/sfg/ Space Flight

[Anonymous No.11727838]

prev >>11724234

SN4 just had another static fire, DM2 has been delayed until Saturday, and SpaceX have their FAA license for suborbital flight testing.
SpaceX insurance rates for Starship testing have just increased to two hundred million dollars.
China has announced their space station plans for the next few years.

[Anonymous No.11727844]

https://www.strawpoll.me/20196984

[Anonymous No.11727855]

>>11727838
>>11727790
It's possible but it doesn't seem likely. It takes alot of work to get a station up and we don't have any announcements, plans, or funding, so I don't expect one anytime soon. She also said that she sees "great leaps making a comeback." Space Force Moon base? Nah, the Outer Space treaty prevents that. I think what the ad is alluding to is that Space Force will be involved in activities like those, but there's no guarantee that the Space Force members will physically go there any time soon.

[Anonymous No.11727862]

>>11727855
The Outer Space treaty does not ban moon bases,it bans nuclear weapons in space.

[Anonymous No.11727863]

>>11727855
Space Force are absolutely intrinsically linked with space object tracking, which is very important for rendezvous and such.

[Anonymous No.11727865]

>>11727855
>Nah, the Outer Space treaty prevents that.

Throw it in the trash lol

[Anonymous No.11727871]

>anime haters

[Anonymous No.11727872]

>rods from god
>rapidly deployable in-orbit soldiers with full kit
>self-focusing soliton particle beams with ranges in the thousands of miles

all 100% legal by the Outer Space Treaty.

[Anonymous No.11727876]

>>11727862
Military Moon bases, not civilian, commercial, private, or other forms.
>It exclusively limits the use of the Moon and other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes and expressly prohibits their use for testing weapons of any kind, conducting military maneuvers, or establishing military bases, installations, and fortifications (Article IV)

[Anonymous No.11727880]

>>11727871
>400 pounds
>500 zits
>Loves Japanese pedo cartoons

[Anonymous No.11727884]

>>11727855
>She also said that she sees "great leaps making a comeback." Space Force Moon base? Nah, the Outer Space treaty prevents that
You and what army? Nobody else has the ability to put more than tiny robots in TLI.

[Anonymous No.11727886]

>>11727865
Indeed. It was a good idea back in the day but now it's stupid and holding Humanity back.

[Anonymous No.11727888]

>>11727872
>rods from god
>100% legal by the Outer Space Treaty.
how?

[Anonymous No.11727894]

>>11727892
>>11727892
>>11727892
Here is the actual relevant thread

[Anonymous No.11727905]

>thread wars

[Anonymous No.11727914]

SpaceX has already finished their static fire campaign for the day

[Anonymous No.11727918]

>>11727914
>>>11727913
Wrong thread post on this one

[Anonymous No.11727939]

>>11727865
Please, Orion is too based for this shit

[Anonymous No.11727947]

>>11727939
That's a good point, I'm not sure how you could get away with claiming that the Orion/Medusa casaba howitzers aren't weapons

[Anonymous No.11727952]

>splitting threads over some trivial shit
God fucking damn it, STOP.

[Anonymous No.11727958]

>>11727952
Anime haters suffer from "cute aggression" due to underdeveloped brains.

[Anonymous No.11727961]

>>11727958
Anime lovers suffer from pedophilia and obesity due to their reliance on fantasy for amusement.

[Anonymous No.11727985]

How viable is something like pic related in orbit? Do fish rely on gravity or Earth's magnetic field for much or is it all just buoyancy modulated?

>>11727961
Thanks for proving his point.

[Anonymous No.11727990]

throwing away your fuel tanks is the stupidest thing I've ever heard, especially when most of the effort of building a stage is in the tanks (looking at you, ULA Vulcan with those machined isogrid tanks)

[Anonymous No.11727992]

>>11727985
Space fish?

[Anonymous No.11727996]

>>11727990
looking at you, airbus adeline concept

[Anonymous No.11727997]

>>11727992
Space fish.

[Anonymous No.11727998]

New thread
>>11727981
>>11727981
>>11727981
>>11727981
>>11727981
>>11727981

[Anonymous No.11728010]

>>11727985
>>11727992
water globes as fish farms?
it's O'Neil cylinder levels of difficulty
i imagine there has to be mechanism for cycling of nutrients to keep the water oxygenated and clean
why not just make cylinders? sounds easier

[Anonymous No.11728014]

>>11727888
>>OST nonsense
>how?
The OST and related paper are only about nuclear weapons not being staged in space due to response times. If you can figure out how to drop tungsten poles on people, or US Marines, from space, there are no treaties against it.

[Anonymous No.11728029]

>>11728010
the only difficulty is that you can't rely on convection to mix your water, so you get differentiation
much better to do small spin-grav can-on-string thing

[Anonymous No.11728038]

>>11728014
>or US Marines
SPACE Marines

[Anonymous No.11728049]

>>11728014
>States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

[Anonymous No.11728051]

>>11728049
rods from god are not weapons of mass destruction, they're bunker busters

[Anonymous No.11728071]

>26,000 ft airspace restriction for the next hop
hmmmmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11728088]

>>11728038
Swoon.
>>11728049
Weapons of Mass Destruction have a very specific definition in international law. Primarily nuclear but also includes chemical and biological weapons, sometimes includes radiological weapons. Doesn't include lasers, positron cascade systems, Tomahawks with heatshields, tungsten rods or other systems.
>inb4 some cop crying about an AR-15 or bowie knife being a weapon of mass distraction

[Anonymous No.11728096]

>Thread wars
DM-2 newfags were a mistake

[Anonymous No.11728098]

>>11727855
What makes you think we will stay in the outer space treaty?

[Anonymous No.11728102]

>>11727838

[Anonymous No.11728110]

>>11728088
check em, nice

[Anonymous No.11728111]

Will we start seeing longer duration static fires as the hop gets closer? Seems weird to only test it for a second when it will need to burn for at least 30 seconds during the hop.

[Anonymous No.11728114]

I’ll post it here too why not. Let’s say I get a weather balloon and haul up a rocket payload then launch it from the weather when around the time the weather balloon would of popped . It might technically be hard because weather balloons aren’t the most steady things and it’s be hard to get it to stay still. Plus the time weather balloons pop is variable but still possible. You could get it up pretty high. You’d probably also have to do something to the rocket so it’s work effectively despite being in a weak atmosphere. I wonder how high you could get it. Has anyone done this?

[Anonymous No.11728124]

>inb4 another starship blows up next month
almost like you can't do proper aerospace quality control in a field

[Anonymous No.11728125]

check it out, they've got a mylar blanket/wrap over something on the right side there
>>11728111
they did a seven second fire or so earlier
they might be limited by their hold-down clamps or the pad's ability to not shatter under the heat and load
the hard part is start-up and shut-down, anyway
>>11728114
you mean like a model rocket? anything heavier won't be able to be lifted by a weather ballooon

[Anonymous No.11728132]

>>11728114
It's been tried before and can work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rpj4B23tbhg

[Anonymous No.11728134]

>>11728132
wtf really, I didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to do a rockoon unless you were on Venus

[Anonymous No.11728161]

>>11728071
so they have a suborbital hop planned on June 1st

[Anonymous No.11728183]

EXOS Aerospace (the SARGE guys) just blew up their latest test vehicle, which makes me sad
they were fun to shitpost with

[Anonymous No.11728185]

>>11728124
>make it all in a cleanroom so your test articles made out of literal sheetsteel don't blow up
t. oldspace
in that time you could have tested and blown up a dozen starships and actually learned something from the various failure modes

[Anonymous No.11728193]

>>11728185
it's not like welding steal is a clean process either

[Anonymous No.11728203]

Blue Origin are still doing the thing

[Anonymous No.11728220]

>>11728203
How does spacex work so much faster then them? Haven't they been making new glenn for year snow?

[Anonymous No.11728232]

>>11728220
yes, I don't know why it's taking them so long to erect their launch pad

[Anonymous No.11728237]

>17 IP in the shitposting thread
>19 IP in this thread
hmmmmmm

[Anonymous No.11728239]

>>11728220
>How does spacex work so much faster then them?
From what I can tell... SpaceX is about failing fast and pushing forward because if they do stop then they have failed in their philosophy. Blue Origin works more like a typical aerospace agency, careful consideration and methodical development.

[Anonymous No.11728244]

>>11728239
>careful consideration
sitting at a desk soaking up Jeff Bezo's money
>methodical development
not spending that money on accomplishing anything

[Anonymous No.11728245]

>>11728232
It's in the name.
>Blue Origin
>Blue
They're stalling in the hopes of Trump losing reelection so his Democrat replacement gets the credit. You know how the Washington Post is rabidly anti Trump? Same owner.

[Anonymous No.11728251]

>>11728220
Bezos is hands-off and happy to let things go slow while he focuses on Amazon. The employees are happy to take their time and enjoy the steady paycheck.
Musk is hands-on, wants to go to space, and will eat your soul to absorb your power if he sees you slacking off.

[Anonymous No.11728255]

>>11728244
I didn't say it was the best way.

[Anonymous No.11728256]

>>11728237
Yeah I will move into this thread then and re-post.

>Skimming through the FAA license, Starship could potentially attempt a hop from Thursday since they have to give 3 business days to declare nominal thrust profile and how much propellant is being loaded.
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Final_%20License%20and%20Orders%20SpaceX%20Starship%20Prototype%20LRLO%2020-119)lliu1.pdf

>>11728071
I would have thought the FAA would demand the 3 day rule to apply from when the license was given. But then again since the application has been private until now it might have been agreed a few days ago giving them time to send the data early.

[Anonymous No.11728258]

>be muttmerican
>can’t fly in rain
OH NONONONO HAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.11728268]

>>11728258
can't fly near Florida thunderstorms, anon
you wouldn't understand if you've never experienced the American Southeast

[Anonymous No.11728278]

>>11728274
>>11728274
>>11728274
>>11728274
>>11728274
NEW THREAD GET IN HERE

[Anonymous No.11728279]

>>11728268
Hurricanes are named after a Mayan storm god for a reason.

[Anonymous No.11728280]

>>11728258
Go on anon, tell us all about your country's space program

[Anonymous No.11728284]

>>11728278

[Anonymous No.11728285]

>>11728134
>rockoon
My first mental image was of a trash panda playing electric guitar.

[Anonymous No.11728291]

>>11728098
The Trump admin's Artemis Accords are built on the Outer Space Treaty, so it doesn't look like we intend to get out of the OST any time soon.

[Anonymous No.11728292]

remember: report and ignore
>>11728279
is that where the name comes from?
>>11728285
pic related: everybody who has ever proposed a rockoon

[Anonymous No.11728309]

>>11728292
>is that where the name comes from?
Yep.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huracan

[Anonymous No.11728311]

>>11728309
cool

[Anonymous No.11728319]

I'm interested to see the viewer falloff from the scrub(s). It's sad, yesterday got lot of buzz, doubt it will get even 3/4ths of it this weekend.

[Anonymous No.11728321]

IMAGE LIMIT REACHED NEW THREAD
>>11728274
>>11728274
>>11728274
>>11728274

[Anonymous No.11728327]

>>11728319
less people will be working on the weekend

[Anonymous No.11728328]

>>11728321

[Anonymous No.11728335]

>>11728319
it's important to note that the SpaceX youtube stream was unlisted and only available from their website, while the NASA youtube stream was available from youtube search

[Anonymous No.11728336]

>>11728335
NASA's stream was on the front page of YT.

[Anonymous No.11728345]

>>11728336
that too

[Anonymous No.11728347]

>>11728335
It's also not counting twitch, which was around 50k (and various streamers). It's also my favorite way to watch, watching NASA scramble to contain the chat is great

[Anonymous No.11728349]

>>11728319
Trump will be there again and people won't be working, so you never know.

[Anonymous No.11728359]

>>11728349
I'll be watching again
three million is a lot of eyeballs

[Anonymous No.11728410]

Fucking tourists
>we deserved
Fuck you there a private entienity trying to colonize the stars, they don't owe you fucking shit.

[Anonymous No.11728426]

>>11728410
they could have broken up those vertical lines a bit to be fair. There's room for improvement design-wise, but complaining about it in the face of all the amazing things they're doing is pretty pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11728468]

>>11727876
Wait so does the mean the USSF could never establish a moon base? This entire treaty seems like it would immediately be over turned the second china violates it.

