/sfg/ - Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.15808271]

Volcanic Moon edition

Previous: >>15804933

[Anonymous No.15808281]

I see potato

[foxtrot_27 No.15808282]

is this original?

[Anonymous No.15808284]

>>15808282
its an AI pic

[Anonymous No.15808285]

Starship could carry two Starships

[Anonymous No.15808294]

>>15808282
>>15808284
https://twitter.com/volcanopele/status/1714041698182164892

[Anonymous No.15808303]

aeiou

[Anonymous No.15808309]

>>15808282
It's from JunoCam

[Anonymous No.15808318]

>>15808309
its AI

[Anonymous No.15808319]

I'm so fucking sick of being blueballed

[Anonymous No.15808323]

thread shaping up nicely this morning

[Anonymous No.15808432]

>>15808273
>I feel like any inhabitants would go fucking insane after a while due to the enormously close quarters. At least on the cylinder designs you can play with a lot of interior space.
Nah, you have to consider the size of these things - the roof can be 100+m above your head with lighting, air currents and proper acoustic design so that you get the 'I'm outdoors' feeling desired

[Anonymous No.15808453]

>>15808432
I was gonna say that.
We're talking about 5000 meter wide habs here, the ceiling could be half a kilometer up and there'd still be a giant amount of saved mass from not filling the interior 4km wide cylinder volume with air.

[Anonymous No.15808553]

[Anonymous No.15808587]

>>15808553
/sfg/ will never die, there will always be the endless churning of nothingburger space news. The only thing I care about is IFT2 and the FAA is blueballing me.

[Anonymous No.15808588]

>>15808553
There's phosphates in them rangs

[Anonymous No.15808593]

>>15808587
>FAA
Actually it's FWS these days.

[Anonymous No.15808594]

>>15808587
God. hopefully IFT2 will never happen so you space cadets can finally go.

[Anonymous No.15808597]

>>15808594
/sfg/ is a spacex general. Always has been.

[Anonymous No.15808601]

>>15808587

[Anonymous No.15808602]

>>15808593
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of three latter agency employees

[Anonymous No.15808609]

>>15808601
Terrible formatting, not gonna read

[Anonymous No.15808616]

>>15808609
it's just boomeresque moaning about the decline of christianity. I would sympathize, but the reality was that christianity wasn't a strong enough religion to resist the change that they hate.

[Anonymous No.15808618]

>>15808587
Twenty years from now, when Starship launches aren't streamed anymore, people will still be shilling the newest meme drive and be asking why the Shuttle failed. And also discussing the latest pictures beamed by Europa Clipper.

[Anonymous No.15808620]

>>15808618
Wrong but almost right, Starship wont be streamed anymore and people will be asking why Starship failed

[Anonymous No.15808642]

Commercial lunar landers prepare for liftoff
--
https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4670/1
> The lander, company officials said at the October 3 media day, is complete and ready to ship to Florida. Its launch is currently scheduled for a six-day period that opens November 16 on a Falcon 9 from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A.
> Intuitive Machines is not alone in gearing up for its first lunar lander mission. Pittsburgh-based Astrobotic has its first lander, Peregrine, ready to launch to the Moon as soon as December.
> The delay is linked to the rocket launching Peregrine: United Launch Alliance’s Vulcan Centaur, whose debut mission is to send Peregrine to the Moon.
> Both Peregrine and IM-1 are carrying payloads for NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program under awards they received in 2019. A third company with a CLPS award is Firefly Aerospace. It announced earlier this month that it completed the primary structure for its Blue Ghost lander slated to launch in 2024.
> A fourth venture with a CLPS award is Draper, which is leading a team that includes several partners. Among them is the US subsidiary of ispace, which is designing a lander based on a design originally called Series 2, larger than the HAKUTO-R lander than crashed earlier this year (a second flight model of which is under construction for a commercial mission launching next year.)
> While the APEX 1.0 design is making good progress towards a critical design review scheduled for as soon as December, ispace said it would push back the launch of the Draper CLPS mission, called CP-12 by NASA, from 2025 to 2026.

Inuitive Machines IM-1 launching in a month, Astrobotics Peregrine in December if Vulcan isn't delayed more, Firefly has Blue Ghost which is planned for 2024 and Draper led team has APEX which isn't happening until 2025 or 2026

[Anonymous No.15808643]

>>15808616
It has nothing to do with that, nice try though loser.

[Anonymous No.15808644]

https://twitter.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1714254232646197353

> CORRECTION: This is to take place on Wednesday.

[Anonymous No.15808646]

>>15808644
SpaceX Fights to Extend Ban on Regulating Commercial Spaceflight

https://archive (dot) ph/20231017025059/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-17/spacex-fights-to-extend-ban-on-regulating-commercial-spaceflight
> SpaceX, other spaceflight firms at Wednesday Senate hearing
>FAA struggling to keep up with launch demands, SpaceX argues
> Space Exploration Technologies Corp. plans to lobby US Congress on Wednesday for a multiyear extension of a ban on imposing safety regulations on commercial human spaceflight.
> An executive at Elon Musk’s rocket company, who will testify at a Senate subcommitee hearing, is arguing the Federal Aviation Administration is already struggling to keep pace with a rapidly shifting rocket launch industry and needs more resources.
> “We want to keep moving as fast paced as we can,” said William Gerstenmaier, vice president of build and flight reliability at SpaceX, in a Monday interview with Bloomberg News. “And we don’t want to be held up where we don’t need to be held up.”
> The subject will be discussed during a hearing of the Senate subcommittee on space and science on Wednesday. Representatives from Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin, Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic will join Gerstenmaier as witnesses.
> SpaceX also criticized the rules and regulations surrounding the licensing process for rocket launches and spacecraft re-entering Earth’s atmosphere, what is known as Part 450 of FAA’s licensing procedure.
> “I think part of the 450 problem was we might have jumped to regulations too fast,” Gerstenmaier said. “They were well meaning and well intentioned, they were supposed to streamline things, but then the devil is in the details and it actually slowed us down.”

[Anonymous No.15808648]

>>15808271
Cancel MSR

[Anonymous No.15808655]

>>15808644
Ummm sorry sweaty, but SpaceX just isnt ready. THE FAA IS NOT THE HOLD UP FOLKS, WE'VE GONE OVER THIS! IGNORE SPACE-X

[Anonymous No.15808680]

Why would SpaceX even launch an outdated starship design? Surely the one on the pad is outdated if it uses a mixture of raptor 1's and 2's

[Anonymous No.15808687]

>>15808680
Regulatory agencies can’t keep up with SpaceX changing major designs every two or three months. After a certain point SX passes a point of no return on each ship/booster they intend on flying where too much work has already been put into it so they might as well fly it anyways

[Anonymous No.15808691]

JPL's Mars sample return program is a retarded grift machine meant to guarantee 1000 years of non competitive government revenue. How would you design MSR if NASA opened up the contract for competitive bidding?

Here's mine
>a reentry vehicle based on Dragon, contains sampling hardware and a 2 stage partially fueled return rocket
>Mars EDL sequence goes entry, drogue chute, drop heat shield, land with rockets (no backshell jettison, that just adds complexity)
>After landing the vehicle opens a side panel and deploys a folding solar panel for power, establishes comms etc
>directly under the vehicle is a 12 inch wide auger bit, it spins and moves downward slowly and can be repositioned anywhere under the vehicle
>the auger removes several inches of overburden which may have been contaminated by the landing rocket exhaust, exposing untouched soil
>a sample auger (much smaller) pulls some material from this exposed patch of subsurface and transfers it to a sample container via an internal conveyor
>several containers on a carousel allow it to store multiple different samples separately
>after sampling completes, the mission switches to preparing the sample return rocket for launch
>power is used to collect CO2, split it into CO and O2, and liquify and store both propellants at -200C, which takes several months
>Once the return rocket is fully fueled and checked out, the first stage fires and carries the samples to a stable Mars orbit
>the rocket loiters in this parking orbit until the Earth return window opens, then it burns to intercept
>sample capsule enters & lands on Earth for retrieval
>repeat for samples in different areas, at a cost of ~$500m a pop because SpaceX is building everything

The return rocket's upper stage is pressure fed hydrazine-NTO btw, not carbon monoxide-oxygen, cuz it needs to be stable in Mars orbit for a pretty long time. The CO/O2 engine would have an Isp of around 220.

[Anonymous No.15808692]

>>15808680
SeX move too slow regardless. They barley have one ship and booster ready for flight at a time. The more “recent” ships with upgrades aren’t completed rockets
I think we need to face the fact that SpaceX are simply too slow compared to their projected plan with the whole program

[Anonymous No.15808693]

>>15808646
The problem is that instead of making sure the keep-out zones are correctly defined so that potentially falling debris doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't damage property, the various regulatory bodies seem to concentrate on finding all kinds of reasonss for not allowing launches.
Which is really a bit odd, because the best way to make sure things actually work is to flight-test, without payload and obviously without crew, to see what actually happens.

If they had worked like this with aviation, we'd still be flying with double decker planes powered by three radial engines.
Only two engines? Not allowed, you need three!
Monoplane? Too dangerous. Double decker it is.
Metal skin? Not licensed, use wood and fabric.
Liquid cooled inline engines? Too radical and too foreign.

[Anonymous No.15808697]

at this point most people have gotten tired of waiting on the starship launch and are instead moving on with their lives

[Anonymous No.15808700]

>>15808680
basically SpaceX cant keep up with how fast the FAA works

[Anonymous No.15808703]

>>15808691
Literally every single interplanetary, deep space research or sapce telescope mission planned from this day forward should include
>Step 0:
>Fund Starship until all the fucking horrible mass and volume limitations just go away
>Step 1:
>Build and fly whatever the fuck you want because you can now plan your mission to Mars or Jupiter's moons or some LaGrange point or Neptune around a 100 ton spacecraft that you refuel in orbit before you do your transit injenction burn from LEO.

[Anonymous No.15808704]

https://twitter.com/wapodavenport/status/1714280276241899612

FAA/Fish Wildlife delaying to next month. They likely wont allow SpaceX to launch this year.

[Anonymous No.15808705]

>>15808680
maybe it is outdated to a certain extent, but might as well launch it instead of scrapping it
they would still get relevant data and the ground crew will get some training as well

[Anonymous No.15808707]

>>15808704
dont you want the launch to be safe?

[Anonymous No.15808710]

>>15808704

[Anonymous No.15808712]

>>15808705
they've scrapped far more starships than they've launched. not sure why everyone is making this dumb ad hoc explanation now

[Anonymous No.15808713]

>>15808704
paywalled

[Anonymous No.15808716]

>>15808713
skill issue

[Anonymous No.15808718]

>>15808703
Sure but I wanna show just how corrupt JPL is for designing MSR the way they did given the current capabilities of space rockets today. Obviously real life MSR will be something we do as a side show while we're returning the first Mars crews to Earth.

[Anonymous No.15808720]

>>15808713
https://github.com/iamadamdev/bypass-paywalls-chrome
Jesus, man.

[Anonymous No.15808722]

>>15808704
Scientifically, would the FWS give approval to launch if I removed the wetlands surrounding Starbase

[Anonymous No.15808723]

>>15808713
https://archive dot ph/ZB5Us

[Anonymous No.15808724]

>>15808704
this is talking about the same thing as the bloomberg article >>15808644

SpaceX to the FAA: The industry needs you to move faster

https://archive (dot) ph/20231017140432/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/10/17/spacex-congress-licenses-faa-starship/
----
> Elon Musk’s company is pushing to fly its massive Starship rocket again as it hits record flight cadence with its Falcon 9 rocket fleet
> William Gerstenmaier, SpaceX’s vice president of build and reliability, told The Post he intends to press that point at a Senate hearing scheduled for Wednesday, where he’ll urge Congress to streamline regulations and increase the number of Federal Aviation Administration staff devoted to issuing space launch licenses.
> “With the flight rates that are increasing, with the other players that are coming on board, we see there’s potentially a big industry problem coming where the pace of government is not going to be able to keep up with the pace of development on the private sector side,” Gerstenmaier said ahead of his testimony before the Senate Commerce subcommittee on Space and Science at a hearing titled, “Promoting Safety, Innovation, and Competitiveness in U.S. Commercial Human Space Activities.”
> But it also noted that the company must adhere to an additional environmental review process it is undertaking with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It now appears that the consultation with Fish and Wildlife will extend into November, an FAA official recently told The Post.
> “We’ve been ready to fly for a few weeks now,” said Tim Hughes, SpaceX’s senior vice president for global business and government affairs. “And we’d very much like the government to be able to move as quickly as we are. If you’re able to build a rocket faster than the government can regulate it, that’s upside down, and that needs to be addressed. So we think some regulatory reforms are needed.”

