/sfg/ - Space Flight General

[Anonymous No.14610390]

Space planes edition

Previous >>14606016

Future Launch Timelines:

June 29 1704 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - SLC-40, Florida - SES-22 communications satellite.
June 29 2000 EDT - Landspace - ZhuQue-2 - Jiaquan, China - Debut flight, first Chinese private and methalox rocket.
June 29 2000 EDT - ULA - Atlas V 541 - SLC-41, Florida - USSF-12, experimental missile warning satellite for the Space Force.
June 30 0100 EDT - Virgin Orbit - LauncherOne - Mojave, California - "Straight Up", the fifth flight dropped from a Boeing 747.
June 30 0830 EDT - ISRO - PSLV-CA - Sriharikota, India - Three Singaporean satellites.
July 7 0000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - 39A, Florida - Cargo Dragon 2, CRS-2, 25th commercial resupply to the ISS.
July 7 0713 EDT - Arianespace - Vega C - French Guiana - Debut flight, LARES-2 magnetic sensing satellite.
July 7 1830 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - SLC-40, Florida - Starlink 4-21.
July 7 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - VSFB, California - Starlink 3-1.
July 9 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Florida - Starlink 4-22.
July 13 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Florida - Starlink 4-25.
July 13 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - VSFB, California - Starlink 3-2.
July 16 2000 EDT - Firefly - Alpha - VAFB, California - Small satellite rideshare mission, second flight.
July - Relativity - Terran 1 - LC-16, Florida - “Good Luck, Have Fun” debut flight.

[Anonymous No.14610393]

Thoughts on spinlaunch? They have done successful suborbital flight tests

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEVD9k2GLXk

[Anonymous No.14610397]

>>14610393
its bullshit and you are stupid and/or ignorant for bringing it up

[Anonymous No.14610398]

7.1 failed because spacex engineers keep turning into trannies after seeing anime posts on /sfg/

[Anonymous No.14610399]

Happy Birthday Elon

[Anonymous No.14610401]

>Venus Aerospace unveils its new dart-like Mach 9 hypersonic plane design

https://www.space.com/venus-aerospace-hypersonic-plane-design

>Ambitious startup Venus Aerospace recently joined the growing crowd of firms attempting to achieve hypersonic flight when they unveiled their revolutionary "Stargazer" concept vehicle at the UP.Summit(opens in new tab) in Bentonville, Arkansas.

>"Stargazer" was imagined as a next-generation Mach 9 hypersonic drone as well as a Mach 9 crewed aircraft, and both variants are hypothetically capable of taking a quick spin around Earth in about one hour. Hypersonic planes of this nature would take off from a conventional airport at subsonic speeds before streaking into the wild blue yonder to just the edge of outer space (170,000 feet, or 51,816 meters) while in hypersonic mode.

>This new aerospace player has already obtained $33 million in private investor funding, which includes major venture capitalist investments, and an additional $1 million in government cash. Venus has also bolstered their balance sheet by recently announcing $20 million more raised in a Series A offering led by Prime Movers Lab, a venture capital firm that invests in breakthrough scientific startups.

>"We worked with NASA at the Johnson Space Center and were able to access the information from the sonic boom testing from the space shuttle program," Duggleby said in a Flying interview(opens in new tab). "We determined that at altitude and speed flying you will not be able to hear us — we will be flying at 170,000 feet at Mach 9."

>With an optimistic game plan underway, Venus has already developed and built a technology demonstration engine and has conducted pivotal tests inside hypersonic wind tunnels and propulsion labs around the country. The company hopes to start subsonic and supersonic drone testing next year

Innovative, or vaporware?

[Anonymous No.14610403]

>>14610401
how does a mach 9 plane circle the earth in 1 hour?

[Anonymous No.14610410]

>>14610403
fly along the arctic circle, it still counts!

[Anonymous No.14610412]

>>14610390
you can't just make a new thread before the old one hits page 10.

I call upon jannies to correct this error. (no compensation)

[Anonymous No.14610418]

first for supporting your local icbm supplier

[Anonymous No.14610425]

>>14610418
Literally KSP tier lmao

[Anonymous No.14610429]

spaceplanes are scams like nfts and you should be banned for posting them

[Anonymous No.14610440]

cringe OP

[Anonymous No.14610450]

>>14610390
FTS Archive
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1KCJBL632oieD1r6JOh_5Eg9NTcf_-hH8?usp=sharing

[Anonymous No.14610456]

>>14610390
Nexusbros…

[Anonymous No.14610465]

>>14610429
Even NFTs managed to actually deliver a product

[Anonymous No.14610467]

>>14610401
Anyone can make a powerpoint about something "innovative"

[Anonymous No.14610470]

>>14610390
UENUS

[Anonymous No.14610472]

>>14610429
NFT's wrapped back around to being based for scamming people with extremely subtle nazi imagery

[Anonymous No.14610473]

>>14610418
Takeoff using SRBs is a perfectly viable option, especially if you're working with tight volume constraints in your ascent module.

Landing on SRBs would take a immaculately tuned system as well as enormous testicles and a head filled with crazy thoughts.

[Anonymous No.14610475]

>>14610399
He's been quiet for a whole week and I don't know whether to be scared or excited

[Anonymous No.14610480]

>>14610401
My head wants to say vapor, but my heart wants to believe that advanced aircraft can still be designed by someone other than an oldspace dinosaur like Lockheed or Boeing.

[Anonymous No.14610481]

>>14610475
If he's dead it's unironically over

[Anonymous No.14610482]

>>14610418
nice septic tank bro

[Anonymous No.14610483]

ETA to when we see this on Mars?

[Anonymous No.14610485]

>>14610393
Please refer to my response from the last time you posted this exact question and image, nothing has changed (faggot).

[Anonymous No.14610486]

>>14610483
stratus clouds? 10,000 years at least

[Anonymous No.14610490]

>>14610483
Enjoying a laugh in that /pol/ thread too eh?

[Anonymous No.14610492]

>>14610490
QRD on the thread?

[Anonymous No.14610493]

>>14610492
Same as any space thread on /pol/, filled with /x/ bot spammers

[Anonymous No.14610494]

>>14610493
>any observation I can't explain with (((soience))) is /x/!!!

[Anonymous No.14610497]

>>14610494
>moon landings cannot be explained
You have no understanding of a common /x/ile's retardation

[Anonymous No.14610498]

>>14610497
>yes we totally had moon technology in the 1970s but they were gone now ;)
WE WUZ MUNELANDERZ

[Anonymous No.14610501]

>>14610498
We never had a super heavy rocket like Saturn V to take us there until now with SLS/Starship

[Anonymous No.14610504]

>>14610473
>srb landing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx5zLykjKy8
absolutely based

[Anonymous No.14610507]

>>14610504
try SRB docking

[Anonymous No.14610510]

>>14610418
>This optimized mass fraction
>Using the propulsion with the worst mass fraction to get the best mass fraction
Wow, we are all going to make it
>>14610475
>Father I will literally cut off my dick if you post on Twitter again

[Anonymous No.14610517]

Hey guys what's up? How did the static fire go?

[Anonymous No.14610519]

>>14610504
Possible? Of course it's possible. It's just not recommended. ...Of course, if we only ever did what was recommended no one would have ever sat down and said "You know, Fluorine sounds like it has some real potential."

Also fuck that guy for ever saying that hybrids were a dumb idea they were the exact solution to his throttling problem and he fucking knows it.

>>14610507
Now we're just trying to make the extreme sports version of spacecraft engineering.

[Anonymous No.14610520]

>>14610517
fantastic, they fired all 37 raptors for 2 weeks straight

[Anonymous No.14610524]

>>14610483
After we get a real American as a president.

[Anonymous No.14610525]

First for Colbalt-60 radioisotope batteries, just let the wagie assemble it.
>They fell for the reusable worker meme

[Anonymous No.14610526]

>>14610520
did u make a typo?

[Anonymous No.14610528]

>>14610520
god i wish

[Anonymous No.14610530]

>>14610507
>>14610504
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhdrCxin7A0

[Anonymous No.14610532]

>>14610519
i just really wish joe stopped pussying around and started making a liquid reusable rocket
even just small scale it would teach him alot more than these meme solids
go hit up NASA for that new 3d printing alloy and you wouldn't have to worry about your shit melting either

[Anonymous No.14610537]

>>14610390
I want to believe

[Anonymous No.14610543]

>>14610393
nice if used on the moon

[Anonymous No.14610546]

>>14610525
Ultra Safe is using cobalt specifically because it isn't death am become destroyer of worlds.

[Anonymous No.14610547]

>>14610530
>that landing
my sides

[Anonymous No.14610550]

>>14610530
lmao
nasa should've done this instead of sls, it might have been cheaper

[Anonymous No.14610552]

>>14610550
>it might have been cheaper
do NOT look up the cost of the SLS SRBs

[Anonymous No.14610553]

>>14610537
>(Any spaceport)

Probably comes in really fucking fast as well as having some hypergolics, so no, not any airport

[Anonymous No.14610557]

>>14610553
he didn't say any airport, silly

[Anonymous No.14610559]

>>14610393
I believe more in airship-to-orbit than spinlaunch

[Anonymous No.14610561]

>>14610559
i believe equally in sympathetic-magic-to-orbit and spinlaunch

[Anonymous No.14610590]

>>14610393
I know a guy there, he's always complaining about carbon fiber dust

seems more likely to succeed than some of the other small launcher startups but still kind of a longshot desu

[Anonymous No.14610594]

>>14610590
>he's always complaining about carbon fiber dust
lmao rip that guys lungs

[Anonymous No.14610595]

>>14610557
Why are there no space launch sites in the interior of the US like in Russia and China?

[Anonymous No.14610597]

>>14610595
because we have temperate coastline that can launch to a wide range of inclinations without flying over japan

[Anonymous No.14610598]

>>14610557
>Kodiak
PCSA doesn't have HTOL facilities. It'd have to be Elmendorf in Anchorage which is an old Space Shuttle emergency landing site.

[Anonymous No.14610599]

>>14610594
I don't understand this reusable lung meme

[Anonymous No.14610603]

>>14610418
I recognize the Flea engines from KSP

[Anonymous No.14610604]

>>14610595
Because there is human life to keep safe.