[Anonymous No.11728479]

>>11728468
It's probably already being ignored. I'll bet the US has a few space nukes, and maybe Russia. As soon as it's technologically feasible to violate the "no military activity on the Moon" thing, that's going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11728760]

I'm planning on applying to various jobs in Antarctica. I think spending a few months there will improve my chances of being first in queue for Mars missions.
Anyone else applying?

[Anonymous No.11728778]

>>11728285
>>11728285
>This exists
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNEe6pEJgBs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlRN3CHr0iY

[Anonymous No.11728860]

>>11728760
No

[None !niqjediPCA No.11728865]

>>11727838

[Anonymous No.11729335]

>>11728760
That's probably a good idea yeah, I don't know if a lot of astronauts have Antarctica missions in their background

[Anonymous No.11729345]

>>11728203
Uhhh I‘m constroocting

[Anonymous No.11729362]

>>11729345
thank you, Jeff

[Anonymous No.11729409]

I sure am glad that all the anime-hating shitposters left this thread alone

[Anonymous No.11729484]

how about Lori Garver's new book?

[Anonymous No.11729486]

[Anonymous No.11729564]

>>11729484
She wants NASA to stop focusing on Space Exploration and instead form community teams to tackle climate change.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-new-manned-missions-in-space-nasa-should-focus-on-saving-earth/2019/07/18/79e55eb8-a995-11e9-9214-246e594de5d5_story.html


Please don't utter her name.
Do you know what the A & S in NASA stand for?

[Anonymous No.11729571]

>>11729564
Aeronautics
Sucking
she's an idiot, yes, but she's badmouthing congress, which is nice

[Anonymous No.11729597]

New thread
>>11729589
>>11729589
>>11729589
>>11729589

[Anonymous No.11729603]

Farewell HTV-9

[Anonymous No.11729609]

>>11729603
what, is this the last one?
I thought Japan was still making them

[Anonymous No.11729612]

>>11729609
HTV-X replaces it.

[Anonymous No.11729615]

>>11729612
What's the difference? Is it any more useful for dropping big rocks on australia?

[Anonymous No.11729620]

everybody talks about the launch, but I still don't know how long their mission will last.

[Anonymous No.11729621]

>>11729615
It's like Dragon and Dragon 2. New and improved. Cheaper, more reliable.

[Anonymous No.11729622]

>>11729620
neither does NASA lmao

[Anonymous No.11729623]

Why are there 2 threads? Go to this one it has a lot more discussion in it
>>11727892
>>11727892

[Anonymous No.11729631]

>>11729623
nah, come to this one it was first

[Anonymous No.11729679]

pictured: Starships in Boca Chica

[Anonymous No.11729782]

>>11728468
Yes it means no military activities except in space itself. China ignores international agreements all the time but nothing happens except stern words. Though I suspect that if it becomes serious enough then the US or other countries will officially leave the OST, similar to how the US left the INF treaty due to Russian non-compliance.

[Anonymous No.11729791]

>>11728760
I was going to do that too, and the HI-SEAS in Hawaii. Most of my work was going to be in regular industry though since you'll need practical experience for going to Mars.

[Anonymous No.11729844]

Goddamn everything is lining up to be another Apollo 8 / race riots sorta thing with Demo-2 and Minneapolis

[Anonymous No.11729855]

>>11729844
that's fucked up

[Anonymous No.11729856]

[Anonymous No.11729875]

>>11729844
it really does feel like I read about right now in a history book.

[Anonymous No.11729888]

>>11729856
Not if a REAL AMERICAN has anything to say about it.

[Anonymous No.11729889]

>>11729844
space x will not work out, I know it. Elon is a fraud, a fake propped up by the american media

[Anonymous No.11729955]

>>11729623
>doesn‘t have sfg in the subject
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.11730008]

@11729889
Shut up commie

[Anonymous No.11730041]

>>11729844
What makes you think that? I haven't heard anyone made a connection between DM-2 and Minneapolis.

[Anonymous No.11730042]

>My eldest is 8 years old and he LOVES this stuff. Thank you NASA! It's so so interesting. Last night i asked him what a star we saw was and he said it's not a star it's a satlite. HOW SMART IS THAT?! I can't believe it.

[Anonymous No.11730052]

>>11730042
fuck off, most of us here were once that kid
let them enjoy the wonders of the universe

[Anonymous No.11730055]

>>11730052
I don't think he's commenting on the kid being interested in space. I think he's commenting on parents showing off how "smart" their kids are.

[Anonymous No.11730056]

LIVE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

[Anonymous No.11730057]

>>11730056
what's this
uwu it's Big Jim

[Anonymous No.11730060]

>>11730057
May 29, Friday

10 a.m. - Administrator Countdown Clock Briefing (weather permitting) featuring:

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine
Kennedy Space Center Director Bob Cabana
NASA astronaut Kjell Lindgren
NASA astronaut Nicole Mann

[Anonymous No.11730063]

>>11730060
I really like Big Jim
he's very large

[Anonymous No.11730064]

>>11730056
I don't know why they're doing so much damage control over the scrub. "Bad weather—wasn't safe enough" isn't a hard concept.

[Anonymous No.11730067]

>>11730064
If you missed some of the shitposting here, then there does seem to be alot of people who interpreted the scrubbed landing as a sign that SpaceX rockets can't handle a small cloud.

[Anonymous No.11730068]

[Anonymous No.11730071]

>>11730068
>Florida thunderstorms
>again
fucking hell

[Anonymous No.11730072]

>>11730071
That's Kennedy Scrub Center for you.

[Anonymous No.11730073]

>>11730068
down from last report at least, I guess

[Anonymous No.11730076]

Big Jim says no launching in thunderstorms

[Anonymous No.11730080]

you'd better listen to Big Jim

[Anonymous No.11730083]

>>11730076
>SA-507

[Anonymous No.11730087]

>>11730076
you ever thought about how Big Jim looks like Ben Rothlesburger?

[Anonymous No.11730102]

2nd and 3rd may be added as additional days.

[Anonymous No.11730103]

>>11729889
I'm going to take your shitbait, Musk is fucking hated by the media who still have no problem using him to get clicks.

[Anonymous No.11730104]

>>11730102
for SN4, DM2, China or what

[Anonymous No.11730106]

>>11730103
>I won't take your bait!
>takes the bait
anon, I...

[Anonymous No.11730107]

>>11729564

That's a misrepresentation. NASA would still be doing exploration with commercial partners like SpaceX and Blue Origin.

[Anonymous No.11730109]

>>11730104
DM2
7+8 are already reserved, but they are looking into adding 2+3

[Anonymous No.11730110]

>>11730103
They're just jealous that he's shaking up the industry while they're sitting around contributing to stagnation.

[Anonymous No.11730111]

>>11730106
He said he'd taken the bait, dumb fuck

[Anonymous No.11730118]

>>11730111

[Anonymous No.11730170]

https://twitter.com/gpallone13/status/1265382592238571520
fucking love Florida

[Anonymous No.11730233]

ah, fuck
https://youtu.be/7YaFsUWgN3s
they're doing another static fire today

[Anonymous No.11730244]

>cant launch because of weather
We need more spaceports. Is Wallops off the table?

[Anonymous No.11730256]

https://spacenews.com/spacenews-webinar-back-to-the-moon-private-partnerships-for-lunar-landers/
Dynetics are live with a webinar. It's on facebook, so I can't post a direct link.

[Anonymous No.11730270]

>>11728124
>inb4 another starship blows up next month
that’s the point

[Anonymous No.11730285]

>>11728220
Blue Origion is Bezo’s ego project. It’s not meant to get us into space.
>>11730071
Why was the spaceport built in Florida. Florida has the worse weather anywhere in the US.

[Anonymous No.11730287]

>>11730285
>Why was the spaceport built in Florida. Florida has the worse weather anywhere in the US.
Close to the equator, so easier to launch to orbit.
Rockets fly over the ocean so they don't drop booster on people's houses like china.

[Anonymous No.11730293]

Hope they name DM2 as Trampoline!

[Anonymous No.11730296]

>>11730285
It's hard to say. Bezo's seems legitimately behind Blue Origin and to have a good philosophy on it especially in early interviews.

It's no shameful thing to not move at the ridiculous pace of SpaceX. Elon was prepared to lose the vast majority of his fortune on SpaceX. Bezos isn't like that and who knows he may have inspired Elon to start SpaceX.

I have a good feeling Blue Origin will hit their stride and deliver in a few decades.

[Anonymous No.11730304]

>>11730296
Bezos could throw away Elon's fortune several times over and still be a top 10 richest man on Earth

[Anonymous No.11730308]

>>11730304
but he's not prepared to. Taht's the difference.

[Anonymous No.11730341]

>9 tourists on 3 separate missions to the ISS are scheduled for launch next year
The Second Space Age is bringing about the promises that the First failed to deliver.

>>11730256
Anything interesting?

[Anonymous No.11730362]

>>11730287
>Close to the equator
Hawaii is closer

[Anonymous No.11730372]

>>11730362
But it's an extreme pain in the ass to transport fuel, vehicle and payloads to Hawaii

[Anonymous No.11730376]

>>11730362
there exist proposals to build a spaceport in Hawaii, but the Hawaiians don't want it because they know all the high-paying jobs will just be imported and the shitty low-paying jobs aren't worth the environmental, noise or visual impacts on the island.

[Anonymous No.11730380]

>>11730376
In other words, Hawaiians are unironic savages, as always. We failed to colonize.

[Anonymous No.11730404]

>>11730380
Right now they're still requiring people who enter to quarantine for two weeks. Even people coming from one of the other islands! And you thought Michigan's governor half-Witmer was bad.
Since most of their economy depends on tourism, their economy is totally in shit right now.

[Anonymous No.11730406]

>>11730362
Setting up an offshore platform would be even closer.

[Anonymous No.11730415]

>>11730380
nah, commercial spaceports are a meme. The real idiots are the ones in Arizona who gave billions to build "Spaceport America" that is never going to get used.

[Anonymous No.11730416]

Next time, can we get a summary of recent events in the OP?

[Anonymous No.11730417]

>>11730415
Virgin Galactic moved their headquarters to Spaceport America. All of their future flights will be out of it.

[Anonymous No.11730419]

>>11730406
This was my thought, park four oil rig platforms together, get them settled and then weld the tops together and build a launch pad on top. Free water for a flame director, lots of distance from populated areas gives both security and allows for bigger, louder launches without disturbing people. It also allows you to isolate your propellant stores to the maximum degree, you could keep a pair of tankers parked half a kilometer away from the platform until they're needed for launch fueling.

[Anonymous No.11730421]

>>11730417
thanks for proving my point

[Anonymous No.11730424]

>>11730415
>commercial spaceports are a meme
where do you think most starship launches will happen from

[Anonymous No.11730429]

>>11730421
You said it's not going to get used, but I just said it was getting used and that somehow proved your point?

[Anonymous No.11730430]

>>11730424
for their existing contracts? Canaveral

[Anonymous No.11730438]

>>11730430
>for their existing contracts? Canaveral
The vast majority of starship launches (at least for now) will be company launches (starlink, mars colonization preparations) from the South Texas Launch Site.

[Anonymous No.11730445]

>tfw you will never be groped by Space TSA before you board Starship for the moon

[Anonymous No.11730447]

>>11730438
Ok, but there's a difference between building a launch site right next to your spaceship factory for convenience (I wouldn't call that a "spaceport") and building an entire facility in the middle of nowhere making promises to the state and the locals that they're going to be the hub of an industry that doesn't exist yet

[Anonymous No.11730449]

>>11730445
I wonder when the first incident of space terrorism will occur

[Anonymous No.11730452]

>>11730447
>I wouldn't call that a "spaceport"
Why not? A spaceport's primary function is to try to make launches as easy as possible for both cargo and people.

[Anonymous No.11730453]

>>11730447
>I wouldn't call that a spaceport
But it literally IS a spaceport that will likely end up having thousands of launches per year. Also, you're right about that but who knows, SpaceX might have some launches from there one day.
>an industry that doesn't exist yet
It will exist in a couple years.

[Anonymous No.11730456]

>>11730447
The Texas launch site is literally becoming a spaceport. When in operation it will be a place in which rockets are regularly launched and landed, as well as constructed and maintained.

[Anonymous No.11730462]

>>11730452
>>11730456
You wouldn't call an airplane company's private airstrip an airport.