[Anonymous No.15808727]

>>15808712
If the next stack is ready to launch before they get permission, they will scrap the outdated stack and launch the newer stack instead.

[Anonymous No.15808730]

>>15808724
> In 2021, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9 billion contract to use Starship as the spacecraft that would ferry astronauts to and from the surface of the moon as part of the space agency’s Artemis program. Given that, the FAA should work expeditiously, the company officials said in the interviews.
>“There should be some sort of prioritization relative to programs of national importance,” Hughes said. “For instance, launches that serve the Artemis program. One would think that those would be treated with the utmost efficiency, all within the context of protecting public safety.”
> The FAA did not respond to a request for comment. But in a recent blog post, Kelvin Coleman, the head of the FAA’s Office of Commercial Space Transportation, said the agency is “challenged to keep pace with this industry — keeping pace intellectually, not just in licensing. That’s what makes it fun. We like rising to the challenge.”
> The demand on the FAA is only going to grow. In 2015, the FAA, which primarily is concerned with protecting people and property on the ground, licensed just 15 launches. By 2027, that’s projected to grow to 288.
> SpaceX intends to launch as many as 12 times a month next year, and hopes to start using Starship to start putting its next generation Starlink internet satellites in orbit. New rockets being developed by the United Launch Alliance, the joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and Blue Origin, the space venture founded by Jeff Bezos, are expected to start flying in the coming months or years. (Bezos owns The Washington Post.)

[Anonymous No.15808732]

>>15808716
lazy
>>15808720
>chrome
>firefox
obsolete
>>15808724
there are kind people on /sfg/

[Anonymous No.15808733]

>>15808712
The reason they scrap is because delays keep growing, while advances in manufacturing/tech keeps happening. So they move to the next iteration of their ships. They cannot just wait out 4 years and launch the oldest of the boosters/ships. Thats stupid.

[Anonymous No.15808734]

>>15808712
yes, because it took 2 fucking years to get a launch license and is taking months again waiting for the next license
they have been ready for weeks now

[Anonymous No.15808736]

>>15808724
The Senate hearing that the articles talk about

Promoting Safety, Innovation, and Competitiveness in U.S. Commercial Human Space Activities
--
https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/10/promoting-safety-innovation-and-competitiveness-in-u-s-commercial-human-space-activities

[Anonymous No.15808743]

>>15808734
>they have been ready for weeks now
Ha

[Anonymous No.15808744]

>>15808302 #
>4ASS broadcasts the solar system's location to the entire galaxy

[Anonymous No.15808746]

>>15808743
see >>15808724

> “We’ve been ready to fly for a few weeks now,” said Tim Hughes, SpaceX’s senior vice president for global business and government affairs

[Barkun No.15808747]

>>15808744
You learn that straight away do you?

[Anonymous No.15808748]

>>15808736
>Sinema is chairwoman
mommy spank me

[Anonymous No.15808749]

>>15808732
You've been taught how to fish. Quit complaining about the taste of it.

[Anonymous No.15808753]

>>15808749
Thanks Dad, now I am become mercury and microplastics

[Anonymous No.15808756]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/10/citing-slow-starship-reviews-spacex-urges-faa-to-double-licensing-staff/

Berger also has an article where some SpaceX employees talked to him about the delays by FAA

[Anonymous No.15808760]

>>15808756
Beware the leftist commentary on the article.

Its pure cancer.

[Anonymous No.15808763]

>>15808760
ars comments have always been reddit tier

[Anonymous No.15808764]

>>15808763
Owned by same company.

[Anonymous No.15808766]

>>15808756
> In a remarkably frank discussion this week, several senior SpaceX officials spoke with Ars Technica on background about how working with the Federal Aviation Administration has slowed down the company's progress not just on development of the Starship program, but on innovations with the Falcon 9 and Dragon programs as well.
> In recent months, according to SpaceX, its programs have had to compete with one another for reviews at the FAA. This has significantly slowed down the Starship program and put development of a Human Landing System for NASA's Artemis program at risk. Inefficient regulation, the officials said, is decreasing American competitiveness as space programs in China and elsewhere around the world rise.
> SpaceX is on pace to launch about 90 rockets this year, primarily Falcon 9 boosters from Florida. Next year, the company aims to increase that rate by about 50 percent. That is on top of new entrants such as United Launch Alliance's Vulcan rocket, Blue Origin's New Glenn, and other smaller rockets coming online. Then there is the increased flight rate by Virgin Galactic, the return to flight by Blue Origin's New Shepard suborbital tourism rocket, and the potential for high-altitude balloon flights.
>"We see a trainwreck coming," said one of the SpaceX officials, citing all of this work that the FAA needs to perform.
> During the hearing on Wednesday, Gerstenmaier will recommend that the FAA double the staff in the licensing division of its Office of Commercial Space Transportation, which is known as AST. In addition, the FAA should be given "accelerated hiring authority" to draw from the best pool of candidates.
> The company also believes that license applicants should be able to opt-in to help fund independent third-party technical support to assist the FAA surge in the near term while the agency goes through the hiring process.

SpaceX wants to pay FAA for technical support lmao

[Anonymous No.15808767]

>>15808756
Nothing will change, but they will still cry that spacex is late with artemis schedule.

[Anonymous No.15808769]

>>15808766
SpaceX wants to pay FAA to hire more people to do reviews faster. Its a bandaid solution ofcourse.

The real solution is to simplify launch license reviews and speed up. Automate the mundane process, work in parallel, etc.

[Anonymous No.15808770]

>>15808766
> The SpaceX officials cited several recent examples where it has had to defer work or modify its plans due to a backlog of work at the FAA. For example, the company's Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base sometimes fly over Jalama Beach, which is due south of the spaceport in California. SpaceX has been performing calculations, based on flight path and breakup analysis, to determine whether the beach needs to be closed. But because this work would compete directly with the FAA's Starship analysis, it has put the Jalama Beach review on hold and attempted to find nighttime launch windows when the beach would be empty.
>"I think people assume because Falcon flies every four days on average that that licensing process is kind of a well-oiled machine," one SpaceX official said. "Certainly AST has made it work, and we have made it work, but I can assure you that it is very challenging. It's very cumbersome. In many cases, we have deferred work that is associated with those programs because we know if we put those documents in front of FAA it is going to redirect their attention away from our Starship program, and vice versa. There is a very real problem here, with resourcing, where our programs are competing with each other."
> For example, when SpaceX sought to move its tank farm at Launch Complex 39A in Florida, it submitted paperwork and received approval from both the US Space Force and NASA's Kennedy Space Center. The company was not seeking to move the fueling operations outside the fence line, but rather just to reposition them inside.
>However, it also had to get approval from the FAA, and this, again, diverted resources away from reviewing Starship activity. Was this the best use of FAA resources when the Space Force and NASA had already signed off on the plans?

Falcon 9 cadence is somewhat limited by FAA slowness as well apparently and not only that, they can't improve it because that would be additional paperwork

[Anonymous No.15808772]

>>15808770
>>15808769
>>15808766
They need to apply Musk's algorithm to government.

Question the requirements
Delete unnecessary process
Simplify/Optimize
Go faster
AUTOMATE IT!!!

[Anonymous No.15808773]

And it's just SpaceX, what happens if Blue Origin and Vulcan starts flying.

[Anonymous No.15808774]

>>15808770
> The SpaceX officials said they are losing time due to the review processes for Starship. The rocket for the vehicle's second flight has been ready to go for a little while now, and it likely will be waiting for two more weeks at least to complete regulatory review. The company is concerned that similarly lengthy reviews will delay the myriad future test flights needed to demonstrate Starship's viability, refueling capability, and ability to safely land on the Moon. While the Artemis III mission to land on the Moon is not being delayed day-for-day as a result, the regulatory issues are having an impact.
>“Licensing at this point for Starship is a critical path item for the Artemis program, and for our execution," one of the SpaceX officials said. "Certainly looking forward into next year, we really need to operate that program at a higher cadence of flights. Six to eight month turns, that's not great for the program.”

> The rocket for the vehicle's second flight has been ready to go for a little while now, and it likely will be waiting for two more weeks at least to complete regulatory review.
two more weeks?

[Anonymous No.15808777]

government work punishes employees for moving quickly

[Anonymous No.15808778]

>>15808773
a disaster like one of the spacex employees said

[Anonymous No.15808780]

>>15808773
Year long delays will be had where many companies will be in queues.

The delay is intentional right now as its political.

[Anonymous No.15808785]

>>15808760
Ars comments are my 13th reason

[Anonymous No.15808809]

>>15808760
I fundamentally struggle to understand their point of view. It's really weird, like a culture shock.

[Anonymous No.15808812]

>>15808809
Rich man = bad especially if it's Musk. The contents of article are irrelevant

[Anonymous No.15808815]

>>15808809
They're operating on half baked arguments.

>Musk doesnt like regulations
>Musk wants to defund gov
>FAA delays because its overwhelmed by lack of sources
>FAA claims it needs more funding
Leftist claim "BAZINGA!" because they caught him in a conundrum. He advocates for things to reduce gov, but then reduce gov harms his companies! OBVIOUSLY WE NEED A BIG GOV!

The problem is they dont understand that big gov produces more regulations, which further increases costs, manpower, and requires bigger gov, which further create more reg. etc etc. They miss out on the "simplify" process and remove dumb unnecessary regulations part of Musk's argument.

[Anonymous No.15808822]

>>15808777
its insane how people at JPL spend their entire working carees on one mission and maybe see it launch when they are 60 or maybe just have a completely useless career

[Anonymous No.15808827]

>>15808777
this + why do more work when I can show up, do almost nothing, and get paid? It's difficult to fire government employees

[Anonymous No.15808828]

>>15808809
well it all stems from the axiom of believing that all people are equal in every sense of the word
genetic differences between people don't exist or aren't meaningful, people are mostly a clean slate (tabula rasa) when they are born and subsequently molded only by their upbringing, random circumstances and society at large (experiencing systemic racism or whatever will decrease your performance with respect to traits/features that would make one successful in society for instance)
men and women are the same and lately we go as far as they say that there is no biological difference really but women are oppressed (this is deeply contradictory of course)
there is no difference in ethnicites/races either, the statistical differences on a population level are due to oppression
the same is true for rich and poor, any groups you would want to compare really

when you look at the world in this light, then billionaires existing are an affront
the only way they could get where they are is either being extremely lucky or cheating somehow (the system, their workers, the public markets) or a combination of the two
in any case, you don't "deserve" it, you can't "deserve" it, the collective should decide what is done with the capital you have accumulated

[Anonymous No.15808832]

>>15808822
>or maybe just have a completely useless career
like casey handmer working on gps satellites at jpl? lol
>i work at jpl guys
>no not the mars stuff
>thanks for coming to my mars society talk

[Anonymous No.15808837]

>>15808691
SpaceX's costs are low but their opportunity costs are high. If doing the red-dragon you're talking about delays Starship by X months, and SpaceX will be printing $Y million/month, you need to take this into account.