[Anonymous No.14610605]

>>14610557
wenchang is missing, so are the north/south korean launch sites

[Anonymous No.14610608]

>>14610483
>ETA to when we see this on Mars?
NET 2026, realistically more like 2029

[Anonymous No.14610612]

>>14610557
iran sites are missing too, and the virgin orbit sites if you count them

[Anonymous No.14610629]

>>14610403
remove most of the mass

[Anonymous No.14610638]

>>14610557

[Anonymous No.14610640]

>>14610638
>no duluth
map is shit

[Anonymous No.14610646]

>>14610638
reminds me
armhem space centre had a sounding rocket launch the other day
first rocket launch in aus since 95? i think

[Anonymous No.14610650]

>>14610612
They ran away.

[Anonymous No.14610669]

>>14610640
Michigan is close enough

[Anonymous No.14610674]

>>14610546
It's just not extraordinary dangerous if you're not directly working with it, but the public didn't consent to receiving at least the yearly OSHA max radiation dose because the military wanted shitty low power nuclear electric craft for operation around Earth and a nuclear battery ended up disintegrating in the atmosphere. When the public finds out about this, they're probably going to have a few concerns. Tier one is only 17 kW(thermal, I presume) but the dose could be up to 25 rem, 5 rem is the OSHA limit. They could maybe get 4 kWe with a Stirling generator but for electric propulsion that power is a joke. Fission reactors would be a waste of money but at least they wouldn't be critical until they are started up in space and pose far fewer safety concerns.

Radioisotope electric propulsion is indefensible for technical reasons alone and it doesn't warrant militarizing LEO with nuclear resources. Ultra Safe didn't discover anything new, just sold the government bad technology.
>Nuclear is hard? Just use just a hot radioactive rock instead of a reactor, bro, ez

[Anonymous No.14610677]

>>14610646
>It marks the first commercial space launch in Australia's history and NASA's first rocket launch from a commercial spaceport outside of the United States.
>NASA's first rocket launch from a commercial spaceport outside of the United States.
Does RocketLab not count? They literally launched CAPSTONE yesterday

[Anonymous No.14610679]

>>14610677
We secretly annexed New Zealand.

[Anonymous No.14610686]

Some progress on Ariane 6 rocketship. It's being prepared for launch.

[Anonymous No.14610697]

>>14610686
>121 meter transport ship powered by engines assisted by four massive sails
Pretty cool

https://zephyretboree.com/en/ariane-6/

[Anonymous No.14610704]

what happened to dragon XL?

[Anonymous No.14610706]

>>14610704
They won the contract from NASA but received next to no money. Pretty strange.

[Anonymous No.14610709]

>>14610704
Probably is shelved or on a skeleton crew due to lack of urgency from NASA, since they do have other cargo spacecraft providers.
Dragon XL would be required for the gateway as no other cargo spacecraft really has a rocket that can send them to the Moon

[Anonymous No.14610714]

>>14610697
>specially designed for the transport needs of Ariane 6 launcher
Wtf is this Big Boat grift? Just stick it on a normal boat.

[Anonymous No.14610735]

>>14610674
Also the integration costs would be insane. RTGs are low power, Pu-238 is safe to hold in a gloved hand. This guy got so fucked up by Cobalt-60 that he died within 30 minutes instead of weeks.

[Anonymous No.14610756]

>>14610714
Regular boat not beeg enough, and probably costs more

[Anonymous No.14610759]

>>14610686
>>14610697
>main engine is built by Wärtsilä
finally Finland gets to contribute too

[Anonymous No.14610762]

static when

[Anonymous No.14610763]

Since boats were mentioned... Why is SpaceX doing nothing with those oil rigs? They have been working on them for many months but achieved very little. As far as I'm aware, they're still dismantling and removing stuff. Are oil rigs hard?

[Anonymous No.14610775]

Elon hasn't tweeted in 8 days. Is he alright??
>mfw

[Anonymous No.14610777]

>>14610756
everything you just said was so wrong it makes SLS seem right

[Anonymous No.14610781]

>>14610775
I don't see how avoiding a cesspit for 8 days is a bad thing.

[Anonymous No.14610788]

>>14610403
Fly around the North Pole.

[Anonymous No.14610794]

>>14610763
They are at the bottom of their priorities. Things happening at all is good. Otherwise they could be left there to rot like Jeff's stupid ship.

[Anonymous No.14610802]

>>14610777
It's meant to be a demonstrator of how cargo ships can develop in the future, the environmental impact can be reduced as much as 45%, and if that were to apply to all cargo ships in the world, that's a big impact.
Also note that SLS also has a ship and so far has probably cost more; and it isn't even sea worthy as it is a barge.

[Anonymous No.14610806]

>>14610802
>It's meant to be a demonstrator of how cargo ships can develop in the future, the environmental impact can be reduced as much as 45%
but now it takes longer and you can't carry as much cargo so you need more ships
just the euros fucking with things for the sake of fucking with them

[Anonymous No.14610839]

>>14610638
>That launch site in the middle of fucking nowhere, Alaska
How the hell do they get sounding rockets in there?

[Anonymous No.14610844]

>>14610706
Next to no money indicates it's in Phase A, the technical feasibility study

[Anonymous No.14610851]

>>14610844
How long is it supposed to take? Both Gateway launch and DragonXL supply mission are scheduled for 2024.

[Anonymous No.14610854]

What happened to my girl elon :(

[Anonymous No.14610873]

>>14610851
You'd need to file a FOIA request to see the actual contract because they don't post that online without one

[Anonymous No.14610882]

>>14610806
You imply that this can’t be scaled up, which it can be

[Anonymous No.14610884]

>>14610763
Oil rigs are environmental disasters waiting to happen

I would not be surprised if he got them cheap because he's on the hook for remediation of some issues

[Anonymous No.14610887]

>>14610854
killed

[Anonymous No.14610893]

>>14610763
No point in building it yet when the Texas test site hasn’t even verified the validity of the current design.
I feel that Elon got them for cheap just because he’d have to do all of the dismantling

[Anonymous No.14610899]

>>14610806
>takes longer
It won’t, the sails are used to replace engine power so that the engines can be used less for the same speed, this also works in unfavourable winds due to ’tacking’ maneuvers
>can’t carry as much cargo
The design is fully scaleable due to the sails weighing very little.

The ideal version of this would be the future of cargo transports; sails coupled with electronic engines, maybe even sails covered in solar cells

[Anonymous No.14610902]

>>14610882
which it can't be

[Anonymous No.14610903]

>>14610899
you ever wonder why sailing ships died?
its because they are SHIT

[Anonymous No.14610919]

>>14610903
Thanks for your insight, marine engineer.

[Anonymous No.14610939]

>>14610903
Because canvas weighs alot compared to synthetic materials? Because traditional sails are less efficient than wingsails? Because tacking wasn’t a thing?

[Anonymous No.14610942]

>>14610902
Which it will be

[Anonymous No.14610946]

>>14610939
no
because wind sucks fucking dick and burning shit kicks ass
this wouldn't even be a thing we are talking about if they just let us have nuclear powered boat

[Anonymous No.14610951]

>>14610946
>has never been out at sea winds
Tacking is a method which allows you to move faster than the wind pushing you, which is exactly what wingsails are designed to do
>nuclear boats
Way to get uranium stolen at every port in the middle east

[Anonymous No.14610959]

>>14610763
They needed those rigs foremost to strip them down, the massive cable hoists and winches used in the rigs are now used to lift the chopsticks on the current launch tower, and the other set is going to be used at the tower they build at the cape. When those towers are proven to be reliable enough you can start to sink money into those rigs

[Anonymous No.14610966]

>>14610946
>nuclear powered boat
Just not worth the cost over a relatively cheap motor. Hydrocarbons are here to stay, they'll just be made by surplus renewable energy.

[Anonymous No.14611022]

Thinking about Mars heavily right now

[Anonymous No.14611024]

>>14610498
>every technology that ever existed has to always stay available forever
Guess Concorde was a conspiracy too. Giant airships crossing the Atlantic? There's no such thing! Crossing the English channel on a giant commercial hovercraft? Just a figment of our imagination. Ekranoplans? We made it all up.

[Anonymous No.14611027]

>>14611024
Don't waste your time on those people, especially on the internet.

[Anonymous No.14611028]

>>14610401
This one looks silly as hell so I won't hold my breath for them.
I'm skeptical of supersonic/hypersonic aircraft startups in general. While one might deliver someday, it seems a bigger engineering challenge than building, say, a small rocket.

>>14610674
Yeah but it's ultra safe so you can be sure that won't happen.

[Anonymous No.14611133]

>>14611024
Stop, you only make me sad because these don’t exist anymore :(

[Anonymous No.14611176]

>>14610966
> run industrial society by using dilute energy which we turn to concentrated energy in a lossy process
wew

[Anonymous No.14611189]

>>14610966
Seems like the time of the hydrocarbons is nearing its end, electric motors have advanced significantly along with batteries. Most European countries try and set targets to around 2040 or so for carbon-free vehicles being the majority.
That or hydrogen engines (which I think is more unlikely due to how annoying hydrogen can be to work with, and how explosive it tends to be)

One really retarded thing I hate with this though is the push for renewable energy despite nuclear being far more suitable for this kind of a shift. Germany is obviously the worst offender in this, their entire green party needs to be ransacked and usurped before they do anymore damage

[Anonymous No.14611201]

>>14611189
For things like planes and boats, where battery density is an issue, I can see hydrogen being the replacement for carbon-free vehicles. IIRC Airbus is working on hydrogen planes.

[Anonymous No.14611215]

>>14611189
>hydrocarbons is nearing its end
Only thanks to the green ideology. ICE cars still are, and will continue to be way better than EVs.

[Anonymous No.14611225]

>>14611201
Definitely for planes as the wings need to flex, something that batteries don't usually like to do.
Boats are more flexible, and could maybe even house SMRs or VSMRs, as the average power a cargo ship needs is 1-4 MegaWatts (5-10 for cruise ships), while even now the reactor aboard the Russian Lomonosov reactor ship produces around 70 MWe.
The US though seems to be slagging on this, with only two SMR designs being licensed atm, while China, Russia and South Korea are already constructing several of their own

[Anonymous No.14611228]

>>14611201
Hydrogen is an even bigger meme in aviation than it is in rocketry. You'll see synthetic av gas before any commercial hydrogen aircraft flies. Airbus is selling empty greenwashed PR bullshit.

