us the moon, trust dem

Kennedy wanted to cancel it. Nationalism and the death of Kennedy is what brought us the Moon.

[Anonymous No.11359501]

>>11359478
What are the odds Trump announcing that he'll order a fleet of Starships to get a moon landing done fast, if the first Starship flies before the election starts up for real?

[Anonymous No.11359509]

>>11359501
I'd say the odds are very good that if Musk gets starship in flight within the next few months, Trump will tout it around like national triumph and invest fairly heavily in it. His whole thing is "he does what he says he's going to do" and going to moon was a pretty big one.

[Anonymous No.11359511]

>>11359030
they are all the same when it comes to space policy

heck, Trump may actually be the most progressive candidate when it comes to spaceflight, see here:

https://www.space.com/elon-musk-is-a-genius-trump-says.html

certainly more so than the likes of Bernie

[Anonymous No.11359534]

>>11359449
>>11359457

>It's not so bad so long as the reason for mandating that it use SLS is something more than "we have it, we have to use it".

Of course there’s some political influence to use it, but SLS is objectively the best vehicle for the mission due it’s superior Delta V to C3.

>>11359471

> Except the SLS that was supposed to launch Europa clipper can't because it's now part of Artemis 1.

You mean Artemis 3? EC has always been planned to launch on the 3rd core, but the Artemis program gave it a different purpose.

>The engineers involved also want to use other launch vehicles.

Because their worried about a SLS core not being available when EC’s ready to launch, they don’t want to keep it in storage until one is (which diminishes the advantage of the quicker trajectory SLS can send it on).

>GAO has a nice write up of how they could save costs by not using SLS

Europa Clipper’s estimated cost is $4.2 billion and that’s without the inevitable cost overruns. Ditching SLS will save you a billion, but you’ll have to redesign the probe for the longer trip which will probably end up costing the same.

Cost isn’t the main problem here with such an expensive piece of kit, it’s availability.

[Anonymous No.11359555]

>>11359397
Yup, guess which side invented it and guess which side won immediately after...guess which side has won when it has been used specifically to this effect? lol

[Anonymous No.11359568]

>>11359555
SO HOL UP HOL UP
YOU SAYIN'
HOL UP
WHUT YOU SAYIN' IZ
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY IZ BALANCED OUT SO THE COASTS DON'T RUN SHIT ALL THEMSELVES, 'N SHEEEEIT?!

[Anonymous No.11359573]

>>11359555
When exactly do you think it was invented?

[Anonymous No.11359588]

>>11359573
The party just changes names is all.

[Anonymous No.11359591]

>>11359568
Well currently the only states running anything are the few swing states. Everything that's consistently red or blue just gets entirely ignored.

[Anonymous No.11359606]

>>11359202
if the first few hops go well I'm predicting orbit before the end of 2019

[Anonymous No.11359613]

>>11359606
>>11359202
wait fuck it's 2020 already

[Anonymous No.11359694]

>>11359509
>NASA/Artemis forced to shit the bed by congress
>Space Force has fewer funding restrictions
>Space Force Sortie to the Moon

[Anonymous No.11359703]

>>11359694
>pure delusion

[Anonymous No.11359712]

>>11359703
If a President can redirect a set of about $10 billion in Pentagon funds on his discretion (which courts have determined he can), he could easily drop a few of those on Space Force for a few Starship flights.

[Anonymous No.11359715]

>>11359712
Only one monkey wrench in that plan, isn't "space force" under the chairforce?
Implying they'll do jack shit.

[Anonymous No.11359720]

>>11359715
>"space force" under the chairforce
no, it specifically exists to remove space operations from the airforce

[Anonymous No.11359726]

>>11359715
They have discretion about their budget, that was half the reason to create them in the first place. Just like the Marines and Navy, both of them have separate budgets. They're just under one administrative structure.

[Anonymous No.11359792]

aw shit best view yet of the in flight abort
https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/eylc4d/sorry_im_very_late_but_2_weeks_ago_i_managed_to/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x
Scott Manley alerted me to this

[Anonymous No.11359809]

https://youtu.be/ubCVpxLEOIA

[Anonymous No.11359812]

>>11358497
*FCC see >>11359140

[Anonymous No.11359859]

>here's your Mars rocket production facility bro
>Taco truck included

[Anonymous No.11359864]

>>11359859
Jeb approves.