>>15808703
>>15808648
>>15808718
Agree. MSR is super complicated, expensive, slow, and shitty. Look at this shit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9G36CDLzIg
I wish JPL would abandon the idea of $3 billion for a 1000kg rover once a decade and embrace Starship et. al. architectures which allow $100 million for 10 10,000kg rovers every 18 months. JPL has very smart people but management there is pants-on-head retarded to not get with the times. Their paradigm (and them with it, if they don't adapt) is going to be extinct within a decade.

[Anonymous No.15808839]

>>15808828
Truth based on ideology leads to erroneous conclusions. There's no corrective mechanism.

[Anonymous No.15808846]

>>15808837
>delays Starship by X months
Simply don't delay Starship

[Anonymous No.15808851]

Will NASA buy ISRO tech?
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/sell-your-tech-to-us-nasa-said-isro-chief/articleshow/104449321.cms

[Anonymous No.15808856]

>>15808774
>two more weeks?
please understand. swampland needs to be safe from the starship bidet

[Anonymous No.15808858]

>>15808851
>only a tiny fraction of india is currently connected to the internet
>starlink will soon be available across the country

[Anonymous No.15808859]

Good morning sirs

[Anonymous No.15808863]

>>15808859
What in the great god damn is that

[Anonymous No.15808866]

>>15808839
> ideology
its a religion. puritanism filtered through pinko neo marxism to be more accurate

[Anonymous No.15808868]

>>15808851
These people are delusional.
They seriously thought the US would be interested in their jet fighter.

[Anonymous No.15808869]

>>15808863
Indias moon rocket

[Anonymous No.15808872]

>>15808863
Thing shaft, big head.
A lot of guys are like that. Poor guys... made worse by circumcision.
I've seen it literally hundreds of times.

[Anonymous No.15808873]

>>15808863
Gaganyaan flight test vehicle abort mission 1. Scheduled for October 21

[Anonymous No.15808875]

>>15808271
Any recommended readings for me to understand the lingo? Newfag here

[Anonymous No.15808879]

>>15808875
You just sorta pick it up with time.
What you could do is just read about a mission you like and pick it up by learning all about it.

Like, if you're interested in the moon landings. Read all about Apollo and you'll be forced to learn the lingo to understand what you reading.

[Anonymous No.15808881]

>>15808858
the internet will be overwhelmed by the amount of "GOOD MORNING SIRS" there will be.

[Anonymous No.15808883]

>>15808872

[Anonymous No.15808885]

btw for anyone not in the know, starship is already dead in the water. Just look at their mission archietecture. 16 tanker fligths to go to the moon. It cant even burn from LEO to mars, it has to do multiple burns each requiring a dozen tanker flights to refill it for the burn. Its ludicrous, and the thing hasnt actually orbited yet, it will probably gain an additional 10% in mass when you addd everything it actually needs to work, so its just dead.

[Anonymous No.15808891]

>>15808885
LEO is 90% of every journey, don't see your point.

[Anonymous No.15808894]

>>15808885
Okay Mr. Bruno let’s get you back to your room now.

[Anonymous No.15808907]

>>15808885
this man has lost his composure.

[Anonymous No.15808919]

>>15808891
>>15808894
>>15808907
what I mean is even once you fully refuel it in LEO using 6+ tanker flights it will need an additional 6+ tanker flights at an eccentric orbit to finally burn toward mars using god knows how many starships, probably close to 100 lol. how the fuck will that be cheaper than sls which can get to the moon in 1 shot?

[Anonymous No.15808922]

>>15808919
oberth effect retard

[Anonymous No.15808925]

>>15808919
>>15808907
>>15808894
>>15808891
the 6+ tankers which refuel starship in the eccentric orbit will each require 6+ tankers flights to be full enough to get there. LMAO

[Anonymous No.15808927]

>>15808922
I know what the oberth effect is mr reddit dunning kruger

[Anonymous No.15808929]

>>15808732
>>chrome
>>firefox
>obsolete
then what do you suggest, oh-so-wise one?
oh look, it's literally all chromium forks
drink a gallon of anhydrous hydrazine, faggot

[Anonymous No.15808931]

Just launch from florida

[Anonymous No.15808932]

>>15808927
What kind of childhood trauma produces a “man” as gay as yourself?

[Anonymous No.15808933]

>>15808919
>>15808925
idiot, DV to LEO is much less than DV to mars orbit, ergo you don't need to refuel outside LEO.

[Anonymous No.15808934]

>>15808933
fuck I meant much more

[Anonymous No.15808948]

>>15808925
in 2023, SpaceX has launched 73 Falcon9's so far, with around 20 more by the end of the year. That cadence means on average a Falcon 9 launches once every 4 days. Next year they're planning for 40% more, so that will be a launch every 3 days.
Starship is being designed with more emphasis on reusability, so it seems likely it will have an even higher cadence than Falcon9.
Even if the upmass per starship is less than the 150 tonnes expected (maybe they need a heavier heat shield, or the chopsticks don't work so they need landing gear, etc.) they will still be able to lift astronomical amounts of stuff to orbit. See pic related, which has 'conservative' assumptions of once-per-day launches per starship (SpaceX wants to get to several launches per day per starship).

[Anonymous No.15808956]

why are they using le hydrogen?

[Anonymous No.15808959]

>>15808948
The scale and importance of Starship is still greatly underestimated. I made a rough calculation of Starship upmass using some basic assumptions (1 new rocket [superheavy+starship] is added to the fleet per month. [~500 raptors/year @ 6+33=39 per stack; 500/39 ~12]
Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
Each rocket will fly once per day
Assuming flights start Jan 1 2024....

>For comparison to real things:

After 3 flights, you've launched 450 tonnes, which is more than the 420 tonne ISS [which took more than 40 flights to assemble!]

After 6 months, you've sent mass up equal to a US supercarrier [100,000 tonnes]

In about a year, you could launch the of the Momentum Limited Orion Nuclear Pulse ship. This ship was designed in the 1960's to use contemporary tech to get humans to Alpha Centauri quickly by periodically detonating nuclear bombs and using their energy to gradually push the ship to 3% of the speed of light. [400,000 tonnes]

Before 4 years, you've sent more than the total US Navy tonnage [4,635,628 tonnes]

>The scale and economies of Starship are so ridiculous that science fiction things can actually happen.

The Nostromo [bulk carrier from Alien] is ~ 63,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in the first 4 months of Starship operations.

The USS Enterprise NCC-1701 is 190,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 9 months.

The Donnager [Martian flagship in the Expanse] is ~250,000 tonnes, so that could be launched in about 11 months.

[Anonymous No.15808963]

>>15808885
it needs way more than 16 tanker flights...it needs 31 minimum now...

[Anonymous No.15808964]

>>15808963
>source, his ass

[Anonymous No.15808969]

>>15808885
8 flights for a full refuel actually, assuming Starship can do 150 tons reusable. 6 flights for 200 tons. And if you will do ISRU, you can bring 100 tons in payload to mars at a 3.9km/s transfer with your fuel tanks only 60% full, so only six flights for a Starship capable of 150 to LEO and only 4 for a 200 ton to LEO capable one.

[Anonymous No.15808974]

>>15808929
chromium is so based

[Anonymous No.15808983]

>>15808933
you DO need to refuel outside LEO. Just check the fucking documents for yourself. They were claiming that wasnt needed about 5 years ago but with all the mass gain it is now needed. Anyway, to land on the moon with any hypothetical magic design of starship you need lunar orbit refuelling which is exactly the same ludicrous archietecture i mentioned.

[Anonymous No.15808986]

>>15808948
150 tonnes? Musk doesnt even claim that lol. He says it will be 100, and more likely 80 will be the upper limit. So almost half your pie in the sky figure.

[Anonymous No.15808987]

>>15808983
link it

[Anonymous No.15808988]

>>15808969
it will be reusable just like the shuttle. That sure worked out for cost.. RIGHT!?...

its so hilarious how spacex fans were denigrating the space shuttle heat shield system back when musk had that ridiculous idea of bleeding methane as a coolant, now all of a sudden they are silent and just say "our heat shield will work because... REASONS"

[Anonymous No.15808990]

>>15808986
ok, so even if it's 80, just divide all the numbers by 2. Still absolutely massive.

[Anonymous No.15808991]

>>15808988
yes and those reasons are that starship presents a much more uniform profile, so the tiles can be mass produced instead of custom made.

[Anonymous No.15808992]

>>15808983
for the moon? that's because they don't use ISRU on the surface. You don't need to refuel outside of LEO for a mars flight.

[Anonymous No.15808993]

>>15808991
GOOD LUCK MASS PRODUCING THEM ON MARS OR THE MOON.

[Anonymous No.15808996]

>>15808992
you do. check their own numbers.

[Anonymous No.15808997]

>>15808993
You can just bring extra on a cargo ship? Why are you trying to blackpill yourself on one simple little aspect of the rocket system that’s obviously going to get sorted out eventually

[Barkun No.15808999]

>>15808993
The only viable planets are the moon and Pluto. But the moon must be taken care of for it helps our tides.

[Anonymous No.15809000]

>>15808997
also the lunar starship doesn't even use any thermal protection, so there is no circumstance where TPS would be a problem.

[Anonymous No.15809002]

>>15808986
Retard
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1678278811186544640?t=xRqomqIg35iOcfs7olSYdg&s=19

>>15808988
Don't care, main reason shuttle's TPS was fucked is because shuttle was made out of aluminum and it needed near perfect protection. Remember when a shuttle tile fell of but it was on top of a steel antenna so the shuttle survived re-entry? Also >>15808991.

>>15808993
The whole point is that they're not ablative and can be reused without having to produce anything on the moon or mars retard.

[Anonymous No.15809003]

>>15808986
150 is just the low avg limit for the current Starship. The upper limit of Mars extended Starship might be well into 200 tons.

Its also closer to 300T fully expended on Moon as well. So there's lot of room.

[Anonymous No.15809007]

>>15808736
How the actual fuck is some almost certainly not going to be re-elected independent (exiled from her own party) senator from Arizona the chair of the senate science subcommittee? An actual professional moron

[Anonymous No.15809009]

>>15809002
>>15808988
both of you are stupid, and not just because of the shared affection for redditspacing.

[Anonymous No.15809010]

>>15809007
She's independent. Mostly votes with democrats, but sometimes with Republican. So a moderate left thats in charge.

[Anonymous No.15809011]

>>15809003
150 is fake. its payload to orbit will be 80

[Anonymous No.15809015]

>>15808885
>It cant even burn from LEO to mars, it has to do multiple burns each requiring a dozen tanker flights to refill it for the burn.
you literally just made this up right now

[Anonymous No.15809018]

>>15809015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eco99_cdJrY&ab_channel=Pressure-FedAstronaut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6YOjVyavTM&ab_channel=Pressure-FedAstronaut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNt_SyJjNGw&ab_channel=Pressure-FedAstronaut

[Anonymous No.15809021]

>15809018
>literally who is a good source

[Anonymous No.15809022]

>>15809011
What the fuck are you basing that on? Just plug the goddamn numbers for Super-heavy and Starship dry and wet mass along with specific impulses of vacuum and sea level raptor engines into the rocket equation and you can see its capable of 100 tons to LEO and has >1000 m/s of delta v to spare. I don't account for gravity/aerodynamic losses and landing burns because that 1000 m/s is more than enough margin to make up for that.

[Anonymous No.15809023]

>>15809021
hes smarter than you. And musk for that matter.

[Anonymous No.15809024]

>>15809011
Raptor 3 tested to 350 bar and 269 tons of thrust. Raptor 2 does 300 bar and 230 tons of thrust. That extra thrust (and future iterations/optimizations, like stretching the rocket) mean the 150 tonnes reusable payload could go up even further.

[Anonymous No.15809025]

>15809018
>gets proven wrong
>nu-uuh here's 2 1/2h of schizo mumbling!!
uh, okay?
why don't you just head back to /x/

[Anonymous No.15809030]

>>15809025
irl physics is schizo mubming now. Go back to the kitchen bitch.