[Anonymous No.14611229]

>>14611215
Cars don't run on ice retard

[Anonymous No.14611258]

>china has finished mapping mars with its orbiter
they're catching up

[Anonymous No.14611302]

>>14611201
this just looks like a reflective object shining into the camera

[Anonymous No.14611309]

>>14610669
Indeed, I can't wait for it to get redeveloped.

[Anonymous No.14611322]

>>14611302
NOOOOOOO DON'T TAKE THIS AWAY FROM ME ORANGE TANK BAD

[Anonymous No.14611332]

I wish our solar system had a temperate ocean world we could explore. That would have been so kino gucci

[Anonymous No.14611355]

>>14611022
RED WORLD HAS NO PLACE FOR MEEE

[Anonymous No.14611374]

Neat paper from 2002 about building reusable rockets for large payloads (80 tons to LEO).
The paper compares four differing designs of two-stage-to-orbit reusable rockets with differing fuel configurations. It’s actually pretty cool and goes into depth about mass distribution, etc.
>https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ben-Donahue-2/publication/245438157_Two-Stage_Launch_Vehicles_for_Heavy_Payloads/links/5df3f0a94585159aa47bf684/Two-Stage-Launch-Vehicles-for-Heavy-Payloads.pdf?origin=publication_detail

[Anonymous No.14611391]

>>14611374
Why the heck were engineers allergic to series staging and propulsive landing before SpaceX?

[Anonymous No.14611411]

>>14611374
>no methalox

[Anonymous No.14611418]

>>14610450
Hmm today I will purchase a reasonable amount of stamps

[Anonymous No.14611419]

>>14611391
There are a few VTOL reusable rocket designs but they were pretty niche. People also seemed to think of using them only as SSTO’s. Odd.
One such VTOL design was an original competitor for the design of the space shuttle. To make up for crappier computers in the 70’s, the vehicle used jet engines for landing. Could it have worked? Maybe.

>http://www.astronautix.com/s/serv.html

>>14611411
The study assumed only currently-existing engines. No big methane engines existed in 2002.

[Anonymous No.14611421]

>>14611418
good thing payday is tomorrow

[Anonymous No.14611422]

>NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, calling into the JWST briefing, reveals he tested positive for Covid last night.

[Anonymous No.14611429]

>>14611422
>Nelson says one of the JWST early release images to be unveiled July 12 will be the “deepest image of the universe” ever taken.
>NASA Deputy Administrator Pam Melroy: have confirmed that, thanks to accurate launch, JWST has enough fuel for 20 years of science lifetime.
>NASA’s Dr Thomas Zurbuchen says the July 12 JWST release will include the first exoplanet spectrum taken by the telescope. No one expected how well the commissioning of JWST went, he said. “I did not expect it.”

[Anonymous No.14611436]

>>14611374
That's cool, interesting that they considered engines from overseas too as that'd open more design freedom. Myself, I like this one better, even if there's more complexity to it.

[Anonymous No.14611440]

branson has betrayed us

[Anonymous No.14611443]

>>14611440
He was never on your side, Ivan.

[Anonymous No.14611445]

>>14611440
>yoo this shit lookin' FUCKED UP
>look at these watches tho lol

[Anonymous No.14611447]

>>14611440
Based.

[Anonymous No.14611448]

Musk 1 was expended.
Musk 2 will be fully reusable.

[Anonymous No.14611449]

>>14610390
I though this was an Arwing from Starfox lol

[Anonymous No.14611452]

>>14610483
If the US is given control of Mars then what a colossal waste.

[Anonymous No.14611456]

>>14611440
Based Branson supporting freedom

[Anonymous No.14611460]

>>14611419
Everything goes back to that Sicilian dreamer, Phil Bono

[Anonymous No.14611463]

>>14611440
shut the fuck up Dmitry

[Anonymous No.14611465]

>>14611440
Never trust a hippy

[Anonymous No.14611467]

>>14611189
Hydrocarbons won't disappear

Carbon-neutral synthetic fuels will continue to be used well into the 2100s unless someone invents batteries with more energy density than an equivalent weight of gasoline

[Anonymous No.14611468]

>>14611465
True, hippies are communist fifth column.

[Anonymous No.14611470]

>>14611429
>Zurbuchen: taking some of the early release observations now, some already take. May make some last-minute choices for what is released on July 12.

[Anonymous No.14611475]

>>14611470
THEY CONTINUE TO HIDE THEIR EXISTENCE FROM US. WHEN IS ENOUGH ENOUGH?

[Anonymous No.14611476]

>>14611460
Man could any of those VTOL designs have worked? I just wish someone decided to stack them on top of each other because SSTO is retarded and idk why NASA shilled it so much.

>>14611440
>>14611465
>>14611468
>1 Trillion rubles have been added to your account

[Anonymous No.14611480]

>>14611476
DC-X worked.
And then politicians killed it.

[Anonymous No.14611482]

>>14611476
>1 trillion roubles
Thanks for the 18 billion euros man

[Anonymous No.14611483]

>>14611480
Well the engineers went to work for Blue Origin, so it did work in a suborbital sense. But nothing more.

[Anonymous No.14611486]

>>14611440
Anyone know what kind of watch this is?

[Anonymous No.14611489]

>>14611476
Bono's designs aren't all SSTOs, ROMBUS and vehicles derived from it have 8 yuge drop tanks

[Anonymous No.14611493]

>>14611483
That’s disappointing but New Shepard is pretty much a clone of DC-X if you think about it. Especially the landings.

>>14611480
I wonder how they planned on getting around the SSTO mass fraction issue. In hindsight, stacking a DC-X on top of another one was probably an amazing idea.

[Anonymous No.14611495]

>>14611489
>Tank parachutes into the ocean
Was this bad for reuse or could it be worked around?

[Anonymous No.14611498]

>>14611495
Pretty sure the issue with dropping tanks into the ocean is corrosion more so than the blunt impact, I recall it can be worked around fairly easily

[Anonymous No.14611501]

>>14611476
SSTO is difficult but it was at least almost achievable with 1990s tech. The real question is if it could be developed or a cost that could be paid off by the work the resulting vehicle could do. Also whether or not 1990s oldspace was capable of developing it in a cost effective manner. SSTO could be done now a lot more easily than it could in the 90s, but I think modern Boeing would have a harder time than any of the major players from 30 years ago.

NASA shilled for it because it offered massive reductions in launch cost and they had just spent all of the 1980s watching their budgets shrink. The USSR breaking up in 1991 didn't help things either. The 1990s were the era of "Faster, Better, Cheaper" and if NASA wanted to do anything bigger than a Discover-class mission they felt they needed to do something to change the fundamental economics of spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.14611517]

>>14611493
A Clipper/Centaur would actually have been a pretty impressive launch vehicle even by modern standards. The mass fraction wasn't as big of an issue because the payloads were mostly planned to be small satellites for LEO mega-constellations.

[Anonymous No.14611593]

https://youtu.be/8RV2K6myH08
Finally

[Anonymous No.14611610]

Has anyone tested to make sure the rocket equation is actually correct?

[Anonymous No.14611613]

>>14611610
>rocket equation is the new aether

[Anonymous No.14611614]

>>14611610
Like building and rocket and plugging in the equation so that the rocket flies?

[Anonymous No.14611625]

>>14611614
Just because it works doesn't mean its correct

[Anonymous No.14611627]

>>14611610
Well first, we need to test if gravity is real. That's why I'd like you to volunteer.

[Anonymous No.14611630]

>>14611610
>ecorocket first launch accidentally makes it to alpha centauri

[Anonymous No.14611631]

>>14611625
So if it doesn't work then its correct?

[Anonymous No.14611636]

>>14611610
if the rocket equation is wrong then newtonian physics is wrong

[Anonymous No.14611637]

>>14611627
>he thinks gravity is real
Sure your magic "gravity" interacts with everything in the universe

[Anonymous No.14611640]

>>14611630
If the rocket used light eco instead of green eco, they might have a chance

[Anonymous No.14611642]

>>14611636
i choose to believe that its wrong

[Anonymous No.14611648]

>galaxy spinning too fast for gravity to hold it together
>lol its dark meme magic no way we got gravity wrong
REALLY makes you think

[Anonymous No.14611666]

>still no static fire notice

[Anonymous No.14611668]

When will we go FTL bros

[Anonymous No.14611672]

>>14611648
look we have umpteen meme particles we can pull out our ass at any given time to cover any possible data, you cant win MONDfags

[Anonymous No.14611675]

>>14610393
https://youtu.be/VSSBARd5HhE
>ran off their site by a bunch of old white nimbys
ngmi

[Anonymous No.14611678]

>>14611668
5th of June, 2073

[Anonymous No.14611680]

https://www.businessinsider.com/russian-inspired-spacex-by-spitting-on-elon-musk-shoes-book-2022-6?amp


>Former NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver recalled how Elon Musk was inspired to start building his own rockets in her recent memoir.

>The SpaceX CEO famously decided to launch his own space venture after he was spat on by a Russian engineer in 2001. Garver commented on the incident in "Escaping Gravity: My Quest to Transform NASA and Launch a New Space Age," published June 21.

>"This act so completely offended Elon that he decided on the flight home that he would start his own rocket company to compete with them," Garver wrote. "If Helen of Troy had a face that launched a thousand ships, this was the spit that launched a thousand spaceships."

Kek

Now Elon is destroying the Russian commercial launch industry

[Anonymous No.14611682]

>>14611680
those drug addled monkeys can't help but fuck themselves in the ass time and time again
the greatest threat and rival to Russians are other Russians being their subhuman selves

[Anonymous No.14611690]

>>14610839
The fucking engineering university and small city that's there you retard

[Anonymous No.14611695]

>>14611680
based alpha centauri poster

[Anonymous No.14611699]

>>14611675
based comments

[Anonymous No.14611722]

>>14611680
They did it to themselves anon, Russians are self destructive in every imaginable way

[Anonymous No.14611727]

looks like either B7 popped, or they are are going over it with a fine toothed come prior to test fire.

Happening Status: Maybe

[Anonymous No.14611728]

>>14611680
the michael jordan method

[Anonymous No.14611732]

>>14611680
apologise

[Anonymous No.14611744]

>>14611732
im sorry

[Anonymous No.14611750]

>>14611680
Elon already destroyed Russian commercial launch industry. He's now destroying Russian as a nation by helping out Ukraine.