[Anonymous No.11359877]

>>11359859

[Anonymous No.11359897]

>>11359859
top ke k

[Anonymous No.11359908]

>>11359864
If somebody with real skill could change the Jeb's to Elon's, that'd be perfect.

[Anonymous No.11359917]

>>11358652
People tend to consider BO because they have been fairly solid with their set dates, so when they say they are launching in 2021 it holds way more weight

[Anonymous No.11359924]

>>11359917
Plus, it's clear that they have lots going on behind the scenes. Their BE-4 got accepted by ULA over Aerojet Rocketdyne's engine. They got into USAF contracts with New Glenn without much trouble, whereas SpaceX had to sue to get contracts with their Falcon 9. Their factories and buildings are huge and have alot going on in them.

[Anonymous No.11359925]

>>11359924
>going on behind the scenes
Who cares what's going on behind the scenes when there's nothing going on in the skies? You can't computer simulate yourself into orbit.

[Anonymous No.11359932]

So, /sfg/. Do you have a super hardcore work ethic to work max hardcore on Starship?

[Anonymous No.11359933]

>>11359917
unless that date had anything at all to do with humans flying on New Shephard

[Anonymous No.11359937]

>>11359925
>You can't computer simulate yourself into orbit.
Yes you can. t. Boing

[Anonymous No.11359939]

>>11359478
I am mixed towards Trump, he's pro-space because it makes him look good, but he is more pro-old-space, which is really not what we need right now, he is the one reinvigorating the SLS shitshow.
>but Trump seems to respect Musk
Nah, this part is just wishful thinking, Trump may not drag Musk through the streets like he does with his opponents, but we know that Trump doesn't respect anyone that isn't on his side, and we don't even need to talk about Trump and Bezos

[Anonymous No.11359946]

>>11359937
Yeah, we all saw how well that worked.

[Anonymous No.11359967]

>>11358657
>trump is anti elon musk
Not really. If you look at history, Trump/Elon tweet at each other in key areas.

[Anonymous No.11359977]

>>11359939
>he is the one reinvigorating the SLS shitshow
Nah, he just went to his space people one time and told them he wants someone on the moon. Then the space people tell him they need billions of dollars. When Trump gives it to them to get people on the moon, they go and shove that money all the way up SLS' turbopumps.
Trump's not gonna involve himself deeper than "there is a moon rocket in production" and "it can carry people to the moon, given enough money and pressure".
He barely reads his memos as far as we know. He's not gonna involve himself deeply with project structures and rocketry.

[Anonymous No.11359997]

>>11359932
>4shift rotation

Fuck that shit

[Anonymous No.11359999]

>>11359997
?
That's overlapping 8 hour shifts, isn't it? What's wrong with that?

[Anonymous No.11360003]

>>11359999
14 - 22 is the gayest time ever to be at work

[Anonymous No.11360005]

>>11359997
Gets shit done tho

[Anonymous No.11360017]

>>11360003
Been there, done that. Still have fucked sleep patterns from shift rotations.

[Anonymous No.11360027]

>>11360003
Yeah that does sound like ass. I like nights though, used to work at a 24 hour sex shop from midnight to 8. Sleeping during the day always felt better to me.

[Anonymous No.11360116]

>>11359932
>MaxHardcore

ohshitpowerlevel

[Anonymous No.11360457]

>>11359591
>Everything that's consistently red or blue just gets entirely ignored.
>The partisan brainlets who fell for the party dichotomy meme just get entirely ignored.
>Just let us run everything like California and surely we'll have a magnificent space program.
Kill yourself coastie, the US would legitimately be better off if we fucking nuked Commiefornia off the map, at least then we could rebuild from the ground up like Japan did with Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or like the Germans did after the big dubya.

[Anonymous No.11360559]

>>11359977

Mars. He told them he wants someone on Mars.

And got told that we have to go to the Moon with SLS to go to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11360577]

>>11360559
explains his 'the moon is part of mars' tweet that everyone was trying to take the piss out of

[Anonymous No.11360601]

https://www.prweek.com/article/1672987/time-liftoff-blue-origin-hires-linda-mills-first-communications-head

For the first time in their history Blue have hired a head of communications. She’s a veteran of two of Seattle’s biggest corporations: Starbucks and Boeing (plane division). Maybe this move signals them taking a more proactive approach to PR.

[Anonymous No.11360676]

Trump just asked congress to fully fund artemis, its something at least!