[Anonymous No.15809037]

>>15809030
a random nobody on the internet with a followerbase smaller than the smallest shithole nowhere town making hour long documentary style compilation on why the worlds best engineers at the most boundary breaking and successful space company ever are wrong is schizo babble

[Anonymous No.15809045]

>>15809037
he works at lockheed dude. an aerospace company with actual adults in the decision making room. spacex is half a bunch of college graduates who dont know what theyre doing and the other half rejects from other companies. Why are you even playing up Spacex status as if that means they must be right, youa re like a church goer saying the catholics must be right ebcause so many people beleive in it. you are in a cult. admit it.

[Anonymous No.15809048]

Fuck off, anon.

[Anonymous No.15809050]

>he works at lockheed dude

[Anonymous No.15809056]

LMAO

[Anonymous No.15809060]

>>15809045
This is fun bait, idk why /sfg/ is getting bent about it

[Anonymous No.15809063]

No one's getting bent. They're just laughing.

[Anonymous No.15809070]

your dad is bent.

[Anonymous No.15809071]

I bent him over

[Anonymous No.15809072]

with my cock

[Anonymous No.15809074]

Spacetrain (launches and lands on rails)

[Anonymous No.15809089]

>destack again
>regulatory bullshit pushed back ONCE AGAIN
>TWO MORE FUCKING WEEKS
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.15809091]

>>15809089
Remember when they were flying all the time?

[Anonymous No.15809096]

>>15808988
>corrected about Starship delta V and tanker fueling requirements
>immediately pivots to bashing reusability
you should kill yourself with benadryl overdose

[Anonymous No.15809097]

>>15809091
No

[Anonymous No.15809098]

>>15808885
where did you get your information from? thunderfoot videos?

[Anonymous No.15809100]

>>15809091
>SN15 was nearly two and a half years ago
>Starship OFT-1 was nearly 6 months ago
I just can't take it anymore. It feels like a drug addiction. Like chasing the dragon. I frankly don't care about ANY other company, even the ones that are actually doing good work. I don't give a fuck about what RocketLab, Vast, or NASA are doing. It's all crap. Nothing compares to Starship. Even Falcon Heavy launches don't feel the same anymore. Especially since SpaceX started exclusively streaming on that God-forsaken platform

[Anonymous No.15809101]

>>15809097
You don't?

[Anonymous No.15809103]

>>15809100
Remember that time it was foggy and they just went ahead with a flight anyway because they could?

[Anonymous No.15809108]

I hate fish

[Anonymous No.15809109]

>>15809103
Best test, no one had any idea what happened. Why the fuck they did it was truly a mystery.

[Anonymous No.15809114]

>>15809108
>beetles
>plovers
>ocelots
>earthers
>fish
>wildlife
What else do we hate, /sfg/?

[Anonymous No.15809116]

>>15809018
complete bullshit.

[Anonymous No.15809118]

>>15809109
It was a different time, a better time.

[Anonymous No.15809126]

>>15809116
nice rebuttal : )

be mad at the pied piper bigging up your impossible hopes and dreams, not the messenger

[Anonymous No.15809132]

>>15808993
what kind of retarded deflection is this?
jesus christ

[Anonymous No.15809134]

>>15808996
show it, cite "their" numbers

[Anonymous No.15809137]

Artemis 3 with a lunar landing in december 2025, yeah I’m thinking NOOOOO at this rate

[Anonymous No.15809138]

Goybros.. when are you leaving this planet? Will there ever come a day when hundreds of millions of sciencegolems are strapped to rockets and ejected into "outer space" ?

[Anonymous No.15809139]

>>15809137
With what fucking lander

[Anonymous No.15809140]

>>15809137
>2025
That was debunked like a year ago or more in one of the OIG reports.

[Anonymous No.15809143]

>>15809137
Not with this FAA, that's for sure.

[Anonymous No.15809148]

>>15809143
FAA isn't even the major problem.

[Anonymous No.15809149]

>>15809126
spacex has more experience building and launching rockets than lockmart :^)

[Anonymous No.15809153]

>>15809148
The fact that the FAA needs to issue a license for every launch is the problem.

[Anonymous No.15809155]

>>15809045
lmao

[Anonymous No.15809159]

>>15809153
and whats the alternative? let elon crash rockets on every populated town in the USA?

[Anonymous No.15809164]

>>15809159
He's not China

[Anonymous No.15809165]

>>15808885
while we perfect the refueling SS should still be great just for putting things in orbit

[Anonymous No.15809172]

>>15808959
>get humans to Alpha Centauri quickly
>3% of the speed of light

[Anonymous No.15809175]

It's all so tiresome.

[Anonymous No.15809180]

>>15809175
I an noticing the golems are getting more and more desperate lately to leave the planet. Wonder what the rush is all of the sudden? Maybe it's slowly sinking in that it's all a fraud and they want to see some non-CGI proof?

[Anonymous No.15809181]

>>15808959
This started off normal and really went off the rails quick

[Anonymous No.15809183]

>>15809165
*worse than sls

[Anonymous No.15809185]

Overbros.... they were actually planning to do a WDR... is it over for us?

[Anonymous No.15809187]

What is Stoke's gameplan? If Starship comes online before the Stoke rockets are operational, they're DOA, right? Starship will strictly dominate launches on cadence, price and capacity so the only thing other players can compete on is bespoke weird orbits (MEO/GEO/etc)? Maybe Stoke and Relativity can compete by offering similar to Starship (aka fully reusable) but less competitively-priced upmass, which NASA might still purchase to have a diversity of launchers so if Starship is ever grounded we don't end up with a post-Columbia-loss launch capability gap?

[Anonymous No.15809191]

>>15809185
WDR is meaningless

[Anonymous No.15809192]

>>15809159
issue a perpetual license once that covers not crashing rockets into a populated area like the licenses do now
absolutely pointless to go through this every time

[Anonymous No.15809200]

>>15809192
Elon has proven time and time again that they cant trust him. Hes like a dog on a leash who just wants to lunge out and do something ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.15809201]

>>15809159
Issue a license to launch any number of times along an approved trajectory, and follow the normal Range safety protocols as always.

[Anonymous No.15809204]

>>15809187
They hope to fill in the Not-SpaceX camp before Rocket labs with Neuron. But ofcourse there are couple other startups doing that, Vulcan, New Glenn, etc.

They're all hoping Starship doesnt work and all other non-SpaceX compeitors fail except theirs.

[Anonymous No.15809207]

>>15809187
They're racing to become number 2, as the only other fully reusable laumch provider and therefore the only competitor with anything approaching Starship launch economics.

[Anonymous No.15809211]

>>15809200
so what would the difference be between a perpetual license that can be rescinded and one off?

[Anonymous No.15809213]

>>15809191
were back

[Anonymous No.15809214]

>>15809211
Perpetual license means they don't need to go the the process of obtaining a license repeatedly, anon.

[Anonymous No.15809216]

>>15809211
>>15809214
lol shit should have read what you were responding to

[Anonymous No.15809217]

>>15809187
stoke has the advantage of full reusability and taking on smaller payloads. most going on starship with smaller missions would have to wait for a rideshare mission to come along, and relying on other teams to get their shit done in time is kinda sucky for those on a schedule and a budget. if theyre fully reusable, they can send out small payloads all the time and while it may be slightly more expensive than spacex if they really hit that $10/kg (they wont but pretty close), but the convenience of having solo launches for cheap to small sat producers is a good niche. rocket lab and blue origin are total memes because they ARENT fully reusable so they are gonna cost way more.

[Anonymous No.15809229]

So it really has been the FAA slowing down SpaceX. Hopefully they get something done with all this bitching about them, need faster launch cadence.

[Anonymous No.15809230]

>>15809091
>Remember when they were flying all the time?
God I miss Trump

[Anonymous No.15809233]

>>15809229
More like Elon forcing the some poor freshman lawyers to lobby Congress for a hearing. Even though they know this is all bs not gonna go anywhere. And they know it's not the reason why they're going slow. The main reason why SpaceX is going slow is because Elon is asking for something impossible

[Anonymous No.15809236]

I can't stress my concerns about wind turbines altering global wind patterns enough

[Anonymous No.15809237]

>>15809183
why

[Anonymous No.15809238]

SpaceX is ready to launch and waiting for the FAA. Even if you think Starship will never work as intended, it is ready to perform another test.

[Anonymous No.15809245]

>>15809233
That's a lot of mental gymnastics and excuses in one post. How do you live with yourself be honest?

[Anonymous No.15809247]

>>15809245
Wake up

[Anonymous No.15809249]

>>15809245
Stop responding to shitter lmao

[Anonymous No.15809251]

last digit is how many engines fail during next test flight

[Anonymous No.15809253]

>>15809238
Honestly all I care about is raptor working very reliably, and being under $1 mil. If that happens everything else can be brute forced
Oh >we never solved the TPS issue? Fuck it; just throw ablative tiles on (SX ablative TPS can be used more than once so you can use it for mars entry and earth reentry)
Oh the chopsticks will take a while to figure out? Fuck it just throw some landing legs on for the time being
Orbital refilling problems? Let’s just keep trying until it works

[Anonymous No.15809256]

>>15809251
It’s over. We will NEVER see a Starship launch with full engines. Ever.

[Anonymous No.15809258]

>>15809253
>all I care about is raptor working very reliably
see:
>>15809251

[Anonymous No.15809262]

>>15809091
They flew then?

[Anonymous No.15809265]

>>15809253
I don’t anticipate refueling to be a problem but we won’t know until it’s attempted.
Also; I know SeX is getting R&D money for orbital tanking but once they figure it out, is everyone else (thinking of BO here) just going to use SpaceX’s method of orbital refueling? Like basically SX is doing all the hard R&D for modern post-LEO space architecture and everybody else just gets to rip off their work because ‘muh NASA paid for the tech’ or something

[Anonymous No.15809271]

>>15809265
The "hard R&D" is cryo pipe connections. everything else is easy because they're using milli-g acceleration to settle the tanks. Makes it easy to pump, and fast to pump too. Even so, cryo pipe connections are easier in space than on Earth because you never have humidity freezing out on the mating surfaces or otherwise fucking things up.

[Anonymous No.15809275]

>>15809271
I'm not sure how they will settle the tanks. They will not use centrifugal force?

[Anonymous No.15809277]

the next flight will fail because its using fucking raptor 1s mixed with raptor 2s. so 25% risk of failure per engine.

[Anonymous No.15809284]

>>15809277

[Anonymous No.15809285]

>>15809233
BO, Virgin Galactic and representatives from two other companies are going to be there as well >>15808736

[Anonymous No.15809299]

Literally insane how fucking shitty Blue Origin is

[Anonymous No.15809303]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUuoya8Hzaw

Starlink launch in 2h 20min

> · SpaceX's 75th launch of the year and 5th launch of the month
> · 243rd Falcon orbital launch since Amos 6, F9's 263rd orbital flight.
> · SpaceX's 149th launch from SLC-40
> · 40th launch in support of Starlink Gen 2, 114th overall launch dedicated to Starlink

[Anonymous No.15809327]

>>15809277
hardcore/insane way to test engine isolation maybe?

[Anonymous No.15809334]

>>15809277
Raptor 1 has been obsolete for like 2 years now. This is false

[Anonymous No.15809341]

>>15809334
why is the ship flying using them then?

[Anonymous No.15809346]

why does the hls nosecone at starrbase have a heat shield?

[Anonymous No.15809356]

>>15809346
I would guess that means it's not the HLS nosecone anymore

[Anonymous No.15809361]

>>15809265
>is everyone else (thinking of BO here) just going to use SpaceX’s method of orbital refueling?
They might try, but it'll probably be harder with hydrologgs, which they will already be locked into using.

[Anonymous No.15809367]

>>15809356
or maybe hls will aerobrake on the moon?