Reminder, Biden's legacy wont be pretty. Elon will kill all the far left commie legacies.

[Anonymous No.14611753]

>>14611680
So this is why he didn't just buy Russian ICBMs?

[Anonymous No.14611754]

>>14611750
jesus christ take your meds

[Anonymous No.14611755]

>>14611489
>>14611495
>>14611498
just make them out of stainless

[Anonymous No.14611757]

>>14611750
Based Elon, destroying the cuckold demonrat commies

[Anonymous No.14611759]

>>14611680
I wonder what it's like to have the kind of money where you can have ideas like that and make them happen with just a few guys in an office (and a mariachi band)

[Anonymous No.14611765]

>>14611759
money isnt enough. see blorigin

[Anonymous No.14611766]

>>14611750
Destroying Russia is exactly what the Dems want, Republicans want to destroy China

[Anonymous No.14611770]

>>14611766
Republicans love Putin

[Anonymous No.14611772]

Delta clipper the sub-scale vertical landing test bed was great.
Delta clipper the SSTO was an entirely different beast with vastly greater complexity and also frankly not a very good concept.
Saying it was terrible delta clipper was cancelled because they had this working prototype and that meant it we were only a small leap away from the affordable fully re-usable rocket is a bit like Bezos bragging about successfully landing new Shepard before the F-9 booster; it's a completely different level of difficulty.

The full scale concept was also not that great. With the kind of ISP and mass fractions we have, SSTO isn't that sensible on Earth, reusable TSTO is vastly better if you can do it, and frankly should have been common sense to the DC team.
You could just stick your Delta clipper on top of a re-usable booster for not much extra risk at the cost of a bit of extra ground infrastructure.

[Anonymous No.14611775]

>>14611517
better mass fraction still means a lot for megaconstellations, every 1 extra sat you can launch in one go will cut dozens if not hundreds of launches off the total required
>>14611766
I want to destroy them both.

[Anonymous No.14611789]

>>14611772
>Delta clipper the SSTO was an entirely different beast with vastly greater complexity and also frankly not a very good concept.
That was never demonstrated and frankly I doubt they even had a working model right. So at best it would be a suborbital vehicle.

[Anonymous No.14611811]

>>14611668
2 weeks

[Anonymous No.14611828]

https://twitter.com/TGMetsFan98/status/1542187525518856194
> A now-deleted tweet from relativityspace announced a "multi-year, multi launch" agreement to launch OneWeb satellites on Terran R.

Some intern dun fucked up.

[Anonymous No.14611840]

>>14611828
>relativity space
Isnt this the same 3D proonting company parading as a rocket company

[Anonymous No.14611842]

>>14611828
>hard R will fly before any of whozos's engines
how long until kuiper starts buying launches on the based rocket?

[Anonymous No.14611844]

>>14611828
proontingbros, we can't stop winning

[Anonymous No.14611845]

>>14611840
Their first rocket is on the pad at LC-16.

[Anonymous No.14611854]

>>14611842
Could Starship carry a Hard R upper stage? Imagine the degenerate anime birthing fanart...

[Anonymous No.14611855]

Donald Trump could be on dearmoon

[Anonymous No.14611859]

>>14611854
Relativity's mini Starship renders are just investor bait, they have a long way to go before they can reuse a first stage let alone a second stage.

[Anonymous No.14611886]

>>14611648
But that's not what happened. People tried modifying gravity, much it was much less successful. Dark matter models match observations of large scale structure and made many confirmed predictions. On the other hand the best modified gravity isn't even relativistic and fails at everything beyond galaxies. And fundamentally rewriting gravity is just as arbitrary, but for some reason many people fall for the misconception that it is more natural.

[Anonymous No.14611910]

You want 4 billion dollars for WHAT?!

[Anonymous No.14611914]

>>14611845
How does their reuse supposed to work, are they landing it?

[Anonymous No.14611920]

>>14611910
Expendable Alabama river rocks, premium quality and great resistance.

[Anonymous No.14611938]

>>14611750
boomers please die already

[Anonymous No.14611960]

They have to ask for more money to put flaps, slats, winglets and rudders on those space planes.

[Anonymous No.14611997]

>>14611886
I already said that here
>>14611672

[Anonymous No.14612014]

>>14611997
>>14611672

What you said was also wrong. All observations are still consistent with the simplest form, cold dark matter. No multiple particles needed, the nature of the particles is almost irrelevant on cosmological scales.

[Anonymous No.14612035]

Mmmmm. Soon to be 5 with relativity and starship

https://twitter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1542205380469604353?s=21&t=o3rKFJZQ89ycPRbMDmAEVg

[Anonymous No.14612042]

>>14612035
>starship
>sls
>side by side
K I N O

[Anonymous No.14612047]

>>14612035
What a nice time to be interested in spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.14612076]

>>14611914
Despite their slick investor bait Relativity isn't actually doing reuse.

[Anonymous No.14612081]

>>14612076
They are reusing investors

[Anonymous No.14612086]

>Webb telescope images are unironically two weeks away and the grapevine is buzzing

The anticipation is killing me

[Anonymous No.14612092]

>>14612086
2 weeks

[Anonymous No.14612097]

Looks like it was too risky to reboost with Cygnus, they bailed

Sucks to suck

[Anonymous No.14612098]

>>14611517
I really don't think you understand just how bad SSTOs are and the insane mass fractions that are required just to reach orbit with a useful payload.
>B-b-but Starship could SSTO
Yes if you stripped it down, made it expendable, and turned it into a smallsat launcher. It would carry >100x the propellent mass of Electron.

[Anonymous No.14612099]

>>14612097
These guys are the ones building the Gateway hab module by the way, really inspiring

[Anonymous No.14612104]

>>14612097
They settled for a limited reboost instead
https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/06/25/cygnus-cargo-craft-fires-engine-for-limited-station-reboost/

Guessing it was fuel flow/pressure

[Anonymous No.14612108]

Which ones are going to be part of the orbital test?

[Anonymous No.14612111]

>>14612108
>34/33

[Anonymous No.14612113]

It’s just funny how NASA was willing to give us SSTO when it came to reusable spaceplanes but when it came to VTOL rockets, they never thought of stacking them on top of each other.
Also, let this be a lesson in why private spaceflight is good. DC-X was cool, but because it was tied to government $$$$, it was cancelled on a whim.

Also fun fact but in the alternate history series “Eyes Turned Skywards,” the DC-X team is hired by a Blue Origin expy, only it doesn’t suck and they end up building a semi-reusable rocket called Thunderbolt by the mid 2000s (lower right corner).

[Anonymous No.14612118]

>>14612113
give UP not give us sorry bro’s.

[Anonymous No.14612119]

>>14612108
All of them

[Anonymous No.14612121]

>>14612108
S24/B7 probably
S25/B8 100% will fly unless things change

[Anonymous No.14612122]

>>14612035
10 years from now CC is gonna be a fucking madhouse. Do they have plans to expand?

[Anonymous No.14612124]

A Brownsville judge said SpaceX will fly to orbit in 30-90 days. Don’t have the article link.

[Anonymous No.14612126]

>>14612121
apparently S24 is a disaster and Elon is fuming about it and not even tweeting as usual

[Anonymous No.14612127]

>>14612111
We fuckin' gaan

[Anonymous No.14612129]

>>14612098
>graph
such shitty performance, if we had chemical engines with an isp of 600 SSTOs with mass fractions like that of starship are possible BUT two stage launch systems with the same efficient engines would outperform them as well

[Anonymous No.14612132]

Can anybody redpill me on Terran R?
>OneWeb contract already
>a shit ton of outside investment money
>upper stage uses only one vac optimized engine
>nothing about how the second stage will survive reentry

[Anonymous No.14612133]

>>14612122
They have many many more pads they either planned to use or abandoned because their cadence was so low they didn't need them

[Anonymous No.14612135]

>>14612129
>>14612098
Everyday Astronaut’s SSTO video summarizes it well. Chemical rockets can’t do SSTO very well. And even if they did, why not just use a two stage rocket and let your mass fraction be more conservative?
Also SSTO needs more thermal tiles, etc. TSTO is better.

[Anonymous No.14612136]

>>14612132
Isn’t Hard R launching in like 2024? Same year as Rocket Lab Neutron

They haven’t released much info about it

[Anonymous No.14612137]

>>14612098
You can reach ~5% mass fraction SSTO with engines like the RD-704. Which is pretty fucking insane.

[Anonymous No.14612138]

>>14612132
Terran R is mostly vaporware and bait for investors. Would be cool to have but Terran 1 isn’t even flying yet.
100% going to blow Neutron out of the water thoufh

[Anonymous No.14612141]

>>14612136
>>14612138
Neutron doesn't sound like complete fucking bullshit in comparison at least.

[Anonymous No.14612145]

>>14612141
True but I’m giving Terran Retard benefit of the doubt. Both Neutron and R have zero hardware so far. Starship came along faster than they will

[Anonymous No.14612148]

>>14612132
>Can anybody redpill me on Terran R?

Vaporware.

[Anonymous No.14612150]

>>14612145
Dont put RL in the same league! they already have electron flying while relativity has... Investor shekels?

[Anonymous No.14612152]

>>14612145
Both has some engine hardware IIRC. Terran 1 will even switch to Aeon R in like three launches.

[Anonymous No.14612158]

>>14612132
>>14612136
>>14612138
>>14612141
>>14612145
>>14612148
>>14612150
>>14612152

Relativity is super interesting. This video gives good insight into their 3D printed rockets

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz165f1g8-E

[Anonymous No.14612164]

>>14612152
Ok that’s actually pretty cool of them. Reminds me of the old Merlin 2 plans for Falcon 9.

>>14612158
On one hand, they seem like investor bait, but on the other, I admire their drive. RocketLab and especially Astra aren’t really aiming this high

[Anonymous No.14612167]

>>14612158
3D printing is everywhere in newspace

The Raptors are largely 3D additive printed by some california company, Velo3D

[Anonymous No.14612168]

>>14612132
Missed opportunities, ala autoindustry's search for "2nd" Tesla. This is rocket industry's search for "2nd" SpaceX.