[Anonymous No.11730467]

>>11730462
If they were sending people across the nation who aren't part of the airport company, you would.

[Anonymous No.11730476]

>>11730462
If I could potentially pay for a flight from them, then yes I would.

[Anonymous No.11730497]

Did we ever get a concrete reason for the AMOS-6 failure during fuel loading?

[Anonymous No.11730508]

>>11730497
Yes. One of the helium pressurant tanks inside one of the liquid oxygen tanks failed due to an unforeseen interaction between the pressurant tank material and liquid oxygen.

[Anonymous No.11730536]

>>11730497
I think crystalline oxygen formed in the COPV weaves or something

[Anonymous No.11730563]

>>11730462
Ok then, spacce-STRIP you semantic cunt.

[Anonymous No.11730564]

>>11730497
Tory Bruno shot it with a gun.

[Anonymous No.11730596]

Have you ever met one of those "we shouldn't go to space when we have problems on Earth" people in-person? What were they like?

pic unrelated

[Anonymous No.11730599]

>>11730536
IIRC, thermodynamics effects when filling the COPV with helium cooled the oxygen enough that it solidified. Then thermal effects caused the COPV to shrink so it compressed the solid oxygen which caused the carbon from the COPV and the oxygen to ignite then boom

[Anonymous No.11730604]

>>11730596
No but I do meet people with NASA shirts that don’t know we went to the moon again with 12,14,15,16,17

[Anonymous No.11730618]

a crowd gathered to see demo 2
it's going to be even worse tomorrow

[Anonymous No.11730621]

>>11730596
It's one of those attitudes like "I'm not to blame for anything, didn't you see the study that says the largest corporations pollute more than all the individual people?" where it allows them to feel smug while actively opposing improving anything.

[Anonymous No.11730629]

New thread let this one die
>>11730549
>>11730549
>>11730549

[Anonymous No.11730633]

>>11730629
>let the active thread die
>join the one made after this one was

Fuck off

[Anonymous No.11730638]

>>11730629
go away

[Anonymous No.11730640]

>>11730629
No.

[Anonymous No.11730641]

>>11730170
>they named the gators

kek

For all the bullshit with the weather, KSC is more soulful than Baikanour ultimately

[Anonymous No.11730642]

>>11730629
This thread has another 100 posts till the bump limit, why make a new one?

[Anonymous No.11730650]

>>11730641
Can't wait to see this re-created with starhips one day.

[Anonymous No.11730658]

>>11727981
I don't understand why we didn't just go for a single stick SRB with capsule for reaching ISS we clearly had the technology and it was easier to abort from the rocket if the SRB's happened to go wrong than with shuttle, instead we had to ride with the russians for 9 years

Not even talking about Constellation and ARES but just reaching ISS

Something badass about riding to space on a chugging SRB vs. liquid rockets desu

[Anonymous No.11730663]

>>11730658
>Something badass about riding to space on a chugging SRB vs. liquid rockets desu
Why? SRB's are outdated and less safe.

[Anonymous No.11730667]

>>11730663
Much simpler in a way, and even more simplified design with a single stick like Ares 1 than the risky shit the shuttle did

[Anonymous No.11730674]

>>11730658
>I don't understand why we didn't just go for a single stick SRB with capsule for reaching ISS we clearly had the technology and it was easier to abort from the rocket if the SRB's happened to go wrong than with shuttle, instead we had to ride with the russians for 9 years
Because of two major reasons. One, the SRB caused so much vibration for the rest of the rocket that it was impossible for the crew to be able to see and manipulate the instrument panel in the event of an emergency. Two, a massive SRB was incredibly dangerous to abort from as the abort procedure had to involve unzipping the SRB body creating a large cloud of burning propellant that would destroy the parachute of the escaped capsule.

[Anonymous No.11730683]

>>11730596
>Have you ever met one of those "we shouldn't go to space when we have problems on Earth" people in-person?
Yes.
> What were they like?
Every single one was black or Jewish. Admittedly I haven't met enough space haters to constitute a true representative sample, but still.

[Anonymous No.11730692]

>>11730674
Do you think any of these problems could have been worked on and fixed and ultimately mitigated within less time than it took for us to get to now... instead of having Obama cancel the entire constellation program leaving us reliant on the Russians for so long

[Anonymous No.11730693]

>>11730667
Yes a suicide stick is a much simpler way of getting yourself killed in rocketry compared to safer methods of propulsion. Also great for keeping aging dinosaur companies on life support.

[Anonymous No.11730695]

>>11730596
Unironically like this. Very black, very liberal, very fat.

[Anonymous No.11730701]

>>11730642
Newfags will do newfag things

[Anonymous No.11730706]

>>11730674
Just use a much more powerful SRB for the abort stage that clears the first stick faster than it can catch up to it

[Anonymous No.11730707]

>>11730629
>Desperately samefaging to keep his thread alive
Fucking DM-2 tourists....

[Anonymous No.11730709]

daily reminder that mutts are scared of rain lmao

[Anonymous No.11730710]

>>11730706
>SRB for the abort stage
Anon.... I.....

[Anonymous No.11730714]

>>11730658
>had to ride with the Russians
No one forced you to, you begged Russians to let you on their spaceship

looking at the absolute state of gay-x you’d be back to begging again

[Anonymous No.11730715]

>>11730695
I'll say it again
she doesn't look hungry

[Anonymous No.11730718]

>Hop probably won't happen until a few days after the DM-2 launch
>Launch probably won't happen until Tuesday
Why are we here? Just to suffer?

[Anonymous No.11730720]

>>11730710
Fuck it, just make it all SRB's

>1st Stage
SRB

>2nd Stage
SRB

>3nd Stage
SRB

>Abort Motor
SRB

>RCS/OMS System
SRB

[Anonymous No.11730724]

>>11730642
>>11730640
>>11730642
Because we don't need split Threads and this thread has been trash anyway
>>11730549
>>11730549
>>11730549

[Anonymous No.11730730]

>>11730714
>looking at the absolute state of gay-x you’d be back to begging again
Glass houses etc.

[Anonymous No.11730736]

>>11730730
I miss buran imagine buran and the shuttle at the ISS together

[Anonymous No.11730737]

>>11727838
Waiiiit they have to pay two hundred million for the insurance or that's what they get if they cash in?

[Anonymous No.11730740]

>>11730724
Stop shitting up the general fucking faggot. Go samefag in your own thread, we'll join you when this one hits the bump limit.

[Anonymous No.11730741]

>>11730692
>Do you think any of these problems could have been worked on and fixed and ultimately mitigated within less time than it took for us to get to now..
No. The vibration issue was serious, and there were few practical solutions to it. Also the launch escape issue could've been mitigated somewhat, but still a danger to the crew.

>>11730706
Doable. I think the SLS uses a beefy escape system, the problem is that Orion is a very heavy capsule and any solution to the vibration issue would also be heavy which leaves little mass for a larger escape system.

>>11730720
>Fuck it, just make it all SRB's
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhdrCxin7A0

[Anonymous No.11730744]

>>11730718
SN4 static fire imminent

[Anonymous No.11730747]

We've got another static fire coming up, siren was 10 minutes ago and we're waiting on big flare

[Anonymous No.11730751]

Get in here: https://youtu.be/7YaFsUWgN3s

[Anonymous No.11730752]

>>11730724
This thread is good enough. Stop being a spastic shit and start acting like an adult.

[Anonymous No.11730754]

>>11730692
Listen to McCarthy in the 50s and 60s before the communist destroy america

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BclyVYo0Tc

[Anonymous No.11730756]

>>11730744
But it's not a HOP.
Wanna see that baby fly.

[Anonymous No.11730759]

>>11730724
reported for spamming.

[Anonymous No.11730763]

>>11730714
Not like we had any viable alternatives thanks to Congress meddling with and killing off the best Shuttle replacement we could have gotten leaving us without any option

[Anonymous No.11730773]

braap

[Anonymous No.11730775]

>>11730741
You're telling me Ares was doomed from the start?

[Anonymous No.11730777]

Oh holy shit

[Anonymous No.11730778]

>>11730763
>Memespikes
>Single meme to orbit
No thanks

[Anonymous No.11730779]

AAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.11730785]

Ripperoni and cheese

[Anonymous No.11730786]

SN4 just blew up

[Anonymous No.11730788]

RIP SN4
RIP TESTING SITE
RIP SN4
RIP TESTING SITE
RIP SN4
RIP TESTING SITE
RIP SN4
RIP TESTING SITE

[Anonymous No.11730789]

F

[Anonymous No.11730792]

wew

[Anonymous No.11730794]

F SN4 , did the 02 ignite on the flair?

[Anonymous No.11730795]

>>11730777
>If it was methane it would be igniting in the flare, correct?
>Uh...
>*BOOM*

That was some timing

[Anonymous No.11730796]

Why do I get the feeling media will pick up on this failure and try to connect it to DEMO-2 in a fearmongering sorta way

[Anonymous No.11730802]

>>11730796
Because that's what the media does. Honestly I'm surprised they even were doing testing after musk saying DM-2 is the only focus right now.

[Anonymous No.11730805]

>>11730796
Oh you know its gonna happen if they aren't already pre-written. Will likely see an article within a couple of hours either way.

[Anonymous No.11730806]

>was watching SN4 live stream
>needed to take a dump
>go to the bathroom
>come back
>SN4 is gone
>mrw

[Anonymous No.11730807]

that boom was kino, makes it worth it desu

[Anonymous No.11730810]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.11730812]

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

[Anonymous No.11730813]

>>11730807
Is there a wider view angle from anywhere? That boom was probably spectacular.

[Anonymous No.11730818]

Looks like we wont be getting no hop monday

[Anonymous No.11730819]

That explosion definitely fucked up the stand and testing site. This is going to be a month setback at least

[Anonymous No.11730820]

Yikes

[Anonymous No.11730827]

>New questions raised for safety of SpaceX NASA Demo-2 mission in light of CATASTROPHIC FAILURE EXPLOSION BOOM OF SPACE X NEW ROCKET DESIGN

[Anonymous No.11730831]

[Anonymous No.11730833]

Not a good sign that raptor tubing is falling apart after one fire.

[Anonymous No.11730838]

[Anonymous No.11730839]

>>11730831
NO ONE CARES
NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANIME OR WEEBS EXCEPT YOU
FUCK OFF YOU THREAD SPLITTING FAGGOT

[Anonymous No.11730844]

[Anonymous No.11730845]

>>11730596
Those retards don't understand that going to space is the best way long-term to solve our problems on Earth.

[Anonymous No.11730848]

https://streamable.com/xkk01w

[Anonymous No.11730849]

>>11730839
take your meds

[Anonymous No.11730850]

Man-rating these tin cans is never going to happen.

[Anonymous No.11730851]

the mass simulator got launched up very fast

[Anonymous No.11730854]

>fourth failed Starship prototype in a row
How many is it going to be? How many failed Falcon landings before SpaceX got it down?

[Anonymous No.11730856]

REMINDER: This is the 5th prototype spacex has blown up. Anyone who thinks we are seeing an orbital launch this year is completely delusional.

[Anonymous No.11730857]

>>11730851
wonder where it ended up, thats one heavy chunk.

[Anonymous No.11730858]

I want to FUCK an alien.
I don't care if it's some incomprehensible mass of weird alien biology, I WILL find a way to stimulate its genital-equivalents.

[Anonymous No.11730860]

>>11730854
iirc he said he expects to get to 20 before he gets to a stable vehicle

[Anonymous No.11730863]

>>11730741
>The vibration issue was serious, and there were few practical solutions to it.

>The mitigation approach developed by the Ares engineering team included active and passive vibration damping, adding an active tuned-mass absorber and a passive "compliance structure" – essentially a spring-loaded ring that would have detuned the Ares I stack.[28] NASA also pointed out that, since this would have been a new launch system, like the Apollo or Space Shuttle systems, it was normal for such problems to arise during the development stage.[29] According to NASA, analysis of the data and telemetry from the Ares I-X flight showed that vibrations from thrust oscillation were within the normal range for a Space Shuttle flight.[30]

[Anonymous No.11730868]

>>11730860
Jesus Christ. I know SpaceX is all about failing fast and moving on, but that seems like too much.

[Anonymous No.11730869]

>>11730856
Considering they almost make more then one prototype a month, I don't think you are right.