[Anonymous No.15809370]

>>15809303
>Amos 6
>Woe to the Complacent
Ominous

[Anonymous No.15809374]

>>15809367
if you nuke the moon first I bet you could throw up enough material to act like an atmosphere

[Anonymous No.15809378]

Can't wait to live inside some dug out cavern on the Moon. I will be able to scale the wall due to the low gravity

[Anonymous No.15809380]

Blue Origin unveils plans for orbital transfer vehicle, India sets 2040 target for crewed moon landing (Country also outlines plans for a space station, Venus orbiter and Mars lander),
---
https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-unveils-plans-for-orbital-transfer-vehicle/
> WASHINGTON — Blue Origin formally announced plans Oct. 16 to develop an orbital maneuvering vehicle, confirming a year’s worth of comments and speculation about the project.
> In a presentation to a National Academies committee last October, another Blue Origin official, Erika Wagner, also mentioned the project, calling it Blue Ring. That included a chart showing various roles for Blue Ring in Earth orbit and at “planetary targets” that include many of the same capabilities in the new company announcement. The company at the time did not respond to questions about the program.
> Blue Ring, when it does enter service, may face strong competition. Several other companies are working on orbital transfer vehicles, primarily for transportation of small satellites and accommodation of hosted payloads in low Earth orbit. Some companies, though, are looking beyond LEO, like Quantum Space, which is developing vehicles for taking payloads to geostationary orbit and cislunar space.
---
https://spacenews.com/india-sets-2040-target-for-crewed-moon-landing/
> The announcement follows a high-level meeting chaired by India Prime Minister Narendra Modi to assess progress of India’s Gaganyaan human spaceflight mission.
> “Prime Minister directed that India should now aim for new and ambitious goals, including setting up ‘Bharatiya Antariksha Station’ (Indian Space Station) by 2035 and sending first Indian to the moon by 2040,” the government said in a statement.
> The statement comes as India works towards developing independent human spaceflight capabilities and a first crewed flight in 2025.

[Anonymous No.15809385]

ESA to Create “Pool” of European Launch Service Providers
---
https://europeanspaceflight.com/esa-to-create-pool-of-european-launch-service-providers/
> The European Space Agency has announced plans to create a “pool” of European launch service providers that will be utilized to launch European Commission In-Orbit Demonstration and Validation (IOD/IOV) missions. The call may enable the numerous European launch startups to get foot in the door and secure a first ESA launch contract.
> The request is being managed under the agency’s Boost! initiative, which aims to encourage the development and deployment of new European commercial space transportation services under private leadership. Specifically, it is part of the Boost! 3 call, which will award co-funding for space transportation services for IOD/IOV missions. At the 2022 ESA ministerial meeting, ESA member states committed €31.2 million for this third Boost! call. During the ministerial meeting, participating states agreed to allocate procurement for IOD/IOV mission on a “competitive basis.”
> The European Commission, in conjunction with ESA, launched the IOD/IOV initiative in September 2020, with the latest call for interest being published in the spring of 2022. The aim of the initiative is to allow academia, research organizations, SMEs, and larger industrial companies to test new technologies in orbit, reducing the time it would otherwise take to bring them to market. The idea is for it to act as a catalyst for future European-made space technology.

31.2 million is a joke

[Anonymous No.15809388]

>>15809385
https://youtu.be/TfDcqBJRGDQ

[Anonymous No.15809392]

New Bill Nay just dropped

https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1697577025664803.webm

[Anonymous No.15809403]

>>15809380
Blue Ring sounds like a good idea from Blue. They need to either a.) nut up or b.) shut up w.r.t. getting to orbit. I honestly don't have high hopes that New Glenn will ever work given their production rate is atrocious and the company does everything at a snails pace. Smaller, younger, hungrier companies will probably get there sooner, and sustainably.

Given that they can't get to orbit themselves, the smart thing to do is to start building the vision of space that other launch providers will enable (Starship, Relativity, Rocketlab, maybe Stoke etc.). So things like satellite busses, space tugs (like Blue Ring), comms relays (maybe a private Deep Space Network), etc.

[Anonymous No.15809407]

>>15808815
If they understood that they wouldn't be leftists.

[Anonymous No.15809412]

>>15809385
yeah, that is indeed a joke. 31m split 16 ways... 2m apiece. That's like the budget of a small team for 1 year with basically no tools. >Europe is unserious about space.

[Anonymous No.15809415]

>>15809230
I distinctly remember shitlib retards insisting Biden wouldn't impact flight rate. They are cordially invited to kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.15809453]

https://twitter.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1714371143119831379

[Anonymous No.15809481]

>>15809453
>smuggled to Haiti
What? Why not just send it directly from US. It's an American colony after all.

[Anonymous No.15809492]

>>15809415
redditors were still blaming spacex for the delays and now we have this upcoming hearing.

[Anonymous No.15809509]

it's over...

[Anonymous No.15809511]

btw the hearing will be livestreamed tomorrow, in about 19h 30min

[Anonymous No.15809515]

>>15809453
This guy's great for summarizing all the stories from various Musks companies.

[Anonymous No.15809520]

>>15809515
yeah, there is often stuff that I haven't seen otherwise, especially these obscure starlink news

[Anonymous No.15809526]

>>15809453
Why do are starlink kits smuggled so much? I get that some countries won't let them operate there (South Africa for example), but where is the demand coming from?

[Anonymous No.15809531]

>>15809492
https://youtu.be/eJK1gLHbOxA?t=1136
https://youtu.be/52dVfhgt_T4?t=694

kek

[Anonymous No.15809530]

>>15809526
countries not having reliable internet probably

[Anonymous No.15809532]

>>15809526
The demand is 50-80% of the country does not have internet or reliable internet in those various countries. And particularly, they do not reliable mobile high speed internet.

So while we may sit here with $20 gigabit fiber, there is another 6B people without reliable internet

[Anonymous No.15809539]

Someone explain to me how systems engineering, top level spacecraft design, and mission design work at spacex as an organization.

Im trying to figure out where within the company id like to work

[Anonymous No.15809541]

>>15809539
Watch Everyday Astonaut

[Anonymous No.15809550]

>>15809539
basically in top level spacecraft design just browse reddit for ideas and pass them off as your own

[Anonymous No.15809582]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1714403438757400773

SLC-40's final piece of the segment is stacked now. Now just crew access arm left. Before this launch tower becomes complete. SpaceX/NASA are projecting this being done by end of 2023, just few months now.

[Anonymous No.15809583]

>>15809550
>reddit
Might as well neck yourself as that would be better off. Communist get the neck

[Anonymous No.15809591]

>Astra is under $1 a share again, even after the stock split
>market cap down to $17M
lmao what the fuck

[Anonymous No.15809602]

>>15809591
What's to become of the remaining Tropics duo?

[Anonymous No.15809603]

>>15808644
FAA isn't slow walking SpaceX's paperwork by accident, they're doing it to punish Musk for allowing globohomo propaganda to be debunked on Twitter

[Anonymous No.15809612]

>>15809591
cant wait for this fuckers company to go bankrupt

[Anonymous No.15809613]

>>15809550
kill yourself brainlet AND go back

[Anonymous No.15809614]

>>15809603
seems more like incompetence (or lack of excellence, incompetence is perhaps too strong) and lack of manpower than malice
intentional malice would be difficult to prove

[Anonymous No.15809621]

>>15808644
I wonder if Elon will start to impose mandatory work slowdowns if the FAA doesn't give them the license. I wonder how the DoD would respond to suddenly not being able to launch because suddenly the rockets their payloads were supposed to launch on are suddenly not so safe according to SpaceX and they need to go back for a full breakdown/manufacture new ones.

[Anonymous No.15809622]

>>15809613
go back to where? I think you should go back because I clearly russled your feathers by mentioning your faviourite website and your favourite toy company.

[Anonymous No.15809627]

>>15809614
>intentional malice would be difficult to prove
No, thats easy to prove, the "and completely innocent incompetence" only affects enemies of the globohomo regime.
Why were a bunch of incompetents hired to begin? Were they hired for the willingness to play political hatchet man?
Why does malice require a high burden of proof by incompetence doesn't? The story that the political appointees at FAA accidentally ended up all being idiots is far less plausible than political appointees carrying out the will of their political masters who appointed them.

[Anonymous No.15809628]

>>15809627
most of government officials are incompetent
they weren't specifically hired in this case

[Anonymous No.15809632]

>>15809303
t-17

[Anonymous No.15809634]

>>15809632

[Anonymous No.15809639]

https://x.com/astroferg/status/1714227128659571132?s=46&t=ySaWSLoZU6lwZ7u03-FcBQ

When will he post it?

[Anonymous No.15809643]

>>15809602
Museum pieces. Lawrence Hall of Science at Cal Berkeley got one.

[Anonymous No.15809644]

>>15809639
In a week, behind a $25 Patreon.

[Anonymous No.15809649]

>>15808774
Two months.

[Anonymous No.15809651]

>>15809634
https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1714439792203805177

t-2

[Anonymous No.15809654]

>>15809651
jesus christ this quality

[Anonymous No.15809656]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ2aykI7EI8
non grifting faggot yt stream

[Anonymous No.15809667]

>>15809628
I know right this is the same FAA who helped boing execute two plane loads of people not so long ago. Although for national security reasons Starship should be exempt from FAA regulations

[Anonymous No.15809669]

>youtube is banning adblock
ok i'll just watch spacex videos on twitter
>creating new twitter accounts will cost money
are they trying to kill the internet?

[Anonymous No.15809674]

>>15809669
Yes the internet is dying. Culture is dying, it is unironically over.

[Anonymous No.15809676]

>>15809669
I redirect youtube to a private invidious instance and twitter to nitter. Lyf iz gud.

[Anonymous No.15809678]

>>15809453
i remember the military in the 2010s would harp alot about how space is critical for warfare, the economy, and every day life. the average person never really noticed it though. starlink is opening up people's eyes.

[Anonymous No.15809685]

JUST TWO MORE WEEKS TO STARSHIP LAUNCH. TRUST THE PLAN WWG1WGA

[Anonymous No.15809713]

>>15809100
Vast is cool because they're explicitly assuming a future where starship not only works as a super heavy lift vehicle but is also fully reusable and humans are colonizing the solar system. They seem to also be a lot more professional and have a lot more people then Gravitic too. I mean I hope both companies succeed but Vast seems like it has a higher chance.

[Anonymous No.15809718]

>>15809091
i remember when Mk1 blew its top off still.

[Anonymous No.15809722]

>>15809669
Bandwidth and video storage gets expensive really fast. Have to pay for it somehow.

[Anonymous No.15809727]

>>15809713
No, Vast is cool because they plan to launch their first mission on a Falcon vehicle and not praying on Starship. Yes, any major plans past Haven-1 involve Starship but they will be the first commercial space station because their contract has a date on it, and they can still run more missions or expansions of Haven-1 even if Starship isn't ready because of it.
The whole reason why I and many others on /sfg/ shill for them is BECAUSE of that, ANY other commercial space station relies on Starship or Starship-like vehicles (Orbital Reef is dead stfu), and this is the only one that doesn't AND has a deadline. They are cool because amongst a sea of bullshitters and dreamers, they are the only ones even somewhat realistic with their plans.

[Anonymous No.15809737]

So I’m guessing Gaganyaan and the upcoming European crewed vehicle (if it ever happens) will be in good use for commercial space stations? There aren’t enough dragons and dreamchasers to go around for 4+ space stations

[Anonymous No.15809749]

>>15809737
One of the things people overlook with the private space station meme is that
NASA
Doesn't
Have
To
Horsetrade
So they can't get free rides to the new one or any other one that gets built

[Anonymous No.15809756]

>>15809275
No, not centrifugal force. They'll point the vehicles 'normal' to their orbits (pointed 90 degrees from prograde at the horizon) and burn with small maneuvering thrusters to accelerate at several cm per second per second. This settles the tanks. Once settled, which only takes minutes, they can use a normal centrifugal pump to move liquids across.
Less than 1% of the propellant brought up by each tanker is needed to do this.