[Anonymous No.14612182]

>>14612167
https://3dprintingindustry.com/news/nasa-completes-23-hot-fire-tests-on-critical-3d-printed-engine-components-180912/

NASA went all the way and figured out that 3D printing makes better engines and everybody sat up and took notice after that

[Anonymous No.14612183]

>>14612124
Found it for you.

https://riograndeguardian.com/trevino-i-expect-starship-to-launch-from-boca-chica-within-next-90-days/

>But, I think on the real aggressive side, we are probably talking 30 days. On the more moderate side, probably 60 and more realistically 90. But, it could be anywhere in that ballpark.

[Anonymous No.14612190]

Praise the SLS. We will win the race to space

[Anonymous No.14612191]

>>14612124
>>14612183
>“I could accurately say that if it was up to SpaceX it would have been today or yesterday. I can say that with a 100 percent degree of certainty,” Treviño responded.
>“But, I think on the real aggressive side, we are probably talking 30 days. On the more moderate side, probably 60 and more realistically 90. But, it could be anywhere in that ballpark.”
So even he knows FAA is the cause of delay for SpaceX, had it not been for FAA, we'd already be flying to orbit multiple times already.

[Anonymous No.14612193]

>>14612183
Thanks. Seems like good news, no? I wish we had more info on their launch license progress. Dude implied that the FONSI was nothing.

>>14612190
I want SLS to succeed, just it failing would arguably be funnier

>>14612191
SpaceX saved his area. Brownsville hotels were 80% full during peak COVID

[Anonymous No.14612201]

>>14612191
SpaceX isn't ready sweaty...

[Anonymous No.14612202]

>>14612191
>had it not been for FAA, we'd already be flying to orbit multiple times already.
Bro, they can't even test fire booster 7.

[Anonymous No.14612204]

>>14612202
FAA

[Anonymous No.14612205]

>>14612158
3D-printing tanks is slow, expensive and useless

[Anonymous No.14612206]

>>14612204
>>14612202
They can. They don’t need approval to static fire now, only fly

[Anonymous No.14612211]

>>14612206
We can hope thats the case but likely not. There's likely lot of political bickering going on under the sheets.

[Anonymous No.14612212]

>>14612211
No like the FONSI said they’re allowed to static fire. Flying is the issue

[Anonymous No.14612214]

>>14612035
patrick sfb has to support those plus wallops & mid atlantic too

[Anonymous No.14612235]

I can always taste the orbital flight

[Anonymous No.14612238]

>>14612235
>259 KB
You should go back to /stg/

[Anonymous No.14612240]

NSF:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVBIFYo0kRI

F9 SES-22.


SpaceX:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjUvXWg2_fE

~T-35 min

[Anonymous No.14612241]

How large could space station modules become with Starships payload size?

[Anonymous No.14612247]

>>14612241
9 meter wide, 50 meters long

[Anonymous No.14612253]

>>14612241
Very. Probably 8m station segments considering the fairing shape and need for wiggle room. Now will someone actually put their space station segments in starship?

Probably not, that would be too good to be true

[Anonymous No.14612254]

>>14612206
The can as in they are allowed, but the hardware clearly isn't ready.

[Anonymous No.14612262]

>>14612254
Bro they're planning to begin static firing thisweek.

[Anonymous No.14612263]

>>14612241

[Anonymous No.14612267]

>>14612127
It's real in my mind

[Anonymous No.14612269]

>>14612204
Will be a non issue in less than 24hr
SJW Jannie got butthurt and chimped out at the news, but that won't stop the train from rolling along
https://archived.moe/sci/thread/14611808/

[Anonymous No.14612270]

>>14612247
20 meters. 30 of those meters are for needed fuel storage and engines. And 13.7 of those 20 meters are the nosecone

[Anonymous No.14612272]

>>14612270
>he doesn't know

[Anonymous No.14612293]

WE ARE LIVE
GET IN HERE BROS

[Anonymous No.14612295]

[Anonymous No.14612300]

>>14612158
That isn't a Terran R.

[Anonymous No.14612302]

>>14612293
>NEW BEATS
>NEW BEATS
>NEW BEATS

[Anonymous No.14612303]

>>14612269
Oh shit a 4channel post? It has to be true then

[Anonymous No.14612304]

>>14612295
his long white chest hairs hnnggggggggg

[Anonymous No.14612311]

>>14612269
a new golden age

[Anonymous No.14612314]

>>14612182
NASA doesn't make rocket engines.

[Anonymous No.14612317]

>SPACEX PRIDE

[Anonymous No.14612319]

>>14612314
What do they make?

[Anonymous No.14612327]

>>14612319
Jobs programs.

[Anonymous No.14612328]

>>14612319
jobs

[Anonymous No.14612330]

>making room for 5G

[Anonymous No.14612346]

>>14612240
T-3 min

[Anonymous No.14612351]

WE GAAN

[Anonymous No.14612354]

>>14612328
also empty promises, debt and a lack of accountability

[Anonymous No.14612356]

Imagine that inside your ass.

[Anonymous No.14612358]

looks fake desu

[Anonymous No.14612363]

>>14612354
NASA made us into doomers, seriously

[Anonymous No.14612370]

>>14612122
Have you looked at the place on Google Earth? It's got space for at least three more 39-class pads on the KSC side, and lots of abandoned pads from the 60s on the USSF side, though I guess those are mostly for smaller rockets.

[Anonymous No.14612377]

Stuck the landing

based

[Anonymous No.14612379]

[Anonymous No.14612380]

looks bit shaky and slower than usual at the last few seconds

I think they were testing hover capability with the landing (possibly for starship catchin)

[Anonymous No.14612384]

f9 launches are so comfy, bros

[Anonymous No.14612390]

>>14612127

[Anonymous No.14612392]

God I love Falcon 9. It is THE rocket. Launching on anything else is considered an exception because why would you want to pay more money?

[Anonymous No.14612398]

Ok seriously, how can anyone compete?

[Anonymous No.14612402]

>>14610966
>Seems like the time of the hydrocarbons is nearing its end
lol
>electric motors have advanced significantly along with batteries
lmao

Almost all those batteries get their charge from hydrocarbons. The next Big Thing in "Green Energy" is "blue hydrogen", or in other words "let's crack methane and waste 70% of the energy present within to create hydrogen".

[Anonymous No.14612406]

>>14612398
not by invading Ukraine, that's for sure...

[Anonymous No.14612411]

SpaceX has launched ~4.5 rockets per avg this year. But more so, has increased in candence from 3 launches a week to ~5 a week.

[Anonymous No.14612417]

>>14612411
per month* to 5 a month*

[Anonymous No.14612428]

They finally released some proper footage from that ariane 5 launch

[Anonymous No.14612432]

>>14611422
Who cares?

I hate Bill Nelson after reading Lori Garver's book. Never forget what these assholes did for more jobs in their states. I shudder to think what the present would be if they got it their way.

[Anonymous No.14612454]

>>14612377
Kinda wobbly

[Anonymous No.14612456]

>>14612432
>I hate Bill Nelson after reading Lori Garver's book
Him and charlie bolden, what a bumbling fool she made him out to be.

[Anonymous No.14612467]

>>14612428
kino

[Anonymous No.14612468]

>>14612454
>>14612380
Guess it wasn't just me

[Anonymous No.14612471]

>>14612454
>screen recording the youtube player
baka

[Anonymous No.14612528]

>>14611627
Reading like a KSP contract asking me to retrieve a kerbal from Low The Sun Orbit

[Anonymous No.14612562]

Jessie is pretty, chuds need to cope

[Anonymous No.14612578]

>>14610393
>They have done successful suborbital flight tests
Yeah sure, and I do "successful suborbital flights" every time I toss a baseball into the air.

[Anonymous No.14612582]

>>14610401
Dead on arrival unless they can get defense contracts, and they probably can't. There is no viable market for commercial supersonic flight, let alone hypersonic.

[Anonymous No.14612586]

>>14612582
>There is no viable market for commercial supersonic flight
??

[Anonymous No.14612587]

>>14612586
I hate to break it to you, but Concorde is dead.

[Anonymous No.14612592]

>>14612587
making supersonic flight as cheap per km as normal flight doesn't break any laws of physics

[Anonymous No.14612595]

>>14612592
>making supersonic flight as cheap per km as normal flight
They haven't, and can't. That simply isn't possible, because drag is a bitch.

[Anonymous No.14612597]

Falcon 9 Block V
>105 Launches
>105 Full mission successes
Is this the most reliable rocket in history? It’s 107/107 missions if you include Falcon Heavy.

The Falcon 9 family as a whole has 162/165 missions. One mission failed in flight (CRS-7), one failed on the pad before launching (Amos-6), and one had a payload enter an incorrect orbit (CRS-1’s secondary payload). 98.18% success rate.
For reference, the shuttle had a 98.52% success rate.

[Anonymous No.14612600]

>>14612595
>That simply isn't possible, because drag

[Anonymous No.14612603]

>>14612600
Go chart drag vs speed, then come back and apologize.

[Anonymous No.14612615]

People speculate HLS Starship has slightly stretched tanks seeing as the landing engines are so high up. Also, Blorigin said it would take 14 tanker flights to fill it. That’s 1400 tons of propellant. A normal starship carries 1200 tons.

[Anonymous No.14612616]

>>14612603
Nigger

[Anonymous No.14612620]

>>14612603
go look up atmospheric density vs altitude and apologize.
lift scales quadratically just like drag

[Anonymous No.14612621]

[Anonymous No.14612622]

>>14612615
>Also, Blorigin said it would take 14 tanker flights to fill it. That’s 1400 tons of propellant. A normal starship carries 1200 tons.
Or they expect 200 tons of boil off before launch.

[Anonymous No.14612625]

>>14612620
That'd work great if your airports were in the stratosphere.

[Anonymous No.14612628]

How many Gs is suborbital? Current passenger flight limits are very low, like 0.75 - 1.25

[Anonymous No.14612630]

>>14612615
So how many different variants are we gonna see?

>Regular Starship
Normal LEO payloads/TPS
>Tanker Starship
TPS but no cargo, full refueling
>Depot Starship
No TPS, heavy insulation, stays in orbit permanently
>HLS Starship
No TPS, heavy insulation, lands on Moon/possibly transits between Earth/Moon orbits only

[Anonymous No.14612631]

CABLE BROS WHERE YOU AT????

[Anonymous No.14612633]

>>14612631
Will we see a bridge like that built between the NY/London?