[Anonymous No.11730870]

>>11730857
IM FREEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11730872]

[Anonymous No.11730873]

OH NO NO NO
>>11730577

[Anonymous No.11730876]

ANTI-ANIME SCHIZO BTFO

[Anonymous No.11730877]

Seems like the methane line broke, started releasing copious amounts of methane rapidly, which led to the cloud eventually touching the flare stack and igniting.

[Anonymous No.11730878]

>>11730775
Yes. Mainly because it had to use major Shuttle hardware, and any program that has to do that also has to deal with the shitty Shuttle management and oversight. Remember, that the management is so bad that it took NASA almost a decade to develop a new propellant tank.

[Anonymous No.11730881]

>>11730873
>>11730876
MODS=GODS

[Anonymous No.11730884]

>>11730873
Gloating is counterproductive and off-topic, stop it and move on.

[Anonymous No.11730885]

>>11730873
>>11730876
Finally the jannies are doing their jobs.

[Anonymous No.11730886]

>>11730878
>shitty Shuttle management and oversight.
that is one aspect of NASA Human spaceflight program I do not miss

[Anonymous No.11730888]

That was an aesthetic explosion! And the tanks were probably only partially full. Imagine SH going boom...
Either way, they for sure got good data from the test.

[Anonymous No.11730892]

>A study released in July 2009 by the 45th Space Wing of the US Air Force concluded that an abort 30–60 seconds after launch would have a ~100% chance of killing all crew, due to the capsule being engulfed until ground impact by a cloud of 4,000 °F (2,200 °C) solid propellant fragments, which would melt the capsule's nylon parachute material. NASA's study showed the crew capsule would have flown beyond the more severe danger

Fuck, it's so badass but so risky and infeasible maybe its better Ares got canned

[Anonymous No.11730894]

>>11730888
>Either way, they for sure got good data from the test.
Honestly I doubt they got much good data. Anything they could possibly investigate is in pieces all over the coast.

[Anonymous No.11730898]

KNOCK KNOCK, OPEN UP THE DOOR, IT'S REAL!
WITH THE NON-STOP POP-POP OF STAINLESS STEEL!

[Anonymous No.11730899]

>>11730886
Unfortunately, the only way to fix it is to get rid of Shuttle hardware as a possibility for NASA. That's how the management stays in power.

[Anonymous No.11730904]

Incoming SoyX cope:
>“That’s a shame [currentSN#] has RUD’d, but [part] has no doubt been redesigned anyway, and I’m sure [SN#+1] will be along in a matter of days! I have a good feeling [SN#+1] is the one that will make the hop, no doubt in just a couple of weeks!”

Or if you’re feeling really bummed, put on a forced grin and say:
>“This is actually a good thing!! More data!! If you’re not blowing things up you’re not innovating fast enough!!” [breaks down into sobs]

[Anonymous No.11730906]

>>11730899
Yeah that's not happening any time soon is it then

[Anonymous No.11730908]

they worked on SN4 for 3 months, day and night, and yet it still blew up...
are they even trying?

[Anonymous No.11730909]

>>11730868
Compared to what?

[Anonymous No.11730911]

that beautiful explosion

[Anonymous No.11730913]

>>11730908
Sn5 is already stacked, SN6 I think is finishing up stacking, and SN7 is under construction.

The damage to the site and the loss of Raptor SN20 is going to be more of a hurt than the loss of SN4.

[Anonymous No.11730915]

25% speed

[Anonymous No.11730916]

>>11730906
Wait a fucking minute, isn't SLS just Ares V with a new name

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

[Anonymous No.11730919]

>>11730908
Seems like it might of been a test configuration error involved with the methane line

[Anonymous No.11730920]

>>11730908

Who care they even has SN6

[Anonymous No.11730922]

>>11730909
Compared to many other rocket programs, or even SpaceX's own Falcon program. Usually it takes about four rockets at most until all of the major issues are ironed out. With Starship, it seems like SpaceX is having some bad luck.

[Anonymous No.11730923]

>>11730763
Venture Star could have been cool if it were completely different, but unfortunately it was the way it was, so it was shit.

[Anonymous No.11730924]

>>11730915
hop for the concrete block was a success, good job team

[Anonymous No.11730926]

Was it supposed to blow up? Were they testing stress or something

[Anonymous No.11730928]

>>11730915
Looks like an engine failure? Or at least something to do with engine plumbing?

[Anonymous No.11730930]

>>11730923
Wow what a terrible opinion that is wrong in every way as well.

Aerospikes were proven to be more economical and effective than traditional nozzles by Lockheed testing

[Anonymous No.11730932]

>>11730915
did they even weld the mass simulator to the top lmao, i wouldnt be surprised if a boing sniper did this.

[Anonymous No.11730933]

>>11730922
>it seems like SpaceX is having some bad luck.
Or maybe building rockets in an open field just isn't a good way of doing thing.

[Anonymous No.11730936]

>>11730926
maybe the additional stress from the weight on the troublesome thrust puck broke something

[Anonymous No.11730940]

we got too fucking cocky AGAIN muskbros

[Anonymous No.11730941]

>>11730876
That is such a retarded ban for them to give out. Anime images in the OP are detracting from /sfg/ and they shouldn't be used.

Fuck jannies, fuck mods, fuck the transexuals of /sfg/, and most importantly fuck most of the anime posters who started this mess by baiting retards into replying to them by repeating posting anime reaction images and then starting this awful thread.

[Anonymous No.11730942]

>>11730928
Engine was hot from the static fire and they had methane pouring on it, I guess?

[Anonymous No.11730943]

>>11730940
clouds, now this!!! its over.

[Anonymous No.11730945]

>>11730941
fuck you

[Anonymous No.11730946]

>>11730877
The ignition point was the bottom of SN4, not the flare stack. Remember that the flare stack is actually a long distance from the prototype, it just looks close because of the angle where the camera is set up.

[Anonymous No.11730947]

>>11730941
The only one distracted by the anime in the OP is you.

[Anonymous No.11730948]

>>11730873
>>11730876
Wow way to kill a good thread, OP should have known jannies are fat neckbeards but still there is no reason we should have /a/ fags taking over threads. Can we make it a rule that there should be no anime in the OP?

[Anonymous No.11730950]

*bzzzz*

[Anonymous No.11730953]

>>11730941
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.11730954]

>>11730915
there she blows

[Anonymous No.11730955]

>>11730941
>reddit spacing
>Blaming anyone other then the sperg who was trying to split threads
>Sperging over anime in general
You deserved the ban.

[Anonymous No.11730958]

>>11730894
>has never heard of aircraft crash investigations
the shit they can learn by looking at debris is amazing. Also, they have this prototype strung up with sensors like a christmas tree and have their own cameras looking at it from multiple angles. They'll figure out what happened based on those information channels.

[Anonymous No.11730960]

>>11730948
4chan is an anime website

[Anonymous No.11730962]

Well it got to Mars a bit earlier than expected I guess.

[Anonymous No.11730963]

>>11730892
>so risky and infeasible maybe its better Ares got canned
Yeah no shit. Solids for manned space launch are retarded.

[Anonymous No.11730966]

>>11730904
You're off the mark. I think SpaceX is great and they're doing this right by just saying fuck it and breaking shit to learn, but I'm actually happy we got to see a real explosion instead of yet another crumpling can of nitrogen.

[Anonymous No.11730967]

>>11730948
The only person "taking over threads" is you. You are the only one derailing threads to talk about anime. I hope you catch a perma next time

[Anonymous No.11730968]

>>11730947
No its stupid, thats why this thread didn't get bumped until the other reached its limit. That was such a dumb ban and will split this board in half

[Anonymous No.11730969]

>>11730933
It is.

[Anonymous No.11730971]

>>11730941
Literally no one bitched out about anime reaction pics or images on /sfg/ like this until after Demo 2 coverage began, really makes you think

[Anonymous No.11730973]

>>11730960
Literally has never been an anime website

[Anonymous No.11730976]

>>11730941
Next you will say "4chan isn't an anime website"

[Anonymous No.11730977]

>>11730950
>"blow it."

[Anonymous No.11730978]

>>11730908
Oh wow three entire months??? That's crazy, definitely a huge time and money investment for an aerospace company!!

[Anonymous No.11730980]

>>11730968
>The general will be split by people telling a single sperg to stop splitting threads

[Anonymous No.11730981]

>>11730940
Kys troll

[Anonymous No.11730982]

>>11730963
Makes for a nice view though

[Anonymous No.11730987]

Cool explosion. Now test the next prototype
This shit is so Kerbal it’s brilliant

[Anonymous No.11730989]

>>11730947
Obviously not, retard, as someone started another thread that already left page ten while this one festered with the retarded anime autism. Imagine unironically getting upset because people don't like your cartoons and trying to ruin /sfg/ because of it.
>>11730955
>You
The majority of people here would prefer you not to post shitty anime reaction images just so you can draw attention to your posts. I didn't get banned, there are other people here that think you're a bunch of faggots.
>>11730971
They weren't posted as frequently before the launch. This started because someone was baiting the thread by posting anime with every reply they made. That person then made this thread just to troll.
>>11730976
/sfg/ isn't anime related, have some respect for the thread and limit your off-topic images. I like frog posting but I rarely do it here.

[Anonymous No.11730991]

>He's already back
Just report and ignore, the mods will do the rest

[Anonymous No.11730992]

>>11730792
Yeah, those methane burps from the flare yesterday was something they should have paid a bit more attention to obviously.

[Anonymous No.11730995]

>>11730968
>That was such a dumb ban and will split this board in half
Yes, the general will be split between you who's having a childish temper tantrum and everyone else who wants to talk about space flight.

[Anonymous No.11730997]

>They won't hop SN4 because it would be bad PR to blow up a rocket before D2
>haha static fire gooOOH SHI

[Anonymous No.11730999]

The media will brainlessly concern troll about this,even though the DM2 rocket is built on a totally different technology and is far far more mature.

[Anonymous No.11731001]

>>11730982

[Anonymous No.11731002]

The Sapphire Cam has a cool zoomed out view of the boom
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ucYe0kojZ4

[Anonymous No.11731003]

>>11730999
No one covers Starship except some science sites

[Anonymous No.11731004]

>>11730989
No one cares. Stop splitting threads because you can't contain your anti-anime autism

[Anonymous No.11731006]

>>11731004
Shut the fuck up. Stop talking about it.

[Anonymous No.11731009]

>>11730982
>>11731001
Source on those views? Are there others of other rockets?

[Anonymous No.11731015]

>space force has their own samantha carter

[Anonymous No.11731020]

They should have replaced the flare stack with something reusable.

[Anonymous No.11731021]

>>11731015
Where are the P90s?

[Anonymous No.11731022]

A BALD FRAUD

[Anonymous No.11731023]

>>11731009
Only an SRB can get you this kind of plume, so these pics only exist of the Shuttle

[Anonymous No.11731025]

>>11731023

[Anonymous No.11731027]

>>11731023
Yeah only the Shuttle ever used those.

???

[Anonymous No.11731028]

>>11731004
I didn't start the other thread, I had no problem with anime posters in /sfg/ until yesterday when I came into the thread and saw what a mess you created. The final straw was when you posted anime for the OP just to get under the skin of others and fuel the argument because you couldn't deal with someone not liking fucking cartoons. Just stop posting off-topic images to attract the attention your parents didn't give you.

[Anonymous No.11731029]

>>11731027
Only the shuttle used such large ones

[Anonymous No.11731032]

>>11731020
Point of ignition was underneath the rocket

[Anonymous No.11731033]

>>11731023
>Only an SRB can get you this kind of plume
I know, but it would still be cool to see other rockets from above the clouds.

[Anonymous No.11731035]

>>11731033
And much harder to spot and track, I don't think I have any pics of that

[Anonymous No.11731037]

from sapphire cam

[Anonymous No.11731038]

Looks like September they be back to where we are now i imagine.

[Anonymous No.11731039]

How long is this going to delay the hop?

[Anonymous No.11731041]

>>11731033

[Anonymous No.11731043]

Soon (TM)

[Anonymous No.11731045]

>>11731039
2-3 months. The pad is busted and they have to completely start from scratch with SN5 tests and Raptor tests

[Anonymous No.11731046]

>>11731038
Maybe august.

[Anonymous No.11731047]

>>11731037
Damn that is a big explosion

[Anonymous No.11731049]

>>11731037
I kind of wish that mass simulator had hit a tank

>>11731043
>tossing them into the ocean
please no

[Anonymous No.11731050]

>>11731039
Now it's back to step 0: Nitrogen testing SN-5.