[Anonymous No.15809763]

Is it appropriate to compare Dreamchaser with SUSIE?

[Anonymous No.15809772]

>>15809763
>spaceplane
shut up

[Anonymous No.15809777]

>>15809763
SUSIE is a retarded design that wouldn't make sense even if they already had a reusable rocket to launch it with.

[Anonymous No.15809783]

>>15809727
>>15809713
Honestly, Vast should just mass produce their Falcon 9 fairing modules and like Starlink, start putting them up by the dozens and connecting them all together into one massive station rather than waiting on Starship to materialize. Having ISS class orbital real estate that's independent of NASA is worth double digit billions easily. They can literally become the seed station that all the Gravitics modules can connect onto or Axiom for that matter.

[Anonymous No.15809788]

>>15809783
"waiting for starship to materialize" when they launch two years from now and IFT-1 already flew, and it also means its taking them two years to make one module, you dont really need 4 years for starship to come online even if boca chica is dropped today and they move to KSC.

[Anonymous No.15809795]

>>15809654
Did it launch? I wasn’t paying attention and literally nobody in the thread mentioned it.

[Anonymous No.15809798]

>>15809783
>Having ISS class orbital real estate that's independent of NASA is worth double digit billions easily

How? Until launch costs drop to starship level the practical applications of a private station are still gatekept to such a cost that it's just going to sit there pretty much empty.

[Anonymous No.15809801]

>>15809798
in space the DEA can't raid your methlab

[Anonymous No.15809803]

>>15809801
They get the FAA to do it
They're on to Varda

[Anonymous No.15809821]

>>15809798
There are companies lining up to try novel manufacturing techniques in zero-g but the cost currently is way too high for most to make much of it. When not only the payload capacity but also reentry/landing is dirt cheap you'll see loads of major companies ready to dump money into it in a hope to gain a slight advantage.

[Anonymous No.15809828]

>>15809821
>When not only the payload capacity but also reentry/landing is dirt cheap

Right, so waiting for starship still

[Anonymous No.15809829]

spaceplanes are for subhuman nitwits

[Anonymous No.15809835]

>>15808691
get a cost plus contract with guaranteed annual profits and no way to cancel
wait as many years as it takes
buy a ticket on Starship, put some dirt in a plastic bag and pay someone going back to Earth $20 to put in in their luggage

[Anonymous No.15809880]

>>15809639
>beast of a telescope
>celestron c-8
>on an alt-az mount

[Anonymous No.15809950]

I don't usually browse /sci/ and I have some questions.
At the moment is there any reason to push so hard to go to Mars aside from the prestige of being the first country or organization to land on Mars? It just seems like a massive dump of time and resources on something that could fail miserably and be a PR disaster that could kill the interest in spaceflight for some time if it goes wrong, akin to Challenger. Not to mention that there's basically no refueling or construction infrastructure out there in space right now that will make interplanetary missions much safer and easier, and infrastructure isn't usually something that gives a quick return on investment so it wouldn't be a priority for profit-minded corporations.

SpaceX is the most "profitable" spaceflight company and they still rely on an assload of government handouts, and markets and businesses don't tend to grow unless they can be profitable on their own. Aside from telecomms, spaceflight hasn't given much direct benefit to the average person on Earth, and the next soonest market that the spaceflight industry can provide, space tourism, is still something hyper-exclusive. Space mining probably won't take off as long as its more profitable to mine on Earth than in space (which will take some time as well). Governments usually only have an interest in space for strategic reasons since this shit is expensive and could just be a money-burner that end with nothing of significance if a program fails.

So is it a "if you build it they will come" situation? Are they trying to get people into space/onto Mars now to forcibly create a market for more space industries like mining and shipping? If that's the case, why not start with the Moon? It's so much cheaper and easier to get shit to the Moon than Mars, and building shit on the Moon could provide infrastructure that makes it easier to get to Mars.

I am a bit mentally retarded so there's probably something I am missing, please explain it to me.

[Anonymous No.15809954]

>>15809950
>Aside from telecomms, spaceflight hasn't given much direct benefit to the average person on Earth

[Anonymous No.15809963]

>>15809950
>and building shit on the Moon could provide infrastructure that makes it easier to get to Mars.

Lurk more and fuck off retard. There should be a mandatory orbital mechanics test for a licence to post in these threads.

[Anonymous No.15809965]

>replying to AIslop

[Anonymous No.15809967]

>>15809954
Yeah I mentioned I was retarded in my post. Could you please elaborate? I can't really think of anything that I use that comes from space that isn't related to telecomms in some way, i.e. GPS or satellite internet/TV.

[Anonymous No.15809970]

>>15809950
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSRHeXYDLko
time is limited, before spacex, spaceflight capabilities were deteriorating in US, Europe and russia, and although mass to orbit was increasing in india and china, technology wise it was all still disposable chemical rockets. Just like many nations stood still and didn't bother to colonize on earth despite being able to (china is a notable example), without an urgent push towards interplanetary settlement, it may not happen for a very very long time.

[Anonymous No.15809973]

>>15809963
I don't see why it wouldn't. It should be a lot easier to launch spacecraft from the Moon which should save a lot of fuel required for the necessary burns. Obviously you would have to build everything needed on the Moon first which is a lot of effort but it seems like the kind of thing that would pay off over time.

[Anonymous No.15809975]

>>15809967
Imaging/sensing is a huge part. Farms will use satellite data to optimize watering and stuff like that.

[Anonymous No.15809980]

If anything the FAA is cutting corners and letting Musk go too fast

[Anonymous No.15809981]

>>15809973
>I don't see why it wouldn't

Clearly, now fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15809984]

>>15809981
You haven't posted anything to explain why it wouldn't, so I'm not going to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15809987]

>>15809984
That's OK, feel free to shit up the thread with the rest of the reddit transplants. This general has been going downhill for a long time now.

[Anonymous No.15809991]

down down down the gravity well we go

[Anonymous No.15809997]

>>15809987
Why are you so opposed to providing any sort of substantiation or explanation for your claims on a SCIENCE board of all places? Just fucking link me to a paper explaining orbital mechanics for retards or something like that. I gave explanation as to why I think Moon launches might help with Mars mission, what's so hard about providing a simple refutation to that?

[Anonymous No.15809999]

>>15809997
You're missing the number one rule of /sci/

Do your own research. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15810001]

>>15809991
-ACK! -ACK! -ACK! the spincel goes

[Anonymous No.15810004]

>>15809999
I was going to disagree with this anon but he got quads so you need to fuck off this thread.

[Anonymous No.15810005]

>>15810001
artificial gravity is still gravity. get fucked.
free space blobchads rise up

[Anonymous No.15810011]

>>15809997
We aren't required to spoonfeed you. If you can't learn the most absolute basic information about the topic you spout drivel about then don't act surprised when you are told to fuck off.

[Anonymous No.15810012]

>>15809980
So true Mr. Tortoise, that hare is endangering everyone and must be stopped

[Anonymous No.15810021]

>>15809999
>>15810011
>how dare I discuss science on the science board

[Anonymous No.15810026]

>>15810021
Lurk moar newfag

[Anonymous No.15810029]

>>15809997
Google exists you SpEd ADHD no attention span zoomer. ChatGPT will literally explain every little detail to you if you type out your questions.
>BUH BUH BUH BUHT CHATGPT HALLUCINATES
Google, not an argument
>BUH BUH BUH BUHT GOOGLE IS HARD
Go past the first page or use Google Scholar, proving my point of ADHD zoomer.

[Anonymous No.15810036]

>>15810012
the hare needs to be put to sleep, for good. that's the only way a tortoise can win

[Anonymous No.15810045]

>>15810021
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.15810049]

>>15810021
unironically you need to lurk more, or else go back

[Anonymous No.15810060]

The phrase "lurk moar" on 4chan suggests that new users should spend more time observing and familiarizing themselves with the culture and rules of the platform before actively participating. It encourages users to read existing threads, understand the posting style, and learn the community norms before jumping into discussions. By doing so, newcomers can avoid making mistakes, such as posting irrelevant or inappropriate content, which might lead to negative reactions from the community. Essentially, it's advice for newcomers to learn the ropes before actively engaging in discussions.

[Anonymous No.15810070]

>>15810060
Kill yourself obsessed faggot

[Anonymous No.15810075]

>>15809253
very good point. the hardest parts of starship going forward seem to be stuff that can be sacrificed for a bit less mass to orbit, which shouldn't be a problem due to raptor improvements anyways

[Anonymous No.15810085]

>>15809727
yeah, but if starship isn't ready by like 2026 forward its unironically over anyways

[Anonymous No.15810086]

>>15809997
At least take the effort to look up how previous probes have made interplanetary journeys.

[Anonymous No.15810088]

>>15809975
farms are already good enough, they produce so much food that massive excesses of it are converted into ethanol or shipped off to africa for free. farms easily produce more than double the amount thats needed to feed people. furthermore, plant require less water in a co2 enriched environment so optimizing watering is becoming less and less necessary every year. its already pretty much pointless give the excess of agricultural output

[Anonymous No.15810099]

Raptor improvements are good and all, but I can't help but wonder if they should lay off on pumping the bars. It's not a great comparison admittedly but in every other kind of engine, the more you increase the pressures and output, the more unreliable, failure prone and maintenance heavy it becomes. The performance of raptors is already WAY enough, seems to me that increasing the reliability and longevity would serve them better.

[Anonymous No.15810107]

[Anonymous No.15810109]

>>15810099
to paraphrase formula1
It's easier to make an fast engine reliable than to make a reliable engine faster

[Anonymous No.15810115]

>>15810088
>so optimizing watering is becoming less and less necessary every year

If you want to ignore that most farms draw water from aquifers which are a non-renewable resource (on human timescales) and depleting at an alarming rate, sure.

[Anonymous No.15810117]

>>15810107
coal

[Anonymous No.15810119]

>>15810115
envirotard detected. go back to the rest of /sci/

[Anonymous No.15810120]

>>15810119
Thanks for non rebuttal.

[Anonymous No.15810134]

>>15809950
>At the moment is there any reason to push so hard to go to Mars aside from the prestige of being the first country or organization to land on Mars?
Establishing a permanent presence off-planet helps prevent our species from going extinct. Doing it faster shrinks the window of time in which our species might go extinct.
>and they still rely on an assload of government handouts
"No"
>Aside from telecomms, spaceflight hasn't given much direct benefit to the average person on Earth
You say that as though telecomms are not a critical pillar of current society. Also large-scale weather monitoring and forecasting (and therefore the global aviation industry) depend on space imaging.

[Anonymous No.15810149]

>>15810109
Speaking of Formula 1 it rustles my jimmies how annoying it is when looking stuff up
>Search "F1 engine"
>Formula 1 comes up instead
>Search "Raptor engine"
>F-150 engine comes up
>"ISS"
>Integrated Service Solutions
>"SLS price"
>Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG

[Anonymous No.15810174]

>>15810134
Shut the fuck up and stop feeding newfags answers

[Anonymous No.15810180]

>>15809997
orbital flight don't work like roads or airtravel
you use up fuel by speeding up or slowing down (and that way move up or down relative to Sun), but distances don't matter one fucking bit, you just coast all the way

if you want to get to Moon you need to speed up and almost immediately slow down if you don't want to impact the surface at Mach 10, burning fuel twice. Then you can't refuel, so you need to bring even more fuel to get back on orbit
Jumping from Earth-Moon-Mars offers no benefit whatsoever

If you want to get to Mars, you need to speed up (burning almost the same amount as getting to Moon) and then you slow down using atmospheric drag once you reach Mars - for free
then you can relatively easily refuel using CO2 atmosphere and water in permafrost or craters filled with gigatons of pure ice (via sabatier reaction)
from Mars you can go further into asteroid belt if you feel like a space Klondiker

[Anonymous No.15810227]

>>15810088
>farms are already good enough

[Anonymous No.15810245]

Reminder that the collagefag still walks among us

[Anonymous No.15810251]

>>15810245
Reminder that Home Depot has cheap rope for sale to hang yourself with

[Anonymous No.15810254]

>>15810245
among us..