[Anonymous No.14612640]

>>14612631
what am i looking at?

[Anonymous No.14612642]

>>14612631
How the hell would you get that to maintain its shape 80km up

[Anonymous No.14612645]

>>14612631
How much kinetic energy is circulating in that contraption ?

[Anonymous No.14612649]

>>14612640
A launch loop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launch_loop
>>14612642
Active supports

[Anonymous No.14612650]

>>14612649
>>14612642
Magical active supports

[Anonymous No.14612651]

[Anonymous No.14612655]

>>14612651
I'm pretty sure I built that in KSP at least once

[Anonymous No.14612657]

Soon, brothers

[Anonymous No.14612658]

[Anonymous No.14612680]

>>14612630
A lot. Expect a million different cargo Starships too. So far there’s:

>Pez Dispenser
Cargo Starship with small door

>Chomper
Cargo Starship with yuge door

>Surface Cargo Vehicle
Cargo Starship designed for offloading cargo

Probably many many more

[Anonymous No.14612694]

>>14612651
>>14612658
1/2
For a while, the main NASA plan for sustainable lunar exploration involved a reusable single stage lunar lander, and an also-reusable Lunar Transfer Vehicle.
Both vehicles would be fueled in LEO and stocked with cargo. LTV burns to the moon, and brakes into orbit. Lander detaches and does it’s thing on the surface before meeting the LTV. LTV fires it’s engines again and leaves the moon. However, it would use its gigantic heatshield to brake both vehicles into LEO, where they can be refueled and reused.

[Anonymous No.14612700]

>>14612651
>>14612658
>>14612694
2/2
The full stack required 160 tons of Hydrolox propellant, most of which went to the LTV. The LTV used four expendable drop tanks surrounding a central core. This saved in weight.

[Anonymous No.14612702]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9vymPdQgoOE

[Anonymous No.14612705]

>>14612621
ThinkOrbital? More like StinkOrbital!

[Anonymous No.14612707]

Two weeks
Trust the plan

[Anonymous No.14612709]

>>14612702
Fuckin flat Earthers in the comments already

>>14612657
Man I just want to see static fires

[Anonymous No.14612724]

“Early Lunar Access” was a 1993 program to get humans back onto the moon before the year 2000.
Designed with cost and speed in mind, the program made use of existing launchers and vehicles.
Two launchers were needed: one of a Space Shuttle with 5 segment boosters, and another of a Titan IV or Ariane 5 with a pair of extra boosters.

ELA would see a fat Centaur needing a small direct ascent lunar lander in LEO. The lander’s crew cabin was a modified Apollo capsule that was stripped down for only two people. It would return to Earth directly from the surface

[Anonymous No.14612746]

Is Elon personally writing the book report essay required by the FAA?

[Anonymous No.14612750]

>>14612746
Yes, but he still needs to translate it into Spanish. So far he's only 10% through the Duolingo course.

[Anonymous No.14612752]

>>14612746
if he does I'd read it

[Anonymous No.14612758]

>>14612724
Gemini windows

[Anonymous No.14612760]

>>14612724
>a 26t lunar lander
So it would have landed with an AJ-10 like they wanted to do on Apollo Direct?

[Anonymous No.14612770]

>Cameron County Judge Eddie Treviño, Jr., says he thinks SpaceX will launch its Starship rocket for a first orbital test flight from Boca Chica within the next 90 days.
vs
>In an interview Tuesday with Ars, NASA's senior exploration official, Jim Free, said the agency is working toward a launch window of August 23 to September 6.
doesn't look good, muskbros...

[Anonymous No.14612772]

>>14612760
Nope. Hydrolox through and through.

[Anonymous No.14612773]

>>14612746
yes but its only one page and two words
and it says "fuck off"
t.musk

[Anonymous No.14612779]

>>14612773
you forgot the epilogue
"go fire yourselves"
t. ol' musky

[Anonymous No.14612781]

>>14612694
>>14612700
i know a lot of people love the 1969 integrated program plan but the '80s nasa future vision with aerobraking chemical OTVs and space station freedom as a gargantuan assembly shipyard is my favorite era

[Anonymous No.14612787]

>>14612781
They would have come up with inflatable heatshields 40 years early

[Anonymous No.14612834]

>a hurricane is hitting boca chica this week
wtf no

[Anonymous No.14612835]

>>14612724
Russia was literally selling Energia launches in 1993 so why bother with the other launchers lmao?

[Anonymous No.14612837]

>>14612834
ITS OVER!

[Anonymous No.14612842]

can we expect pad 40 to get a stage zero in the next few years?

[Anonymous No.14612845]

>>14612842
Why wouldn't it?

[Anonymous No.14612846]

[Anonymous No.14612848]

>>14612845
Also aside from the fact that they might get the full stage zero probably mid next year, hence the term "next few years" isn't right but rather "next year", for accuracys sake

[Anonymous No.14612851]

https://ihavenotv.com/brian-cox-seven-days-on-mars

Mars documentary

[Anonymous No.14612853]

>>14612845
political shenanigans

[Anonymous No.14612854]

[Anonymous No.14612860]

>>14612846
what do the lines on the y axis mean? how wet does pussy get in micro gravity?

[Anonymous No.14612868]

>>14612842
https://youtu.be/fYdYTU4hgeo?t=116

They left the alignment base pieces in place so far, for the segments already rolled out to 39A. They might as well keep that team together and cranking out the 2nd tower while they're on a roll.

[Anonymous No.14612875]

>>14612868
i havent heard of nasa approving another one at 40 yet

[Anonymous No.14612894]

>>14612746
Here it is.

[Anonymous No.14612898]

>>14612875
Nasa didn't approve anything. The tower they're building right now is illegal and musk needs to go to prison.

[Anonymous No.14612913]

I wonder what they're testing today. Venting again from the OLM

[Anonymous No.14612915]

>>14612875
NASA isn't building it or flying it, they are however leasing it. Its SpaceX private launch tower. But really, NASA is in support of it, as it would reduce reliance on single launch tower, reduce schedule risks, reduce general risks, increase launch capacity, etc.

The problem is FAA launch license.

[Anonymous No.14612925]

>>14612915
>NASA is in support of it, as it would reduce reliance on single launch tower, reduce schedule risks, reduce general risks, increase launch capacity, etc.
well they're opposed to the current one for being too close to 39A.
FAA launch license from the Cape will be no problem at all.

[Anonymous No.14612928]

>>14612925
>well they're opposed to the current one for being too close to 39A.
No, they have some questions about the risk, but they're still okay with it afaik.

FAA environmental review and then the launch license is the final obstacle for LC40

[Anonymous No.14612934]

my dad works for the FAA, it's go for launch

[Anonymous No.14612938]

fast rap elon mars

[Anonymous No.14612944]

>>14612925
>>14612928
Also LC-49 is getting two pads. We might see 4 Starship launch mounts at the cape one day.

[Anonymous No.14612960]

>>14612944
Damnnn

If KSC every ran out of space, how much can Wallops be expanded? Is there any suitable land on the coasts to build a spaceport the size of KSC?

[Anonymous No.14612965]

>>14612960
Bro there’s a LOT of space at Kennedy. There are dozens of inactive sites from CCAFS

>https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Cape_Canaveral_and_Merritt_Island_launch_sites#Kennedy_Space_Center

[Anonymous No.14612980]

elon is in hospital
had a heart attack

[Anonymous No.14612981]

>>14612980
wrong
he's here with me

[Anonymous No.14612986]

>>14612980
proofs?

[Anonymous No.14612995]

Apparently ROMBUS was designed to be refueled and sent to the Moon and Mars

[Anonymous No.14613000]

HOLY SHIT GUYS EPA DECISION JUST LEAKED

[Anonymous No.14613003]

>>14613000
One morbillion Starships

[Anonymous No.14613004]

>>14612965
Oh shit thats allot

The lower pads are really close to each other though. Are those for small rockets?

[Anonymous No.14613010]

>>14613004
probably too small for what's coming

[Anonymous No.14613013]

>>14612960
>Is there any suitable land on the coasts to build a spaceport the size of KSC?
If you are about the poor ants, beetles, and mosquitoes, then no

[Anonymous No.14613014]

>>14613010
>>14613004
39A and 39B are 5 kilometers apart. Assuming that’s a minimum…no idea

[Anonymous No.14613017]

>>14613013
>are about
care about, fuck i'm tired

[Anonymous No.14613023]

Holy shit Musk got a heart attack apperantly

[Anonymous No.14613025]

>>14613023
it's a confirmed rumor

[Anonymous No.14613033]

>>14613023
>>14612980
Source?

[Anonymous No.14613047]

>>14613023
did val say so? elletoo?

[Anonymous No.14613048]

>>14613033
we have two independent posters reporting it. good enough to go to press.

[Anonymous No.14613054]

>>14613048
>Source: /sfg/

[Anonymous No.14613062]

Alright /sfg/ I’ve been away for about 2 months now having gotten an actual job, but having downed a bottle of wine I felt the need to enter the thread and remind everyone that the Saturn IB is very based

[Anonymous No.14613064]

Apparently a full 33 engine static fire requires the booster to be fully loaded and having a fully loaded starship stacked on top too.

[Anonymous No.14613067]

>>14613064
Not gonna happen, they will light in sequences 3->6->9->15

[Anonymous No.14613073]

>>14613067
Leaker says that full 33 without the weight of a full stack will rip apart the clamps.

[Anonymous No.14613074]

>>14613062
appreciate it wagiebro, i never forgot

[Anonymous No.14613081]

>>14613073
My leaker says your leaker is a faggot

[Anonymous No.14613083]

my leaker says that elon had the heart attack after he watched a thunderfag video and realized he was a fraud

[Anonymous No.14613085]

>>14613073
Is the leaker here with us right now?

[Anonymous No.14613087]

>>14613062
Saturn I is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the first stage. We're going to take eight Redstones and put them together and that becomes the first stage. It's that easy in rocketry.

[Anonymous No.14613092]

>>14613085
I openly speculated on this in public forums (effectively a wild guess on what specification they built the hold-down clamps to), so quite possibly, yes

[Anonymous No.14613093]

>>14613085
There is a leaker in all of us. Everyone has a leaker-nature. But ofcourse, if you see the leaker on the road, kill him.