[Anonymous No.11731055]

>>11731039
Maybe a month. First they’ll investigate what went wrong when they’ll stick SN5 up there.

[Anonymous No.11731057]

>>11731039
SN5 should basically be ready to go by the time SN4 was supposed to hop anyway. That's not taking into any post-mortem investigations or adjustments into account, tho

[Anonymous No.11731058]

>>11731037
>>11731039
Do we have aerial shots of the test site yet? That shit must be almost completely destroyed, looks like the second test stand probably got blasted as well.

[Anonymous No.11731059]

>>11731041
Thanks.

[Anonymous No.11731061]

>>11731049
But then how is Rocketdyne gonna get those new build contracts anon?

[Anonymous No.11731062]

>>11731039
More than 2 weeks. Testing will start probably by middle of next week with SN5, but it'll take a while to test until it's ready for a hop.

[Anonymous No.11731066]

>>11731045
The pad is literally just some metal girders and tubes.

[Anonymous No.11731067]

>>11731037
>>11731039

[Anonymous No.11731068]

>>11731050
SN4 went through the LN2 pressure tests without problems. this was probably caused by insufficient vibration dampening of the thrust structure

[Anonymous No.11731071]

>>11730915
We finally got to see it hop

[Anonymous No.11731073]

>>11731068
I don't see why that's relevant to what I posted, but it looked more to me like a feed line popped off.
They still have to start from scratch with SN-5 in regards to testing.

[Anonymous No.11731075]

>>11730930
>Aerospikes were proven to be more economical and effective than traditional nozzles by Lockheed testing
No, they were proven to be heavier for their developed thrust, proven to have significant heating issues, and proven to be a few percent less efficient at any ambient pressure than an ideally expanded conventional nozzle. That is to say, an aerospike in vacuum is less efficient than a vacuum optimized bell, and an aerospike at sea level is less efficient than a sea level optimized bell, and the only advantage is that you can use an aerospike from sea level to vacuum and get slightly higher average propulsive efficiency over the flight than a sea level nozzle launching from Earth.
Aerospikes will always be more expensive and time consuming to build than a conventional nozzle, and for minimal practical benefit. They are not worth the effort, at least for Earth launch. Our atmosphere is simply not dense enough at sea level or tall enough to make any advantage of aerospike engines outweigh their drawbacks.

[Anonymous No.11731079]

>>11731073
why is it back to step 0? this wasn't an overpressure failure. new iterations of starship will not be designed to handle higher pressures

[Anonymous No.11731082]

Reminder for doomer pessimists that SpaceX has blown up tons of previous rockets in testing and will doubtless blow up more in the future. It’s no huge setback. Stop being a pussy.

“For believe me! — the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due: — it will want to rule and possess, and you with it!”

[Anonymous No.11731083]

>>11731032
What can cause an ignition under the rocket if the engine has been off for minutes? The cameras don't offer good framerate enough to trace the explosion. The flame stack is the most obvious candidate with the gigantic methane cloud that hit it.

[Anonymous No.11731084]

>>11731079
Because step 0 is certify that a totally new tank actually holds up under pressure. This is months of setback no matter which way you want to turn and twist it.

[Anonymous No.11731085]

>>11731075
Yeah but what about a five meter diameter nuclear lightbulb aerospike?

[Anonymous No.11731086]

>>11731075
This. It's an interesting concept, but it's not very useful.

On TITAN on the other hand it would be much much more viable since the atmosphere is insanely thicc AND you have fuckloads of easily acquired coolant all around you as you initially go up.

[Anonymous No.11731087]

>>11731043
>Pratt & witney
What fucking year is it?

[Anonymous No.11731090]

>>11731068
>this was probably caused by insufficient vibration dampening of the thrust structure
What vibrations, the engine wasn't firing.

[Anonymous No.11731091]

>>11731084
oh, nevermind then, misunderstood you

[Anonymous No.11731093]

>>11731083
If you watched the NSF stream you'd see the first ignition happened under the rocket. And I have no clue.

[Anonymous No.11731094]

>>11731090
it fired before the failure and most likely fucked something in the process that lead to the failure.

[Anonymous No.11731095]

>>11731083
For a methane-air mixture, any static electric discharge would be enough to set the thing off.

[Anonymous No.11731098]

>>11731085
An even bigger meme, whatever technology you pack above the aerospike doesn't change the fact that the aerospike nozzle design itself has those major drawbacks. You'd still be better off with a normal nozzle.

[Anonymous No.11731102]

>>11731083
might still have been the engine. if the initial leak is big enough it could displace enough oxygen from the area below the rocket to exceed the upper explosive limit. then nothing happens until it spreads out enough

[Anonymous No.11731104]

>>11731085
>melts

[Anonymous No.11731105]

>>11731061
>Buran was eventually murdered because Gorbachev wanted more variety in ice cream cones

[Anonymous No.11731106]

>>11731086
Aerospikes would be good on Titan because the atmosphere is taller and denser than on Earth. Using the air as coolant however is a silly idea. Gasses have remarkably shitty heat absorption qualities, the only option is to use liquid propellant as a regenerative coolant, just like in a bell nozzle, except the surface area to cool is way bigger. Reminder that they were having trouble keeping the aerospike prototypes from having sections of overheating while pumping around huge mass flow rates of liquid-fucking-hydrogen throughout the structures of the thing.

[Anonymous No.11731107]

>>11731094
Yeah, days ago.

[Anonymous No.11731109]

>>11731058
Nothing yet and there wasn't much to the pad I'm sure its fine. Also please stop baiting.

[Anonymous No.11731110]

>>11731098
No, because NTRs have shit performance in an atmosphere. Using an aerospike would allow thousands of seconds of specific impulse at sea level and, with a nuclear lightbulb, enough thrust to launch

[Anonymous No.11731111]

>>11731105
>Gorbachev wanted more variety in ice cream cones
What? Source?

[Anonymous No.11731112]

>>11731107
it fired today a couple minutes before the explosion

[Anonymous No.11731113]

>>11731032
>>11731093
>>11731083
Edit: rewatched other streams indeed the point of ignition is under the rocket.
Literally what the fuck. Spontaneous raptor combustion in oxygen rich environment? This is going to be fun.

[Anonymous No.11731115]

>>11731109
>Also please stop baiting.
What? It was a legitimate question

[Anonymous No.11731116]

>>11731106
>Using the air as coolant however is a silly idea.

Anon the air is why my house doesn’t have bigass radiators like the ISS

[Anonymous No.11731117]

>>11731113
Have they fixed that thrust puck Elon was complaining about or is it the same shitty design?

[Anonymous No.11731119]

>>11730933
Yes, they should totally blow up prototypes in a building block.

[Anonymous No.11731120]

>>11731113
Raptor has been tested tons of times. Something like that would be unlikely to occur now.

[Anonymous No.11731122]

>>11731116
Your house is much cooler than a rocket engine combustion chamber.

[Anonymous No.11731124]

watching that flying spinning copv on the spadre streams never gets old

[Anonymous No.11731125]

>>11731122
Chemical thrusters don’t typically need radiators because their propellant flow keeps them from overheating.

[Anonymous No.11731127]

>>11730982
The shuttle will forever have the best a e s t h e t i c s of any manned NASA platform. 80s/90s shuttle flights were so fucking /comfy/.

That said, they should have fast-tracked an iterative Shuttle 2.0 after Challenger with kerolox booster rockets and a B-1A style escape capsule, followed by a Shuttle 3.0 that used methalox SSME successors for a cheaper, non-cryogenic external tank. Maybe with flyback strap-on boosters as well.

[Anonymous No.11731128]

>>11731105
Honestly, fuck Buran.
Energia is where it was at. They should have configured the core stage to carry payloads on its nose instead of on the side, the Soviets would have been able to do Moon missions using that architecture, especially considering there'd have been room for another two big-ass kerolox boosters.

I wonder what a 6 booster, 6 RD-0120 core Energia with a nice beefy upper stage could do to TLI.

[Anonymous No.11731131]

>>11731128
Buran was better than the Shuttle

[Anonymous No.11731134]

This is the ignition point.

[Anonymous No.11731139]

>>11731105
REMEMBER WHAT THEY TOOK FROM YOU

[Anonymous No.11731141]

>>11731137
Fix the parts that aren’t part of the ship?

[Anonymous No.11731142]

>>11731127
>That said, they should have fast-tracked an iterative Shuttle 2.0

They were on that track until congression infetterance

[Anonymous No.11731143]

>>11731067
heh

[Anonymous No.11731144]

>>11731134
Looks like the methane fuel line burst, and then something caused it to ignite underneath the engine skirt

[Anonymous No.11731147]

>>11731142
thicc

[Anonymous No.11731148]

>>11731142
VentureStar is an interesting concept,but SSTO is so hard to do on earth...

[Anonymous No.11731149]

>>11731128
That would have been like a non-hypergolic UR-700 in terms of just how much weight you could sling to the moon with it. Shit like launching a Mir Core module AND a Soyuz into lunar orbit at the same time. They could have had the Lunar Gateway when Clinton was president.

[Anonymous No.11731150]

>>11731124

[Anonymous No.11731151]

>>11731110
>Using an aerospike would allow thousands of seconds of specific impulse at sea level
That's not how it works. All an aerospike does is get you ~90% the Isp of an ideal bell nozzle at any given ambient pressure. If an ideally expanded bell nozzle gets you 200 Isp at sea level, the aerospike will only get you ~180. The reason nuclear engines don't do well at sea level is related to why they're so efficient in vacuum; they have very light exhaust, which in vacuum means high exhaust velocity, but with increasing ambient pressure results in a proportionally larger drop in Isp, as the lighter exhaust has less momentum and can't expand as much when there's air pressure outside, resulting in much lower exhaust velocity.

I'll say it as clear as I can; AEROSPIKE NOZZLES DO NOT LET YOU APPROACH VACUUM ISP WHILE OPERATING IN AN ATMOSPHERE.

[Anonymous No.11731152]

>>11731134
wouldnt want to be the mexican that didnt tighten the pipes up correctly.

[Anonymous No.11731154]

>>11731058
Looks like just the test stand that SN4 was on got blasted, but there might be smaller damage that couldn't be seen by the camera due to it's distance.

>>11731128
Shame Energia was canned. Imagine if it survived the fall of the Union and Russia was using it to send large probes to the moon. I bet that would've forced the US to speed up Ares/SLS.

>>11731133
Seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.11731156]

>>11731111
it was Boris Yeltsin, my bad
he was on a diplomatic mission to US and decided to visit a random supermarket in a random town to see how Americans actually live, expecting poverty and orphans liven on the streets begging for gruel or whatever
the amount of produce and variety suddenly convinced him capitalism is the only way to go, broke up USSR, which led to Buran program getting cancelled because Russians were completely broke afterwards

[Anonymous No.11731157]

>>11731142
Venturestar was like jumping to Shuttle 7.0 with no intermediary steps.

[Anonymous No.11731161]

>>11731150
Looks like a COPV tomahawking up

[Anonymous No.11731162]

>>11731134
Now check this during the static fire.

[Anonymous No.11731163]

>>11731157
>with no intermediary steps.

X-33

[Anonymous No.11731164]

>>11731156
the death of the soviet union was hideous and messy,but the superstructure was simply too rotten to hold.

[Anonymous No.11731166]

>>11731162
Oh hai there. What's all this then?

[Anonymous No.11731167]

>>11731152
elon might just throw him over the border fence

[Anonymous No.11731169]

>>11731128
Think the biggest variant was the Vulkan-Hercules, capable of lifting 175 tonnes into orbit. If you want to be sad about something, the UR-700M apparently capable of lifting either 250 tons or 750 tons.

[Anonymous No.11731170]

>>11731156
Dont forget Chernobyl happened and that was a contributing factor cause getting that shit under control was expensive as hell.

[Anonymous No.11731174]

>>11731151
Oh okay sorry
They do get superior ISP to chemical engines using LH2/Ox when they use LH2/Ox.

[Anonymous No.11731173]

>>11731166
Don't mind me, just seemingly falling off during the static fire and flying off.

[Anonymous No.11731177]

From the evidence shown on the NSF stream, it looked like a methane gas leak from the ground support pipes gone wrong.