[Anonymous No.15810267]

>>15810251

[Anonymous No.15810300]

>>15809803
are varda's space drugs still stuck in orbit?

[Anonymous No.15810316]

reminder musk said at the iac it would take 4 years for the first uncrewed starship to go to mars, which is insanely pessemistic of him compared to ususal... its over.

[Anonymous No.15810326]

>>15810245
take meds, schizo

[Anonymous No.15810341]

>>15809374
I'm pretty sure the bigger problem is no magnetic core to deflect the suns radiation so any atmosphere would be stripped away anyway

[Anonymous No.15810353]

VCH looks... a little out of place

[Anonymous No.15810366]

>>15808931
They have a ton setup at Roberts Road and The Pad, but are focusing on Texas, for reasons.

[Anonymous No.15810371]

>>15808931
They can't.

[Anonymous No.15810374]

>>15809950
> At the moment is there any reason to push so hard to go to Mars aside from the prestige of being the first country or organization to land on Mars?
To make life multi planetary so human civilization or humanity in general doesn't stop existing if there is some extinction event (asteroid, nuclear war, decline into a dark age)
Its not about PR (the public does not give a shit about space, it never has just like it has never given shit about mass manufacturing or shipping technology, or how computer chips are made), and its not about a return on investment for Musk, its literally about making life multiplanetary
the general amassing of capital for Musk through Tesla and other ventures and one of the reasons for doing Starlink is to fund this thing, which will be a negative for long time (at some point an economy will form on Mars and so on and if you "own" that I guess you could at some point get some economic benefits on Mars for that, but that is not the reason to go there)
> they still rely on an assload of government handouts
wrong, government contracts aren't handouts
> Aside from telecomms, spaceflight hasn't given much direct benefit to the average person on Earth
it has spawned massive amounts of technological development that wouldn't have happened otherwise, i.e. stuff is developed for space but then has applications for earth and then these synergize and technology develops
one of the reasons Musk has said why there needs to be a colony on Mars (beyond the basic need for civilizational survival) is that it creates an economic forcing function for space technology to improve
if you can make a better/cheaper rocket, you get economic benefit from it and thus it makes economic sense to develop better technology
or in other words, the techno-capitalist machine
https://twitter.com/pmarca/status/1713930978987827451

[Anonymous No.15810376]

>>15809614
Sure, but a series of pattern cannot be ignored as mere coincidences. Its not just FAA thats causing pain, its FTC, FCC, DoD, SEC, and many other obscure 3 letter agencies. All aligning with the same political agenda directed by the big guy himself. The Biden himself said Musk and all his companies should be investigated.

[Anonymous No.15810379]

>>15809669
Bots are rampant. Captchas are defeated more easily by bots than humans, which defeats the purpose of the captcha anyway. Whats left is real verification process, via ID card and credit card. You can easily dupe ID cards but duping credit cards is harder because it needs to be actively managed.

[Anonymous No.15810385]

https://www.centauri-dreams.org/2023/10/11/the-realities-of-interstellar-hibernation/
>he doesn't use 4 weeks of Therapeutic hypothermia (TH) to reduce preceived time for interstellar voyage to just 10 years
Ngmi

[Anonymous No.15810393]

>>15809950
>>15810374
> So is it a "if you build it they will come" situation?
yes in a sense, but for falcon 9 cadence and especially Starship, SpaceX has created the highly synergistic Starlink business which simultaneously will make them alot of money but also be an internal customer for both higher F9 cadence and soon Starship while they wait for the rest of the space industry to catch up and forget about mass autism
> Are they trying to get people into space/onto Mars now to forcibly create a market for more space industries like mining and shipping?
a market will naturally form, you don't have to form it
I don't remember the name of the article/blogpost, but someone made charts comparing the costs of shipping vs manufacturing different goods on mars (say food, water, steel, medical supplies, microchips)
after some rudimentary colony is established, a company could simultaneously make money by selling something to the colony and also sell it for less than what the cost to ship that to Mars would be and if SpaceX/NASA or whatever is nominally leading the colony doesn't want to manufacture everything themselves there or refuses to buy goods from other companies, then a economy will form on Mars
> It's so much cheaper and easier to get shit to the Moon than Mars, and building shit on the Moon could provide infrastructure that makes it easier to get to Mars.
the moon will be colonized too, but its too close to earth to become truly self sustaining, a lot of the stuff will be cheaper to manufacture on earth (or perhaps in earth orbit) than on the moon compared to Mars
you can get to the moon in a few days, but it takes 6 months to 30 months to get to Mars
the food spoiling and water recycling going bad won't be an immediate death sentence on the Moon, but on Mars you will have to have big enough reserves or backups on site or you will die
due to this, there is a much larger incentive for the colonists on Mars to make themselves self-sustaining

[Anonymous No.15810394]

>>15810379
1$ for a bot is fucking nothing, funnily enough a lot of spam bots on twitter currently got verification as it puts you on top of other people's timeline.

[Anonymous No.15810396]

>>15810394
$1 isn't the issue. The issue is credit card verification process. Once a bot is banned, the credit card gets logged and banned. The bots would need to a mass tens of thousands of credit card on an almost monthly basis. If the bot system detects fraud on weekly/monthly basis, making it extremely costly to maintain a bot ring.

[Anonymous No.15810397]

>>15810376
I'm not saying the Musk admin isn't going after Musk, they definitely are
I'm just saying the slowness of FAA is not necessarily due to that, it could be pure staffing issues and "incompetence" and as such the problem could be solved by more staff and regulation changes so that even if Biden wanted to slow down Musk (or any other politician for that matter) it would not be possible
maybe there could be some general investigation into everything and see if there has been something to that effect i.e. an email that says take your time with the Starship environmental assessment and add some more retarded requirements like a book report

[Anonymous No.15810401]

>>15810397
If your political leaders is hostile to Musk and directs you to stall him, all you have to do is not be less than enthusiasts and be utterly devoid of sense of urgency to harm Musk's companies.

>super enthusiast
>enthusiast
>neutral
>biased
>extremely hostile

The admins can claim neutrality by bringing up obscure reasoning on why they're delaying it. There are a billion different reasons they can use to stall Starship program for any number of reasons. At the same time, there are billion different reasons to speed up Starship. If you're enthusiast crowd, you can use any number of reasoning to speed up Starship approval process. If you're in the neutral/biased camp, you can use any number of the billion reasons to slow down/stall/kill Starship program.

There will never be a single person out there that will actively and explicitly write down "I, Anon, am personally stopping Starship because I hate Musk and his hatred of woke communist". No one expects them to as their job is on the line, but without airing explicit reasoning like this, they can stay on the safe side and use the billion tons of regulatary framework to stall.

[Anonymous No.15810403]

>>15810397
*Biden admin
lol

[Anonymous No.15810405]

>>15810401
maybe that is one of the reasons Musk became more overtly political

[Anonymous No.15810424]

>>15808282
Kill yourself :-)

[Anonymous No.15810425]

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/1714487581012820391

[Anonymous No.15810427]

>>15810425

[Anonymous No.15810429]

>>15810425
This guy is based. People like him should lead NASA.

[Anonymous No.15810430]

>>15810425
>>15810427
He gets it. A healthy and sound mind does not put safety about everything else. Thats a recipe for disaster. They wont be able to wake up for fear of death that may lie if they wake up. They wont be able to continue sleeping peacefully because death may await if they continue on the route. Safety as number one priority causes paralysis.

You can both move fast and safety without any issue. F9 is the safest rocket and the is breaking record after record.

[Anonymous No.15810432]

https://twitter.com/DrPhiltill/status/1714510630185554047

context: someone saying the slowdown is warranted due to SpaceX obliterating the launch pad and sending concrete and "hazardous material" everywhere and in fact FAA has given SpaceX more latitude than it should

[Anonymous No.15810434]

What could have been... Vega but good, vega but without the pure Italian and Ukrainian stages...

[Anonymous No.15810438]

>>15808875
When you see a term you don't understand Google it. Then read any spaceflight-relevant articles you find and follow any spaceflight-relevant links. Repeat the process.

If you need technical material you can do basically the same thing with Google Scholar, Lib Gen and Sci Hub.

[Anonymous No.15810439]

>>15808983
>more fuel in orbit means you need to refuel more
>better TWR means you need to refuel more

[Anonymous No.15810440]

>>15810353
the gay flame decal they have on the tank is so cheesy. And people call Elon childish?

[Anonymous No.15810443]

>>15809114
Federal agencies

[Anonymous No.15810448]

>>15809763
still accepting answers / arguments for this

[Anonymous No.15810451]

does the dream chaser rub anyone else the wrong way?

The name (aside from being homo) is a direct jab at peoples optimistic dreams of low cost space travel. It chases a dream which it is obviously isnt even designed to reach. Its a pale immitation and gayer version of the space shuttle. It doesnt even attempt to recover any useful flight hardware like the main engines. Its a lifiting body for no reason, just mocking the people who want spaceplanes to be a thing.

[Anonymous No.15810454]

spacex should just delete their youtube and flickr if they arent gonna use them

[Anonymous No.15810456]

>>15809950
>what's the point
kek
https://youtu.be/eJK1gLHbOxA?t=1136

[Anonymous No.15810457]

>>15810451
I like it

[Anonymous No.15810465]

>>15809950
>SpaceX is the most "profitable" spaceflight company and they still rely on an assload of government handouts
discarded
i wont read your retarded post any longer

[Anonymous No.15810466]

>>15810451
You wouldn't mock the name if you knew what Sierra Nevada has gone through to get that project to completion. Lesser companies would have given up by now. Dream Chaser is an obsession.

>>15810434
There was some test recently of a liquid upper stage... Vega-G? I don't know how many stages it replaces though.

[Anonymous No.15810475]

>>15810466
Ah, it's actually Vega-E. Replaces the upper two stages with a methalox expander cycle stage.

[Anonymous No.15810491]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeL_pl21X_I

[Anonymous No.15810493]

>>15810491
We're back to its over

[Anonymous No.15810497]

>>15810466
Now that the dust has settled… if SNC was chosen for comcrew do you think dreamchaser would have been ready a long time ago? Why tf is it taking so long for then to get even one vehicle flight-ready?

[Anonymous No.15810531]

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/2023/10/promoting-safety-innovation-and-competitiveness-in-u-s-commercial-human-space-activities
>Caryn Schenewerk, President, CS Consulting
>Wayne Monteith, President and General Manager, National Aerospace Solutions
>Sirisha Bandla, Vice President of Government Affairs and Research, Virgin Galactic
>William Gerstenmaier, Vice President of Build and Flight Reliability, SpaceX
>Phil Joyce, Senior Vice President of the New Shepard Business Unit, Blue Origin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRjhC-zMqJ8

SpaceX will send the old NASA geezer to spit fire.

[Anonymous No.15810534]

>>15810491
>you put the rocket on and you take the rocket off
you put the rocket on and you take the rocket off
>you put the rocket on and you take the rocket off
you put the rocket on and you take the rocket off

[Anonymous No.15810540]

>>15810531
3h 10min to stream start

[Anonymous No.15810543]

>>15810497
its a grift operation, always has been. Why the fuck do you need lifting body spaceplane with no advantages over a normal capsule and loads of disadvantages?

[Anonymous No.15810553]

>>15810425
>>15810427
Worthwhile post

[Anonymous No.15810557]

>>15808885
Shut up Bruno

[Anonymous No.15810558]

>>15810465
Space X employees drive to work on government-built roads and sometimes drink tap water provided by local governments! It's basically all handouts!

[Anonymous No.15810559]

>>15810466
If your dream is retarded, you should stop chasing it.