[Anonymous No.14613095]

>>14613087
lol

[Anonymous No.14613097]

I hadn't realized until recently how extremely cool the viking engine was. It's really admirable how simple they kept it. It was almost like the merlin of its era. I wish there was more information about it out there.

The nozzle and chamber were made from stamped stainless in a time when spaghetti construction was practically ubiquitous in the west. They also used conical nozzles up until the viking 5b.

Propellant is injected through the side of the chamber rather than the head, in an almost V2-esque way.

Interestingly, I don't think it used regenerative cooling or ablatives and was entirely transpiration cooled.

Another interesting thing about the viking is that it had a watercooled preburner.

[Anonymous No.14613099]

>>14613097

[Anonymous No.14613101]

>>14613097
That doesn't look like the admirable kind of simplicity to me.

[Anonymous No.14613104]

>>14613099
you just know

[Anonymous No.14613105]

>>14613085
my leaker wasn't leaking so it's being repaired right now

[Anonymous No.14613114]

>>14613083
>thunderfag
I couln't thank him enough. I was actually dubious about this whole Spinlaunch thing and if it was gonna work, but after he took the time to thoroughly debunk them I can now affirm with 100% certainty that they are legit.

[Anonymous No.14613116]

>>14613114
Hawaii boomers thankfully put a stop to spinlaunch once and for all

[Anonymous No.14613118]

>>14613073
leaker is retarded because there are no clamps.

[Anonymous No.14613126]

>>14612995
>Phil Bono's second major objective was the manned exploration of Mars. Although an Apollo-type expendable spacecraft was considered, Bono felt a modified ROMBUS would be cheaper and safer although the less optimal single-stage design inevitably would translate to a 3.5 x higher launch mass in Earth orbit. The Mars-bound vehicle would weigh 3,965,758 kg in its 323-kilometer parking orbit. The trans-Mars injection (TMI) burn was planned for in May 1986. The four TMI propellant tanks (now empty) were jettisoned. After an interplanetary cruise period of 200 days, the ROMBUS spacecraft fired its engines to enter a 555-km parking orbit around Mars. The mother craft now had a mass of 984.75t after jettisoning two more empty fuel tanks. A conical 25-metric ton Mars Excursion Module (MEM) then departed with a landing crew of three astronauts.. The MEM's relatively cramped crew quarters and life support systems would only permit a relatively limited 20-day stay on the Martian surface. However, future missions would spend up to a year on Mars thanks to the unmanned cargo delivered by previous unmanned flights.
http://www.astronautix.com/p/projectdeimos.html

[Anonymous No.14613133]

>>14613116
huh, didn't know about that
>Residents Lash Out At SpinLaunch (Apr. 14, 2018)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSSBARd5HhE
https://www.civilbeat.org/2018/03/alan-mcnarie-futuristic-spaceport-gets-chilly-big-island-reception/
>A company called SpinLaunch hopes to build its centrifuge to hurl satellites into space from the Big Island — preferably in its southernmost district, Kau. The company wants the state of Hawaii to help it by issuing $25 million in special purpose revenue bonds
>In recent decades, the defiantly bucolic district’s residents have successfully defeated corporate plans for a mega-resort, a private prison and three other proposed spaceports. The district’s three state legislators all oppose this new spaceport, too.
>The company did say it required 10 acres for its launch site and a 2,000-acre buffer zone.
>After hearing from local kupuna, Wakai said he’d advised SpinLaunch to look elsewhere: “They understand that Pohue Bay is full of cultural and historic features and environmental issues that might be difficult for them to overcome".
>“I don’t feel that the people in Kau have been adequately briefed on this project. Big Island people want us to focus more on health care, affordable housing, drug treatment and homeless solutions,”
kek, fucking hawaii

[Anonymous No.14613152]

>>14613133
Kangaroo meeting lmao

[Anonymous No.14613156]

>>14610390
>have successful flight
>stock crashes
Why?

[Anonymous No.14613165]

>>14613156
stocks aren't based on reality

[Anonymous No.14613166]

>>14613156
Shorting

[Anonymous No.14613169]

>>14613156
Idk man

Deutche Bank Equity Research is bullish af after a management meeting with the company

[Anonymous No.14613172]

>>14613156
Small-lift isn't profitable and the speculators want to see Electron reuse so they're not stuck bag holding until Neutron.
>>14613165
>>14613166
Cope.
>>14613169
Go back to /biz/

[Anonymous No.14613174]

>>14613169
this is the gayest image i have ever seen

[Anonymous No.14613178]

>>14613172
Selling your old shares to reduce the price and buying a whole lot more at that lower price because you see a bright future is entirely logical. YOU cope.

[Anonymous No.14613181]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/nasa-teases-extraordinary-images-captured-by-its-webb-telescope/
>Unfortunately, we will have to wait nearly two full weeks

[Anonymous No.14613183]

>>14610638
>uk wants 8 launch ports
even if half of them come to fruition, would still be very based.

[Anonymous No.14613189]

>>14613178
You're completely retarded, you selling at a loss is not going to move a stock with a 2 billion dollar market cap. Only buying more would lower the DCA. Go back.

[Anonymous No.14613200]

[Anonymous No.14613203]

>>14613126
Honestly seems like a good idea. Proto-Starship in a way

>>14613200
Isn’t salt water bad for reuse? Could they actually reuse those jettisoned tanks?

[Anonymous No.14613204]

>>14613126
and before rombus he wanted to land a giant dyna-soar on mars

[Anonymous No.14613209]

Solarballs went full "fix urf first", oh well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5cycgjjOlQ

[Anonymous No.14613212]

>>14613209
Didn't we just figure out that Mars' soil is full of deadly-to-all-forms-of-life perchlorate?

[Anonymous No.14613218]

https://blogs.nasa.gov/spacestation/2022/06/28/nasa-spacex-target-new-launch-date-for-commercial-cargo-mission/

CRS-25 rescheduled to July 14th+

[Anonymous No.14613221]

>>14613203
looks like reuse was the hope given picrel
>>14613204
in fairness the Martian atmosphere was thought to have 10x the surface pressure it turned out to have when he proposed that

[Anonymous No.14613234]

>>14613212
>perchlorate
just a meme
https://twitter.com/robert_zubrin/status/1138456568461217795
>Martian percolates can be used as an oxygen source. 1 kg of soil would provide enough oxygen for 12 minutes of breathing. In the process of consuming the percolates, the soil would be made non toxic, and fully suitable for growing plants.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/article/Device-seeks-to-brew-oxygen-on-Mars-from-6659289.php

[Anonymous No.14613235]

>>14613212
No, that has been known about for decades. They're water soluble and the effect on thyroid glands are reversible.

[Anonymous No.14613236]

>>14613221
Yeah. I’m just curious how salt water would affect reusability, seeing as everyone treats it like poison today.

[Anonymous No.14613239]

my source says elon had his heart attack after accidentally ingesting a perchlorate molecule

[Anonymous No.14613247]

[Anonymous No.14613250]

>>14613212
Perchlorate can be used to get oxygen and nitrogen. Isn't that neat? So with bit of chemistry, the "deadly to all form of life" becomes "necessary for all form of life"

[Anonymous No.14613252]

[Anonymous No.14613256]

https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/06/nasa-teases-extraordinary-images-captured-by-its-webb-telescope/
>NASA scientists say images from the Webb telescope nearly brought them to tears
>Deep field images of the universe, exoplanet atmospheres, and more to be unveiled.
Why are astronomers so gay lol

[Anonymous No.14613261]

SF is supposed to be Friday, right? If that happens and Musk doesn't tweet about it (leading up to it). We can assume he actually had a heart attack, right?

[Anonymous No.14613263]

I can't open some pictures, this happening to anyone else?

[Anonymous No.14613264]

>>14613261
>SF is supposed to be Friday, right?
according to whomst? there's zero transparency when it comes to spacex.

[Anonymous No.14613265]

>>14613261
We can only assume a horse is fucking his asshole right now, and that's the only thing we can assume

[Anonymous No.14613269]

>>14613263
works on my machine

[Anonymous No.14613270]

i could've swore i read recently that they were going to add multiple launch pylons to their new planes

[Anonymous No.14613282]

>>14613263
One of the image servers is down.

[Anonymous No.14613284]

>By stretching the ET and adding a segment to each of the SRBs, an additional 30 to 35 thousand pounds (!) of payload could be carried to polar orbit
https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=3915

[Anonymous No.14613286]

>>14613269
never mind, happens to me too

[Anonymous No.14613313]

>>14613000
nice digits
I'm sure you're just shooping that up, but I think I remember hearing a few weeks ago something about limits to what regulatory agencies can do. I think the summary is that they can't do what amounts to making their own laws, because they literally are not Congress, and can't be delegated those powers by Congress. Also, they can't judge their own cases, especially with no jury, which the SEC does.
Mostly I think I heard about it in the context of the SEC, but yeah, I immediately thought about the FAA and EPA in regards to Boca Chica.
I want this to be real.

[Anonymous No.14613320]

https://twitter.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1542289774056247296

[Anonymous No.14613335]

>>14613320
>tracking rockets
boring. i want live satellite feeds so we can see which ones are undergoing RUD, conjunction, or spying on each other.

[Anonymous No.14613340]

>>14613320
>tracking launches
From where tho? That looks like a ship.

[Anonymous No.14613343]

[Anonymous No.14613346]

>>14613340
From his apartment in Port Isabel

[Anonymous No.14613348]

>>14612645
Yes

[Anonymous No.14613355]

>>14613073
Just weigh it down

[Anonymous No.14613381]

>>14610470
My penus uenus.

[Anonymous No.14613394]

>>14613320
did he forget to make a video about elon musk interview with the raptors?

[Anonymous No.14613399]

>>14613394
You gotta pay first

[Anonymous No.14613418]

Is Sierra space still working on their own space station or did they scrap that to work with blue origin on orbital reef?

[Anonymous No.14613420]

>>14613399
i pay him everything i have :(

[Anonymous No.14613423]

>>14613418
Nigger they're not even working on Crewed DC

[Anonymous No.14613424]

>>14613418
suborbital queef

[Anonymous No.14613432]

>>14613423
They are now, and no it wont have windows

[Anonymous No.14613443]

>>14613424
Are you 5?