[Anonymous No.11731181]

>>11731142
>>11731157

That said, one thing that they might have considered for Shuttle 2.0 or 3.0 was a new Venturestar-style lifting body shape that wasn't constrained by that crossrange hypersonics requirement that the original Shuttle was designed around, a shape that could have carried more or larger cargoes while having a less aggressive and lower stress re-entry profile.

[Anonymous No.11731183]

i wanna go to space and laugh at pathetic dirt-dwellers bros
i want it NOW

[Anonymous No.11731185]

https://twitter.com/fael097/status/1266457535776796673 More info on the potential leak location.

[Anonymous No.11731186]

>>11731125
>>11731116
Dude. I already said that aerospikes have overheating problems DESPITE using their propellant as coolant.
Compared to the coolant effects of the flow of thousands of liters of cryogenic liquid hydrogen per minute, the coolant effects of a fraction of that mass in much warmer and lower density air are completely negligible.

The reason heat in an aerospike is harder to manage even with regenerative cooling is because an aerospike has a greater surface area exposed to the hot burning exhaust gasses compared to a bell nozzle, given the same mass flow rates and thrust etc. It's a problem of geometry; twice the nozzle area means twice the required cooling capacity for the same coolant bulk flow rate, which means in effect half the effective cooling capacity. Also, all those extra coolant passages and plumbing add more weight to the engine per unit thrust developed, which is why all aerospike engines to reach late stages of development have worse thrust to weight ratio than conventional nozzle engines.

The final point to make is that aerospike engines aren't even necessary to achieve good performance both on the ground and in vacuum; the RS-25 did it with a slightly modified high-expansion ratio conventional bell nozzle. The only change required was a slight inward bow tot he nozzle curve that kept everything firing stable at sea level, and the engine was able to take advantage of the easier cooling requirements and lower mass of a bell nozzle with an efficiency vs altitude curve similar to that of an aerospike.

[Anonymous No.11731188]

>>11731181
>crossrange hypersonics requirement that the original Shuttle was designed around

What was that about?

[Anonymous No.11731189]

>>11731131
Yes, but Shuttle was so shit that being better than it doesn't make Buran good. Buran was the worst part of the stack.

[Anonymous No.11731190]

>>11731134
Who cares what the ignition point is? There shouldn't be rocket fuel outside of your rocket.

[Anonymous No.11731192]

>>11731185
>second non-test article related failure in a row
get it together SpaceX, that's embarrassing

[Anonymous No.11731193]

>>11731131
So what? It flew once, on autopilot without crew.

[Anonymous No.11731194]

>>11731163
Jumping from the X-33 from the Venturestar would be like jumping straight from the X-15 to the Space Shuttle. Sure, you could do it, but it'd take two decades.

The answer probably should have been to design a TSTO or Shuttle-style external tank/booster design with an X-33/Venturestar-style orbiter.

[Anonymous No.11731197]

After this they will probably leave the hop for SN5

[Anonymous No.11731198]

>>11731193
Another reason it was better. Buran had a functional autopilot.

[Anonymous No.11731201]

>>11731198
Yes, it was a very nice toy that flew once. Then rotted away.
It was still a piece of shit shuttle.

[Anonymous No.11731203]

>>11731174
>They do get superior ISP to chemical engines using LH2/Ox when they use LH2/Ox
Aerospike nozzle engines do not get higher Isp than conventional bell nozzle engines, when operating at the ambient pressure the bell nozzle is optimized for. This is true regardless of propellant choice.

[Anonymous No.11731204]

Was it sabotage or incompetence?

[Anonymous No.11731205]

>>11731117
Nope same puck. SN7+ are supposed to get the new version whatever that is.

Hm.

Puck fucking up causing LOX leak, combined with faulty gse pipe for methane like last time = cloud of nicely mixed pure BOOM under the skirt of the rocket?

[Anonymous No.11731208]

>>11731205
Did you see that piece flying off during the static fire that I posted? Yeah, that shit needs to go back to the drawing board.

[Anonymous No.11731209]

>>11731204
whatever it was it's likely a simple fix. the cause doesn't seem to be more than a bad pipe or valve or one part not being beefy enough

[Anonymous No.11731212]

>>11731188
The USAF and especially the National Reconaissance Office wanting it to be able to fly a single polar orbit to and from Vandenberg AFB to quickly deploy or recover spy satellites, which meant that the shuttle would have to change its orbital inclination via hypersonic lift on re-entry to track back eastward to Vandenberg to make up for the Earth's rotation, which was why the shuttle ended up having the double delta-winged shape that it did, rather than looking like a manned Energia Core with stubby X-1 style wings or a giant version of the HL-10 or X-24B the way all of the early pre-NRO shuttle designs did.

[Anonymous No.11731213]

>>11731194
Decades was the plan, X-33 was just the technology demonstrator

[Anonymous No.11731216]

>>11731208
>Did you see that piece flying off during the static fire that I posted?
Repost it.

>Yeah, that shit needs to go back to the drawing board.
Why?

[Anonymous No.11731217]

>>11731203
No, I mean NTRs do. A LH2/Ox fuel mix reduces the volume problem while also reducing the thrust problem at a cost to ISP that still leaves it above typical cryogenic engines. Higher thrust means higher mass flow.

[Anonymous No.11731220]

>>11731205
Apparently it might of been the ground support infrastructure, ie the methane fuel lines, not the puck.

[Anonymous No.11731221]

>>11731216
see
>>11731162
>>11731166
>>11731173

[Anonymous No.11731222]

>>11731186
Honestly i think aerospikes are technology that should be pursued by NASA. They aren't valuable to a commercial company yet but the tech could be superior if the R&D is completed

[Anonymous No.11731226]

>>11731221
That puck's fucked and it probably cracked some plumbing after 5 whole tiny static fire tests with a single engine. This shit ain't going nowhere fast without some serious redesigning.

[Anonymous No.11731228]

>>11731221
It looks like part of the test stand sticking out of the clouds. Not something that was flying off.

[Anonymous No.11731229]

>>11731212
And how many times did they end up even using that hypersonic lift flight profile?

Fuck what a dumb design decision, especially now that with X-37B we know they could have just built their own specialized craft and not constrained the shuttle design like that

[Anonymous No.11731230]

>>11731208
I haven't followed the entire thread. As for the drawing board I'm pretty sure it hasn't left it yet.

This isn't finalized design that is being tested to confirm specifications - rather its the designing process going in parallel with boomy large scale prototypes of major modules

[Anonymous No.11731233]

>>11731222
The fact that we don't have any government R&D testing of such concepts outside of that one NASA branch that gets few millions in funding a year is a shame

[Anonymous No.11731235]

>>11731212
>which was why the shuttle ended up having the double delta-winged shape that it did, rather than looking like a manned Energia Core with stubby X-1 style wings
Bring back the Faget wings

[Anonymous No.11731236]

>>11731194
Pretty much. The reason X-33 got canned was because it only existed to prove all the technologies needed to build the Venture Star, but it pretty much proven that none of those technologies were feasible.

The aerospike engines? Heavier and less efficient than conventional engines, and Venture Star 100% relied on its aerospike engines being both more powerful for their mass and more efficient than Shuttle's engines. Failure.
The composite fuel tanks? Everyone knows that X-33 abandoned the composite tanks for aluminum and they turned out lighter, however this reduction in mass is in relation to the actual prototype composite tanks they had been building. The aluminum tanks were still too heavy for their propellant load to enable Venture Star to exist; the reason they needed to develop ultralight composite tanks in the first place was because they knew it couldn't be done using aluminum. Failure.
There were also failures of design like the mass-balancing issue, due to having a giant low mass propellant tank arrangement with a row of heavy engines on the back. The flaps on the back would have needed to be much bigger to prevent the vehicle from flipping and falling ass-first, but those flaps couldn't be made big enough without becoming too heavy to allow the vehicle to SSTO.

[Anonymous No.11731239]

>>11731228
Go rewatch the static fire, it came flying out during the static fire. Shortly after, boom with the flashpoint right where that bit flew out.

[Anonymous No.11731244]

>>11731204
>"A good rule for rocket experimenters to follow is this: always assume that it will explode." --Astronautics Magazine, 1937

[Anonymous No.11731246]

>>11731213
Aka they planned to be flying the shuttles through at least 2020 because just like with the SLS and the JWST, when NASA says something will be finished in a given year you add at least 10 years to that completion date.

Fuck that nigger Obama for killing the shuttle program. If we'd kept them flying we could have started to assemble the Lunar Gateway out of modified Cygnus modules launched into TLI on inertial upper stages 5 years ago.

[Anonymous No.11731247]

>>11731236
I suspect the venture star was intentionally picked as the hardest least likely to succeed project. It's just that no one expected Columbia will off itself in few years but then again even that didn't trouble the existing shuttle contractors all that much seeing as how they have new profitable project that doesn't even need to fly.

[Anonymous No.11731250]

>>11731236
The only SSTO design that ever had even a prayer of working was the Delta Clipper, and of course NASA never pursued it because of Not Invented Here-itis.

[Anonymous No.11731257]

>>11731217
I see what you're saying. Still no reason to throw in an aerospike nozzle in the design, though.

Also, given that methane in an NTR provides about 90% of the stage delta V performance as hydrogen NTR when considering realistic mass ratios, as well as providing inherently higher thrust than a hydrogen NTR, yet could still benefit from an oxygen afterburner, I wonder why more people don't consider Methane LANTR more often.

[Anonymous No.11731258]

How come we sent people to the moon over fifty years ago but now we can't even get a fucking tin can off the ground?

[Anonymous No.11731260]

>>11731246
>Fuck that nigger Obama for killing the shuttle program.
He didn't though. Bush did. It just took until Obama's administration for the cancellation to complete.

>If we'd kept them flying we could have started to assemble the Lunar Gateway out of modified Cygnus modules launched into TLI on inertial upper stages 5 years ago.
No. After Columbia, the Shuttle was only launched when absolutely necessary, and a new space station wasn't a part of that. Plus, do you seriously expect NASA to be able to get a space station design done that early? Holding on to the Shuttle isn't going to magically make NASA more motivated to get stuff done sooner.

[Anonymous No.11731262]

>>11731258
How come people can't understand that new engines and new rockets means explosions?

[Anonymous No.11731263]

>>11731222
What about anything I wrote in my other comment makes you think that aerospike engines could be superior?

[Anonymous No.11731265]

More videos are getting posted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxNmm84Ct-g

[Anonymous No.11731266]

>>11731204
ULA sniper

[Anonymous No.11731267]

>>11731258
all the people who did that died or retired so their knowledge was lost

[Anonymous No.11731270]

>>11731258
because elon cares about the production system, not the vehicle itself (sort of). Like he's said, getting to orbit is easy. Lots of people are doing it now. But building thousands of vehicles? That's hard.

[Anonymous No.11731271]

>>11731258
Because NASA has fallen out of graces after Apollo ended, and SpaceX was made only a decade ago without the massive pressure that NASA was under during Apollo. Give it time.

[Anonymous No.11731272]

>>11731235
Friendly reminder that this iteration of the Shuttle was basically functionally identical to Starship/Super Heavy, only with slightly shittier mass fractions because of the wings/tail needed for horizontal landings because it was the 1970s and the discrete circuit and tape reel computers of the era couldn't even begin to fathom controlling a powered vertical landing.

If it wasn't for the USAF and the NRO forcing the redesign, we could have had 9/10ths of Starship/Super Heavy when Jimmy Fucking Carter was president.

[Anonymous No.11731276]

>>11731258
>How come we can wipe doorknobs but rats can’t lay eggs???

[Anonymous No.11731277]

>>11731260
>He didn't though. Bush did. It just took until Obama's administration for the cancellation to complete.

No, but he easily could have pushed to revoke the Shuttle's cancellation and keep it flying, but no, he not only didn't grant it a stay of execution, he had the nerve to kill the Ares program as well.

[Anonymous No.11731282]

>>11730987
This guy gets it

[Anonymous No.11731283]

>>11731272
I wonder what made NASA scrap the winged upper stage on top of a winged booster concept. I know NASA went for the SRBs because they had to improve the lift off thrust to be able to carry heavier payloads, but what made NASA change to the winged upper stage with an external tank?

[Anonymous No.11731285]

Never vote a Democrat. They will defund NASA and space force.

[Anonymous No.11731287]

>>11731250
Delta Clipper is what you'd arrive at if you kept trying to solve all the flaws of Venture Star, but ultimately I don't think any SSTO design makes sense for Earth launch, period. The margins are simply too narrow.
That being said, DC was still easily the best option to pursue, because fixing the design from an SSTO to a TSTO is very simple; Just put DC on top of another slightly larger DC which uses a denser propellant and effectively acts like Starship's Booster.

There's an alternate timeline where DC was selected, it didn't work like they wanted, and to 'compromise' they accidentally landed on an early 2000's version of Starship Super Heavy; much smaller of course, but still enabling all the things Starship enables, and proving those capabilities enough that funding for much larger reusable TSTO vehicles would be passed.

[Anonymous No.11731290]

>>11731212
>which was why the shuttle ended up having the double delta-winged shape that it did, rather than looking like a manned Energia Core with stubby X-1 style wings

>wing foam strike is what doomed Columbia

I can't help but think Shuttle might actually have been more successful and less deadly if it wasn't for those ridiculous NRO/USAF requirements

[Anonymous No.11731295]

>>11731258
>how come it's hard to do this thing that we did a few times more than 50 years ago with an entirely different set of people and technology and also happened to blow a lot of shit up back then too?

[Anonymous No.11731297]

>>11731250
The DC-X had no chance of being an SSTO, but it did fly so good. Shame NASA was so disinterested in it.

[Anonymous No.11731299]

>>11731222
There is already renewed interest in it, give it time.
Advancements in materials and 3D metal printing are things that could make it actually usefull this time.

[Anonymous No.11731301]

>>11731283
>Gee bill, TWO massively expensive space-plane development programs operating in parallel?
It was due to sticker shock alone. Shuttle with ET and boosters was billed as the cheapest to develop and the most expensive to operate, and double-spaceplane boogaloo was the opposite. Since government a fuck they chose the cheaper now option, and thirty years of Shuttle bullshit ensued instead of space colonization and manned exploration.

[Anonymous No.11731309]

>>11731299
>There is already renewed interest in it, give it time.
From whom?

[Anonymous No.11731311]

>>11731290
You can't help but think that because it's exactly right. Granted, fragile TPS exposed to foam-shedding ET is a shit idea to start, but increasing the surface area of that TPS by more than double does make it significantly more likely for there to be a deadly strike event.

[Anonymous No.11731312]

which one of you said it

[Anonymous No.11731314]

>>11731312
Rule 0: Never reveal your power level.

[Anonymous No.11731317]

>>11730833
No indication that this was raptor related

[Anonymous No.11731319]

>>11731312
I bet hes having a hard time deciding his attitude to chinese flu

[Anonymous No.11731322]

>>11731309
Read that a couple of ESA related company's were looking in to it, the idea was that because of 3D metal printing you could put a shitload of coolingchanels in the spike of your aerospike engine and fix the problem of it melting after burning for a few minutes.
And in all cases they were talking about the round type, not like what X-33 had.

[Anonymous No.11731323]

>>11730833
5 short firings and the fucked puck is the most likely culprit.

[Anonymous No.11731324]

I'm going to watch the first episode of space force and tell you if it's good or not
most reviewers saying it's bad, but you know what that's like

[Anonymous No.11731328]

>>11731323
what's the puck?

[Anonymous No.11731329]

>>11731328
it gets shucked

[Anonymous No.11731330]

>>11731312
Why edit that?

[Anonymous No.11731331]

>>11731301
>mrw there could've been 135 Saturn V launches instead of Shuttle launches
Even if the Saturn V costed as much as two Shuttle launches and Congress restricted it's launches to LEO payloads only, it still would've done more for space flight than the Shuttle. Imagine the ISS with Skylab sized modules.

[Anonymous No.11731332]

>>11730737
they need to pay that much
I think it's per year

[Anonymous No.11731333]

>>11731328
This.

[Anonymous No.11731334]

>>11731312
Everyday Estronaut BTFOed by based Anon. How will he ever recover? Hint: he can't.

[Anonymous No.11731335]

>>11731328
The structure that the engines mount to and transfer the force from them to the vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11731336]

>>11731323
The ground support equipment failed, not the vehicle's thrust structure.

>>11731328
>what's the puck?

A component of a rejected design element for the engine support structures that people are too dumb to stop parroting.

[Anonymous No.11731337]

>>11731324
>going through tweets for "space force" to see what people think
>reply to a report about the SN4 explosions
>"All that money wasted, the astronauts sacrificed themselves for trumps fantasy project
>Space force is just another failure we can add to his list of fuckups"
seriously though fuck normies

[Anonymous No.11731345]

>>11731336
The flashpoint was on the fucking rocket itself, not the ground. A bit flew off it *during* the static fire. My money is on the puck managing to sustain all of 4 fucking short static fire tests, but not 5.
Cracked plumbing and that shit started leaking out fucking EVERYWHERE from the bottom of the tanks.

*boom*

[Anonymous No.11731347]

>>11731337
Normies want flashy stuff to feel good about.
They cant relate to this so they hate it.

[Anonymous No.11731349]

>>11731337
post it leet anon

[Anonymous No.11731350]

>>11731337
link?

[Anonymous No.11731351]

>>11731330
allegory desu

[Anonymous No.11731352]

>>11730831
thank you, I was wondering if anybody would notice that I enabled the ability to choose both options

[Anonymous No.11731356]

>>11731337
That's so funny you should go back and screencap them

[Anonymous No.11731357]

>>11731349
https://twitter.com/CireAmai/status/1266470156081004546

[Anonymous No.11731362]

>>11731333
>>11731335
oh, alright. that thing really looks like trash

[Anonymous No.11731364]

>>11731337
>Caring about the negative IQ cesspool that is twitter
That's your first mistake

[Anonymous No.11731365]

>>11731357
jesus that account

Is there any other social media platform that's more vulnerable to blatant shilling than twitter?

[Anonymous No.11731366]

>>11731362
It is trash and Musk himself threw a shitfit over it.

[Anonymous No.11731370]

>>11731357
Holy crap, it's a bunch of nigs and trannies saying how elon is an evil racist capitalist and he will never succeed lmao

[Anonymous No.11731377]

>>11731366
Elon said it was a difficult part of the structure to design and couldn't be overlooked, not that it was poorly designed.
>Don't shuck the puck

[Anonymous No.11731384]

>>11731377
wrong, i remember reading somewhere musk was genuinely angry at the design of the thrust puck

[Anonymous No.11731388]

>>11731277
STS and Ares were both clusterfucks that led nowhere. Killing the shuttle is what even freed up the funds to begin intensively looking at Ares/SLS.
>>11731246
>If we'd kept them flying we could have started to assemble the Lunar Gateway out of modified Cygnus modules launched into TLI on inertial upper stages 5 years ago.
After Challenger, NASA severely restricted its use of upper stages on the STS (why Shuttle-Centaur never flew), so they wouldn't have done Gateway assembly with it regardless. Heavy-lift vehicles already exist, so STS wouldn't be necessary or desirable for Gateway.

[Anonymous No.11731391]

>>11731377
>>11731384
found it
'“There’s a sad face because we have an inverted cone,” he said. “It’s such a dumb design. It’s one of the dumbest things on the whole rocket because it’s heavy, expensive, and unreliable.”'
https://arstechnica.com/science/2020/03/inside-elon-musks-plan-to-build-one-starship-a-week-and-settle-mars/

[Anonymous No.11731398]

>>11731377
It was poorly designed, which is why one of the earlier SN's bit the dust. Elon was mad at his crew because many people seemed to think it was shitty, but didn't open their mouth.
They redesigned it since and it seemed to hold up so far.
I'd expect this failure to be in the pipes to the rocket or in the connection between the two.

[Anonymous No.11731400]

>>11731391
The goal is to make it flat right? Same volume for 2 less rings

[Anonymous No.11731403]

>>11731283
>>11731301
still the coolest Shuttle concept design

[Anonymous No.11731413]

>>11731403
>no meme SRB's
>no foam striking the Orbiter
>100% reusable
>no complicated expensive support structure landing/tower

Godamn it, why didn't they choose this one fuck

[Anonymous No.11731434]

>>11731287
>There's an alternate timeline where DC was selected, it didn't work like they wanted, and to 'compromise' they accidentally landed on an early 2000's version of Starship Super Heavy; much smaller of course, but still enabling all the things Starship enables, and proving those capabilities enough that funding for much larger reusable TSTO vehicles would be passed.

Please, anon, I didn't need to feel these feelings.

[Anonymous No.11731444]

>>11731322
linear aerospike > round aerospike

[Anonymous No.11731450]

>>11731285
I know what you mean, but JFK is basically an icon of NASA.

Then again he was also a WW2 vet who openly despised Communism and talked constantly about pushing the USA to exceed the USSR in global influence. He's very alien from the modern democratic party.

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

[Anonymous No.11731452]

>>11731331
>Imagine the ISS with Skylab sized modules.

I came

[Anonymous No.11731460]

>>11731403
we would be on mars if this was made

[Anonymous No.11731461]

>>11731413
>why didn't they choose this one fuck

Well you see anon;
>no SRBs
>100% reusable
>no complicated expensive support structure landing/tower

[Anonymous No.11731463]

>>11731450
JFK also openly idolized Hitler and was probably killed by Mossad for trying to halt the Israeli nuclear weapons program.

[Anonymous No.11731464]

So, odds on the repeated static fires being intented to see how many times they can "re-use" the thrust puck before it blows up? They've kind of done quite a lot of shorter static fires on the SN4 in rapid succession, possibly to stress test that one part they have trouble with.

[Anonymous No.11731467]

>>11731357
>SpaceX's Experimental Starship Prototype Just Exploded In a Test
>The experimental vehicle, thankfully, is completely different from the one set to take astronauts to the ISS this weekend.
>vice.com

hmm I wonder if Vice had ever previously reported on a tin can explosion prior to this one

[Anonymous No.11731471]

>>11730904
SN#5 is literally waiting in the assembly yard, ready to pick up where SN#4 left off
they're going to need to get their GSE under control first, though

[Anonymous No.11731473]

>>11730916
yes

[Anonymous No.11731474]

>>11731471
>ready to pick up where SN#4 left off
That's where you're wrong. It's back to pressure testing.

[Anonymous No.11731482]

>>11731463
Hahaha,what nuclear weapons program? I must have misheard you...Israel doesn't have nuclear weapons....they're not allowed to have them,and any country that has or produces nuclear weapons is supposed to get sanctioned...so that is impossible...

[Anonymous No.11731486]

>>11731283
The hypersonics-opimised shuttle design that we got was basically aerodynamically incompatible with that launch profile as it was unable to carry it's fuel internally and needed the external tank.

>>11731235
As this image illustrates, it also had a much more Starship-like "belly flop" re-entry profile which coupled with the low mass thanks to that orbiter design basically being a flying fuel tank with engines and a crew/cargo compartment on it, would have resulted in much lower heat stresses compared to the shuttle as it was built, which basically re-entered nose-on like an ICBM re-entry vehicle.

[Anonymous No.11731490]

>>11731233
Yeah its stupid
>>11731263
A lot of thrust and nowhere near the amount of R&D into the tech. The heat could be solved and there are a lot of benefits to the engine. Like I said the tech should be reaserched so we can make a decision later.

[Anonymous No.11731491]

>>11731474
SN5 will prolly have 1 pressure test, 1 cryo test and 3 static fires at least before a hop. Wouldn't expect a hop till mid to late june but at the pace they're going it could be sooner

[Anonymous No.11731493]

>>11731486
>The hypersonics-opimised shuttle design that we got

DAMN YOU USAF NRO MEDDLERS!

[Anonymous No.11731496]

>>11731482
Yes, and the Shavit family of small solid-fueled rockets were designed purely for putting small satellites into orbit!

[Anonymous No.11731501]

>>11730966
the crumpling cans of nitrogen were beautiful in their own way

[Anonymous No.11731505]

>>11731491
Expect them to waste a month or two figuring out what went wrong, then a month redesigning too at the very least. They're not gonna just throw up another one or two with the same fucking flaw on the testbed.
Raptors may be "cheap", but they're not so cheap that they'll throw them away for 4-5 short static fire tests and nothing more to show for it.

[Anonymous No.11731511]

>>11731505
Every SN iteration is different somehow whether that be testing config or welds so I don't think a redesign is on the tables. Plus raptor is constantly changing too so they're already iterating constantly. The one on sn4 is a sn20 raptor and elon said they were on sn26 like a month ago so these things shouldn't be too much of a setback,

[Anonymous No.11731512]

>>11731037
I need one of the whole thing, you can see the methane tank let go and spew a jet of fire from Sapphire cam

[Anonymous No.11731519]

>>11731511
Well it's pretty obvious there's something wrong with the plumbing that came out after 5 very short static firings on this current design. I'd be very surprised if they don't go back to the drawing table at this stage.