[Anonymous No.14613450]

>>14613424
Fuckin' got 'em

[Anonymous No.14613457]

>We are standing down from today's launch attempt. Our systems are in great health, but our propellant temperature was slightly out of bounds, and out of extreme caution, we are scrubbed for the day. We’re proud of the team for running an extremely professional operation.

>We are safely unloading the rocket now, and working to recycle for another launch attempt in the coming days.

[Anonymous No.14613471]

>>14613423
I'm hoping we get DC4EU news after the Vision 2030 meeting is over. It ended yesterday but I haven't seen a single press release

[Anonymous No.14613481]

>>14612135
SSTOs don’t make sense until you can manage vehicles with dry mass fractions over .5. Star Wars shit

[Anonymous No.14613483]

https://www.inmarsat.com/en/insights/corporate/2022/value-of-space.html

>The report, What on Earth is the value of space, found that those aged 65 and above, who were teenagers when humans first walked on the Moon, are more optimistic and hopeful than Gen-Z. They are more likely to associate space with research and exploration, rockets, and satellites – with their understanding of space more rooted in science than science-fiction.

>Only a quarter of the public (23 per cent) said they feel space exploration is ‘important’. Almost half (46 per cent) consider satellites when thinking of space, while 37 per cent think of expeditions to the Moon and Mars, 21 per cent think of aliens, and almost 1 in 10 think of Star Wars (9 per cent). Fewer than 1 in 10 people globally think of communications and connectivity.

[Anonymous No.14613485]

lol

[Anonymous No.14613486]

June 30 0830 EDT - ISRO - PSLV-CA - Sriharikota, India - Three Singaporean satellites.
June 30 1800 EDT - ULA - Atlas V - SLC-41, Florida - USSF-12, experimental missile warning satellite.
July 4 0654 EDT - Equatorial Launch Australia - Black Brant IX - Arnhem, Australia - Exoplanet spectrograph sounding rocket.
July 7 0713 EDT - Arianespace - Vega C - French Guiana - Debut flight, LARES-2 magnetic sensing satellite.
July 7 1830 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - SLC-40, Florida - Starlink 4-21.
July 7 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - VSFB, California - Starlink 3-1.
July 9 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Florida - Starlink 4-22.
July 12 0657 EDT - Equatorial Launch Australia - Black Brant IX - Arnhem, Australia - Alpha Centauri ultraviolet experiment sounding rocket.
July 13 - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - Florida - Starlink 4-25.
July 13 - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - VSFB, California - Starlink 3-2.
July 14 - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - 39A, Florida - Cargo Dragon 2, ISS commercial resupply.
July 16 - Firefly - Alpha - VSFB, California - Rideshare mission, second flight.
July 22 - CASC - Long March 5B - Wenchang, China - Wentian laboratory module for the Chinese space station.
July - Virgin Orbit - LauncherOne - Mojave, California - "Straight Up", dropped from a Boeing 747.
July - Landspace - ZhuQue-2 - Jiaquan, China - Debut flight, first Chinese private and methalox rocket.
July - Relativity - Terran 1 - LC-16, Florida - “Good Luck, Have Fun” debut flight.
Q3 - NASA - SLS - 39B, Florida - Artemis I, uncrewed debut flight to lunar orbit and capsule reentry.
Q3 - SpaceX - Starship - Texas - Debut flight.

[Anonymous No.14613490]

>>14613485
You've got every reason to be concerned when something isn't operating within tolerances

I'm surprised they didn't catch this in a WDR

[Anonymous No.14613503]

UR-700

[Anonymous No.14613531]

>>14613486
>Q3 - SpaceX - Starship - Texas - Debut flight.
Lmfao get real

[Anonymous No.14613551]

>>14612980

[Anonymous No.14613560]

>>14613486
>July 7 1830 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - SLC-40, Florida - Starlink 4-21.
>July 7 2000 EDT - SpaceX - Falcon 9 - VSFB, California - Starlink 3-1.
Is this the shortest time between two consecutive SpaceX launches? Do you think they will just have one long stream covering both?

[Anonymous No.14613629]

>>14613560
That Vandenberg launch is for 97 degrees inclination

Antarctica is getting internet!

[Anonymous No.14613643]

>>14613457
von braun probably delayed launches more than anybody. if /sfg/ was around in 1966 we'd unironically be bashing him for his german engineering conservatism. the polar opposite of elon.

[Anonymous No.14613644]

this just in
the schizo collagefag is the one who calls it the hard r
>>14613409

[Anonymous No.14613660]

>>14613643
Goddammit von Braun, stop being such a rocket Nazi and let us go to space today

[Anonymous No.14613692]

>>14613256
They were crying because it's the last images Webb will ever send before its secondary gets hit by a rock.

[Anonymous No.14613693]

>>14613644
I’m surprised at how little the average Joe on /Sci/ knows about spaceflight

[Anonymous No.14613702]

>>14611765

[Anonymous No.14613709]

>>14613693
Check out that survey a few posts up

Nobody cares about space

[Anonymous No.14613711]

>>14613693
The average Joe on /sci/ thinks space is fake

[Anonymous No.14613744]

>>14613483
Does anyone have the full report?

[Anonymous No.14613751]

>>14613099
>2030:

[Anonymous No.14613790]

>>14613702
thanks

[Anonymous No.14613795]

>>14613693
I'm surprised at how little the average Joe on /sfg/ knows about spaceflight.

They probably can't even name the best propulsion method.

[Anonymous No.14613803]

I am confused. Is NASA claiming that they succeeded at the WDR and can move on now, or are they saying they have enough information to do the WDR?

[Anonymous No.14613809]

>>14613803
>Is NASA claiming that they succeeded at the WDR and can move on now
This. They gaan.

[Anonymous No.14613818]

>>14612097
>>14612104
The gimbal delta engine was supposed to fire for 5 mins and 1 sec, but it was aborted after firing for 5 seconds on the 20th. They fired for the full duration (that is 5 mins and 1 sec) on 25th. So, Cygnus did perform the reboost perfectly. The burn boosted the ISS' apogee by 161 m and perigee by 805 m. I don't know why they called it a "limited" reboost. Maybe it's called that because it's a demonstration of capability??
Similarly, ATV was capable of reboosts, but it always docked to Zvezda, while the Cygnus is berthed to the Unity module. The shuttle could also reboost the ISS. I guess this just means that the ISS can remain in orbit without the cooperation of the Russians.

[Anonymous No.14613819]

>>14613809
It doesn't matter at the end of the day. Back when we got the OIG reports about the billion dollars that were embezzled (for all intents and purposes) on the tower that wasn't built, it means that Starship still wins. Not because they have to beat SLS B1, but because the tower will never be completed in time for B2 at such a pace that it will beat Starship to orbit. Starship was never racing against Block 1, they were always racing against Block 2.

[Anonymous No.14613834]

Where is elon? Was there a time when he wasn't on Twitter for a whole week?

[Anonymous No.14613844]

>>14613834
died

[Anonymous No.14613853]

We're not going to have a static fire this week are we.


Nothing ever happens

[Anonymous No.14613854]

Hey guys I'm back after two weeks. So are we are going?

[Anonymous No.14613868]

>>14613854
come back in 14 days

[Anonymous No.14613905]

>>14613834
Trying to make things right with his daughter

[Anonymous No.14613917]

>>14613834
Twitter shitposting will resume once beatings end

[Anonymous No.14613941]

>>14613834
>Where is elon?
https://twitter.com/ElonJet/status/1540190812818100226

[Anonymous No.14613957]

>>14613941
it's over

[Anonymous No.14614042]

>>14613795
Thermo nuclear bungee sled obviously.

[Anonymous No.14614062]

>>14613905
>>14613917
If I speak...big trouble...

[Anonymous No.14614070]

>>14610903
Sails are kino.

[Anonymous No.14614200]

>>14613693
reminder that /sfg/ is cross-boarders

[Anonymous No.14614218]

>>14613486
>June 30 0830 EDT - ISRO - PSLV-CA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0HnrG6xafU
T-4 minutes

[Anonymous No.14614227]

>>14614218
DO NOT REDEEM

[Anonymous No.14614228]

>>14614218
Even their launch tower looks like a Hindu god

[Anonymous No.14614231]

>>14614218
second stage normal

[Anonymous No.14614232]

>>14614218
first stage normal

[Anonymous No.14614234]

>>14614231
fairing separation

[Anonymous No.14614237]

>>14614234
third stage performance normal

[Anonymous No.14614241]

>>14614237
coasting phase

[Anonymous No.14614250]

>>14614241
third stage separated
still in coast phase

[Anonymous No.14614251]

So all the competent pajeets work for ISRO instead of Boeing?

[Anonymous No.14614257]

>>14614250
fourth stage ignited

[Anonymous No.14614261]

I like these graphs, why can't western launches show graphs like these?

[Anonymous No.14614265]

>>14614257
One (prime) satellite separated

[Anonymous No.14614268]

>>14614265
remaining two sats separated

[Anonymous No.14614336]

whats the latest static fire date estimate

[Anonymous No.14614345]

>>14614336
rolling two weeks

[Anonymous No.14614350]

>>14614336
never, fraudulon musk is finally dead

[Anonymous No.14614389]

>>14614336
Coming Monday

[Anonymous No.14614424]

>>14614421
>>14614421
New thread

[Anonymous No.14614723]

>>14612860
If anything it will be wetter because the vaginal lubricant won’t drip downward

[Anonymous No.14614729]

>>14613054
source: someone typed it twice, possibly me

[Anonymous No.14614749]

>>14613133
>Big Island people want us to focus more on health care, affordable housing, drug treatment and homeless solutions
need mo money fo dem programs

[Anonymous No.14614760]

>>14613483
>half (46 per cent) consider satellites when thinking of space
>Fewer than 1 in 10 people globally think of communications and connectivity.

[Anonymous No.14614770]

>>14613264
>constant real time video streams from just off site
>real time Q&A with CEO and chief engineer on Twitter 24/7
>motivations behind the project and its sources of funding documented in multiple books and hundreds of hours of freely accessible video
>real time streaming video from dozens of launches and tests
>on site interviews with key personnel and video of in progress work
Yeah, it’s like they’re trying to keep everything secret. Just look at other organizations that are much more transparent like... uh

[Anonymous No.14614788]

>>14613834
Elon being too busy to fuck around on Twitter is a good thing

[Anonymous No.14614860]

>>14614218
ISRO isn't filming the display for the flight info anymore? They're progressing fast