[Anonymous No.11731524]

>>11731490
>A lot of thrust
Less per unit propellant mass consumed and per unit mass of engine hardware compared to an optimized bell nozzle. Read; aerospikes are worse in general than bell nozzles.
>The heat could be solved
Only through additional weight and complexity, making the engine even worse compared to a conventional bell nozzle.
>Like I said the tech should be reaserched so we can make a decision later.
Fuck aerospikes, which in an idealized and perfect world aren't even an improvement over conventional nozzles, and put that research funding into developing a high-TWR long service life rotating detonation engine, which ACTUALLY has potential for being a significant improvement over any modern chemical rocket propulsion system.

[Anonymous No.11731525]

>>11731512
You can't rely on slow ass cams to analyze an explosion. You need hi speed cams for that shit. You can only do educated guesses.
And with bits flying off during the static fire followed by a billowing cloud of oxygen+methane shortly after followed by a fucking massive explosion from the same location, you can do a pretty educated guess as to what went wrong.

But you're still going to need to wait on SpaceX and their hi speed camera analysis for a final judgement.

[Anonymous No.11731529]

>>11731491
Swap june for july and then I agree

[Anonymous No.11731531]

>>11731117
version 1 was shit
version 2 (current) was less shit but not fixed
I forget which one has version 3

[Anonymous No.11731533]

>>11731531
7+, ie not built yet.

[Anonymous No.11731537]

>>11731525
SpaceX also had the sensor suite data that was watching for pretty much every diagnostic feature imaginable on Raptor and most likely the lower half of SN4 as well.

[Anonymous No.11731540]

>>11731533
Parts of 7 have been spotted already so won't be long till it is plus 6 is halfway through it

[Anonymous No.11731543]

NASA Admin said that a decision for Demo 2 launch date will be made tomorrow morning

[Anonymous No.11731549]

>Each time the Air Force made requests to take the X-33 project as their own, they found the opportunity denied at the highest level of US government.

[Anonymous No.11731555]

>>11731444
Aerospikes still load their nozzles compressively, while bells load their nozzles in tension. No known material has the strength to weight ratio needed to make a linear aerospike's advantages outweigh its disadvantages.

[Anonymous No.11731572]

>>11731524
>Less per unit propellant mass consumed and per unit mass of engine hardware compared to an optimized bell nozzle.
Not when you compare an equivalent bell nozzle
>Only through additional weight and complexity,
Complexity sure, weight maybe not
>which in an idealized and perfect world aren't even an improvement over conventional nozzles,
Bold assumption considering the tech is in its infancy and was beating comparable bell nozzle engines.
>https://youtu.be/D4SaofKCYwo
If aerospikes had the same level of R&D that bell nozzles have enjoyed then we would probably be using aerospikes. Elon musk even said hes considered it in the above video

[Anonymous No.11731591]

>>11731549
It's things like this that make me ignore all the examples that aerospikes are shit.
US gov would not go trough these lengths to destroy the program if they were certain that it would not deliver anyway.
A lot of people in congress were certain that venturstar would screw over a lot of other oldspace scams, so it had to die.

[Anonymous No.11731592]

>>11730873
>>11730876
>banning a legit /sfg/ instead of this dismal bait thread
Sounds about right

[Anonymous No.11731594]

>>11731592
anime weebsite

[Anonymous No.11731597]

>>11731543
They should just wait a week or so if the weather doesn't go to 70%+ go for launch, you can only try so many times before plebs lose interest.

[Anonymous No.11731599]

>>11728124
coming back to say that i was wrong. another one blew this month

[Anonymous No.11731601]

>>11731592
Finally got a new ip?

[Anonymous No.11731604]

>>11731594
Its not but even if it was it doesn’t change the fact that OP posted it to troll the people angry at him for spamming anime in the last thread

[Anonymous No.11731605]

>>11731599
YOU JINXED IT

[Anonymous No.11731610]

>>11731601
Nope just got off of work, i must have missed a lot

[Anonymous No.11731613]

>>11731604
fgsfds

[Anonymous No.11731618]

>>11731604
It's from a space anime. Just because one anon is too autistic to handle even seeing anime, doesn't mean people are baiting by posting (relevant) anime reaction images and OPs. If you can't handle seeing anime, and constantly need to talk about how much you hate it, 4chan in not the website for you, and /sfg/ certainly is not the thread for you.

[Anonymous No.11731630]

>>11731618
>doesn't mean people are baiting by posting
He did it right after the last threads anime arguments and posted an anime strawpoll. You are reaching to say it isn't bait. Idc if you post anime but this is an obvious bait thread

[Anonymous No.11731632]

anime weebsite

[Anonymous No.11731641]

>>11731632
Science board

[Anonymous No.11731646]

>>11731630
>Throw a ton of chum in the water
>WTF why are these fish showing up???
He exposed himself to trolling by pitching an autism fit. The problem is the sperg who can't catch a glimpse of anime without derailing the thread, not the people who troll and make fun of the obvious basket case.

[Anonymous No.11731657]

>>11731592
Seethe harder.

[Anonymous No.11731659]

>>11731630
>this is an obvious bait thread
It looks like a completely normal thread to me. You have problems my dude.

[Anonymous No.11731664]

Stop talking about anime and the people who hate it. It’s off topic. Shut up.

[Anonymous No.11731665]

>>11731646
This thread is trolling as you say, which is againstthe board rules, they should have gotten rid of it when that other one took off. No excuse.

[Anonymous No.11731672]

i wanna live in an orbital habitat so bad bros

[Anonymous No.11731674]

>>11731659
Look at the previous thread and the timing of this thread. Stop being disingenuous

[Anonymous No.11731676]

>>11731549
Can't stop the Shuttle gravy train. Think of the jobs!

[Anonymous No.11731677]

[Anonymous No.11731685]

>>11731664
We should just make a new thread and ban anyone who brings up the topic.

[Anonymous No.11731696]

>>11731685
Sure, whatever. As long as dumb off-topic arguments about things that aren’t spaceflight don’t start.

[Anonymous No.11731703]

Assuming Blue Origin's New Glenn doesn't work; who would be most likely to be the next adopter of reusable rockets? ULA might be up to it with Vulcan, but it's mode of reusability might not be as effective as how the Falcon 9 does it. China could do it, but we have no idea because they don't reveal much of their space program. ESA and Roscosmos seem more likely to just ignore the possibility of reusing rockets for as long as possible.

[Anonymous No.11731709]

>>11731685
>>11731696
I started a new one, hopefully this will be a hard reset
>>11731701
>>11731701
>>11731701

[Anonymous No.11731711]

>>11731703
>SMART reuse
completely worthless, the tanks are the most expensive part

[Anonymous No.11731712]

What are the biggest “meme technologies” in Spaceflight? Off the top of my head there’s:

> Aerospikes
>Gas core nuclear lightbulb
>SSTOs
>NTR for the most part
>VASMIR (maybe)
>Antimatter
>Faster than light travel


Any more anyone can think of?

[Anonymous No.11731717]

>>11731712
reactionless drives
reactionless drives powered by VIBRATING
S P I N L A U N C H
P
I
N

[Anonymous No.11731719]

>>11731709
We aren't even on page 9 you twat

[Anonymous No.11731721]

>>11731712
>>11731711
We are migrating to the new thread ask over there
>>11730551
>>11730551
>>11730551

[Anonymous No.11731726]

>>11731721
fuck off, nigger

[Anonymous No.11731732]

>>11731719
Its because of the unrelated discussion that this thread keeps causing. I know its normally premature

[Anonymous No.11731734]

>>11731712
hydrolox
space elevators
momentum exchange tethers
S P I N L A U N C H
P
I
N L A U N C H

[Anonymous No.11731746]

>>11731721
>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Based

[Anonymous No.11731750]

>>11731555
isn't pretty much everything stronger in compression?

[Anonymous No.11731755]

>>11731712
SPACE TETHERS
What a stupid fucking meme. One youtuber makes a video about it and everyone brings it up.

[Anonymous No.11731761]

>>11731755
What are space tethers?

[Anonymous No.11731762]

>>11731712
is everything that isn't chemical a meme technology to you?

[Anonymous No.11731775]

>>11731762
electric drives are real too, as are monoprop
nuclear thermal could be real, but politicians say no
direct nuclear pulse propulsion (Orion/Medusa) could absolutely be real but the damage to Earth infrastructure would be significant (from the EMP)

[Anonymous No.11731810]

>>11731750
>isn't pretty much everything stronger in compression?

The opposite; its easier to withstand tensile loads than compressive ones.

[Anonymous No.11731827]

>>11731810
unless you're concrete

[Anonymous No.11731843]

>>11731827
So the revolutionary material we are awaiting for is concrete? Pff rocketry is easy. Concrete rockets when?

[Anonymous No.11731845]

>>11731827
>unless you're concrete
Whose only saving grace is low cost and being able to cast it in place. It has unexceptional compressive strength.

[Anonymous No.11731855]

>>11731845
yes, concrete has unexceptional compressive strength, and miserable tensile strength
but it has better compressive than tensile

[Anonymous No.11732059]

Don't mind me just posting an anime picture

[Anonymous No.11732072]

>>11731572
>Not when you compare an equivalent bell nozzle
??? Yes, when you directly compare aerospike vs bell nozzle, for the same engine pump hardware, the aerospike weighs more and is less efficient.
>Complexity sure, weight maybe not
Weight absolutely, for multitude of reasons, including increased plumbing routes, compressive structural loading instead of tension only like in a bell nozzle, and more.
>Bold assumption considering the tech is in its infancy and was beating comparable bell nozzle engines.
It wasn't beating anything. The aerospikes that were build using J-2 plumbing got more efficient thrust at sea level because the original J-2 didn't have a sea level optimized nozzle and therefore got really bad Isp on the test stand. If that aerospike were actually flown on a rocket and was firing at the same altitude as the J-2, the original J-2 would be developing more thrust and getting better Isp in a lighter engine.
> Elon musk even said hes considered it in the above video
I know about that, did you not hear the part where every time they've looked at trying out an aerospike they've never been able to clearly show any benefit from using them? It's not like it being hard would stop them, they developed a fucking FFSC engine on their own, by comparison an aerospike isn't hard. It's just not worth it.

[Anonymous No.11732090]

>>11731591
Aerospikes being shit had nothing to do with it being stonewalled. In reality what would have happened is the Venture Star program would have become disillusioned with aerospikes and would switch to using RS-25 engines, which would be lighter and perform better, and give the rocket a chance of actually working. Even if you want to subscribe to the conspiracy theory, which is fine (they definitely blocked out Delta Clipper because of what it would lead to, effectively a Starship-lite reusable TSTO), that shouldn't make you think "aerospikes actually good". It should make you think "the government REALLY didn't want any competition for Shuttle to arise and risk embarrassing the program through sheer excess of capability and economics, even if that risk was very slim, like what Venture Star posed".

[Anonymous No.11732094]

>>11732059
nice

[Anonymous No.11732108]

>>11728468
Of course it would, but how would that benefit the PRC?

[Anonymous No.11732114]

>muh aerospikes

Fuck off Tim Dodd.

[Anonymous No.11732186]

>>11731855
How does the compressive strength of concrete compare to that of structural steel? My autism must know

[Anonymous No.11732221]

>>11731312
Hilarious but unfortunately shopped

[Anonymous No.11732226]

>>11732186
A36 structural steel has a minimum yield strength of 36,000 PSI.

[Anonymous No.11732231]

>>11732186
>>11732226
Regular concrete is good for 3,000 to 4,000 PSI. High performance concrete goes up to 20,000 PSI or so.

[Anonymous No.11732238]

>>11732226
>>11732231
Maraging steels have yield strengths of 200,000 to 350,000 PSI.

[Anonymous No.11732363]

So do you think NASA will decide to launch on Saturday or Sunday?

[Anonymous No.11732376]

>>11732363
Weather permitting, yes.

[Anonymous No.11732421]

>>11732363
Attempted launch on Saturday
Attempted launch on Sunday
Fuck this thread

[Anonymous No.11733274]

>>11732421
Welcome to NASA's crewed space program, kid.