[Anonymous No.15810560]

>>15810543
>no advantages over a normal capsule

[Anonymous No.15810563]

>>15809109
>no one had any idea what happened
You mean at the time when it started to rain Starship parts? That was pretty funny.
Last I heard it had a RUD when a Raptor attempted to reignite due to a leak

[Anonymous No.15810564]

>>15810560
name something other than low g load. cross range capability is a meme.

[Anonymous No.15810566]

>>15810564
It saves a shit load of recovery operations money compared to cargo dragon. Almost an entire naval fleet versus just rolling your craft into an ops building right next to a runway? I’ll take the latter option

[Anonymous No.15810567]

WE ARE BACK
ARE
BACK

[Anonymous No.15810568]

>>15810566
Then how come they don't have front landing gear wheels? Skid landing gear for paved runways is a meme.

[Anonymous No.15810570]

>>15810543
>loads of disadvantages
Name some

[Anonymous No.15810571]

>>15810568
Did you miss the "why did shuttle have such a short orbit duration" discussion a few days ago? Tires are one of the items that aren't rated for long-term vacuum exposure.

[Anonymous No.15810572]

>>15810567
sauce

[Anonymous No.15810573]

>>15810567
maybe the FAA is feeling the heat

[Anonymous No.15810574]

>>15810568
How is it a meme? You know what’s a meme? Using front landing wheels on a spaceplane. The thing doesn’t have to taxi itself onto a runway to take off, so just omit a complex part and add a pad instead. Also now you don’t have to shit and piss your pants worrying about keeping your nose cone area within temp regimes suitable for an inflated tire. Add a friction pad, life is now easier

[Anonymous No.15810575]

>>15810567
wasn't there one of these previously and nothing happened?
I don't think this means the launch will certainly happen on Nov 1

[Anonymous No.15810576]

>>15810572
My fever dream

[Anonymous No.15810579]

>>15809277
>its using fucking raptor 1s mixed with raptor 2s
Wasn't the massive issue with R1's the ability to reignite? R2's are higher performing, but the re-ignition issues were mainly due to fueling during the flip/landing maneuver. R1's were fairly reliable in getting SS off the ground during early tests.
Don't get me wrong, I would want all R2's on the next test, but those things aren't cheap - and they plan on throwing them all away anyhow.

[Anonymous No.15810582]

>>15810571
It still has rear wheels though.

[Anonymous No.15810585]

>>15810567
2 more weeks, unironically

[Anonymous No.15810586]

>>15810572
>On November 1, 2023, between 5:25 a.m. and 11:15 a.m., rocket launching operations are scheduled to take place near Boca Chica Beach, Texas.

https://navcen.uscg.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/lnms/lnm0842g2023.pdf

[Anonymous No.15810590]

>>15810385
how does it affect aging though? can't have codgers arriving

[Anonymous No.15810607]

>>15810590
Just send criminals

[Anonymous No.15810609]

>>15810575
I think it means WE GAAN
Out of the way FAA shits

[Anonymous No.15810617]

>>15810607
Haven't we learned enough from the Australia fiasco?

[Anonymous No.15810620]

>>15810582
I wonder if those are solid and not inflated?

[Anonymous No.15810631]

>>15810567
NO PERMIT, NO LAUNCH. ITS OHHHHGGGGGRRRRREEEEE

[Anonymous No.15810632]

>>15810571
just keep them in a climate controlled pressurized container when not in use. ezpz

[Anonymous No.15810636]

WEREBACK SISSIES WONT HAVE A LAUNCH IN 2023 AND WILL THEN SAY
>THIS WAS KNOWN, TRUST THE PLAN FOR TWO MORE WEEKS
HAHAHAHAHA NO PERMIT NO LAUNCH ADMIT ITS OVER

[Anonymous No.15810638]

>>15810579
actually they are cheap

[Anonymous No.15810643]

>>15810636
Two more weeks

[Anonymous No.15810647]

>>15810643
I like the lockmart MADV and I’m tired of pretending I don’t

[Anonymous No.15810654]

>>15810647
It's super cramped for crew because of the giant hydrologgs tanks but it DOES look cool, like the love child of a Space Shuttle and a Gunstar.

[Anonymous No.15810656]

>>15810647
You will simply have to live with being a subhuman then

[Anonymous No.15810657]

>>15810643
what are the two on the left?

[Anonymous No.15810659]

>>15810570
heavier, more expensive, harder to launch due to aerodynamics (which is why they put it in a faring now) which leads onto another issue of the added compexity and point of failure if the folding wings dont deploy,

[Anonymous No.15810661]

>>15810647
110% chance that it never gets built, but it BTFOs starship in every which way imagineable. Musk fans would cry if they saw it

[Anonymous No.15810663]

>>15810659
>muh aero
They figured this out for the shuttle in the 1970s, git gud.

[Anonymous No.15810665]

>>15810663
in case you didnt notice, shuttle was mounted below the center of mass.

[Anonymous No.15810691]

>>15810353
>one decal is baclwards
don't fucking tell me they're going to do the DIVH thing again with 3 unique cores that require Independent factory lines instead of 1 common core with minor modifications

[Anonymous No.15810711]

Is zero-boiloff hydrogen doable as long as you have a lot of electricity and mass to spare?

[Anonymous No.15810717]

>>15810711
Not really

[Anonymous No.15810726]

>>15810636
>>15810643
Golems will have to wait a few more years for the CGI to catch up and for their boosters to be up-to-date.

[Anonymous No.15810727]

>>15810711
Yes

[Anonymous No.15810729]

>>15810711
I don't know

[Anonymous No.15810731]

>>15810711
Maybe

[Anonymous No.15810735]

>>15810711
No

[Anonymous No.15810738]

>>15810691
I wouldn't put it past them, but they'd need to find a pad they could modify to fit a three-core version first. Vulcan's planned to fly from the Atlas V pads at SLC-41 and SLC-3E because those could fit a single stick design with minimal modification. If they were really interested in Vulcan Heavy they should have tried harder to keep the Delta IV pad at SLC-6, but that was handed over to SpaceX so they could fast track vertical integration for the Falcon Heavy.

[Anonymous No.15810743]

>>15810711
BO claims so, I guess we will (never) see

[Anonymous No.15810758]

>>15810711
theoretically it doesn't violate the laws of physics, but the hydrogen will still diffuse through everything so zero boiloff is not the sameas zero loss, ordinary hydrogen leaky bullshit still applies as well.

[Anonymous No.15810760]

Knower here.
No launch license till Q2.
Elon is PISSED like you wouldn't believe.
One of the handlers actually had to take his phone before he started posting death threats.

[Anonymous No.15810770]

>>15810760
Did he smash an OLED in front of his family and the kids are in motel

[Anonymous No.15810771]

>>15810760
kek. I like to beleive this is real.

Optimistically a super delayed launch means it will just werk when it flies and SpaceX will burn less capital. Its also an excuse for inevitably being late for artemis 3

[Anonymous No.15810784]

>>15810760
TWO. MORE. WEEKS.

[Anonymous No.15810788]

>>15810760
Smart of the handler to do that. We really have a manchild in the highest office of our country.

[Anonymous No.15810792]

>>15810788
President Musk

[Anonymous No.15810812]

The FAA must be destroyed in order to free mankind to walk among the stars.

[Anonymous No.15810817]

>>15810531
Its live (has been for 17 minutes)
how boring are these usually?

[Anonymous No.15810820]

>>15810817
Very.

[Anonymous No.15810824]

this guy has been talking for 10 minutes and said nothing

[Anonymous No.15810826]

[Anonymous No.15810827]

Fucking cringe person of color

[Anonymous No.15810828]

https://twitter.com/BellikOzan/status/1714686289877053642

[Anonymous No.15810832]

Small launch companies struggle to complete with SpaceX rideshare missions,
---
https://spacenews.com/small-launch-companies-struggle-to-complete-with-spacex-rideshare-missions/
> WASHINGTON — Industry executives argue that SpaceX’s dominant position in the launch market is making it difficult for small launch vehicles to compete, as a prominent investor warns of a wave of bankruptcies among launch companies.
> In a panel at the Satellite Innovation conference Oct. 17, executives said that SpaceX’s line of smallsat rideshare missions has had a “hugely chilling” impact on the small launch industry that struggles to compete on price.
> “They definitely control and have a dominant position in the market,” said Curt Blake, former chief executive of launch services company Spaceflight who now leads the commercial space group at law firm Wilson Sonsini, of SpaceX. “I think the real question is pricing, and what is their cost, and why so low, so dramatically low?”
> SpaceX started offering rideshare launch opportunities for smallsats as low as $5,000 per kilogram. The company has since raised those prices to $5,500 per kilogram...
>“I don’t think they had to go that low to have a commanding share of the market,” he said, estimating SpaceX could have gained significant business at prices of $10,000 to $12,000 per kilogram.
> SpaceX’s Transporter line of rideshare launches has focused on missions to sun-synchronous orbit, where the bulk of demand is today, but the company announced in August a new series of missions, Bandwagon, that will go to mid-inclination orbits. “They are, little by little, taking over what the small launch vehicles are able to accomplish,” he said, adding there is still room for dedicated small vehicles for missions to different inclinations. “But you have to think of it as a threat.”

[Anonymous No.15810835]

>>15810832
> Wave of bankruptcies
> The market may not be big enough, though, to support many small launch vehicle companies. Earlier at the conference, Steve Jurvetson, co-founder of Future Ventures and an early investor in SpaceX and Planet, said he was puzzled by the large number of companies pursuing such rockets.
> “You have a lot of companies chasing it. It’s not clear to what end,” he said, citing data that claimed nearly 200 small launch vehicles in various stages of development and operations, although nearly 50 of them are classified as either dormant or canceled.
> Jurvetson expects many more would fail. “I sadly predict over 100 of them will go bankrupt in the next two years, and that’s going to put a pall on the investment domain for things like this or anything adjacent to it,” he said. “I think, unfortunately, there’s going to be a bit of a hangover in the investment community that may ripple through the whole space economy.”
> In the later panel, Rocket Lab’s Spice took issue with some of Jurvetson’s data. “I think that’s a nonsensical number,” he said of Jurvetson’s estimate of the number of small launch vehicle companies. “This is just a difficult thing to do that to think that there’s 190 organizations that could pull it off, I don’t buy it.”

[Anonymous No.15810838]

> unnecessary bureucracy

[Anonymous No.15810841]

>>15810838
> Starship has been ready for over a month

[Anonymous No.15810847]

>>15810841
Starship is not ready, it's not ever ready, they're lying.

[Anonymous No.15810848]

Based Gerst spelling it out for the bugman faggots. manley should seek canadian healthcare.

[Anonymous No.15810849]

>>15810838
He should have brought an argument enhancer

[Anonymous No.15810851]

this is as if /sfg/ was running a hearing

[Anonymous No.15810852]

need pajeeta girlfriend

[Anonymous No.15810855]

>>15810838
>its all so tiresome

[Anonymous No.15810856]

>>15810832
>do you really wanna ride the bus? our customers would prefer to take a limo
crickets

[Anonymous No.15810858]

>“I think the real question is pricing, and what is their cost, and why so low, so dramatically low?”

[Anonymous No.15810860]

>>15810832
>spaceX is too cheap for us to compete ;~;
Okay, so either fuck off and die OR get cheaper, retards. Welcome to competition.

[Anonymous No.15810865]

Asking about nuclear propulsion about gerstenmaier

[Anonymous No.15810867]

>>15810856
I dunno about you but if some guy took a limo to the same place I worked at, I'd pants him in front of the hot secretary and call him a fag

[Anonymous No.15810868]

>>15810860
hard ask anon, currently the hump to enter the launch market is just too high, you only have so many options when you start from so far behind.

[Anonymous No.15810869]

>Marino Fragnito, senior vice president of the Vega business unit at Arianespace, said SpaceX was offering pricing that “was not sustainable” in the market, driving out other companies. “Launcher companies could not live with that level of pricing.”

[Anonymous No.15810872]

>>15810868
Not my problem

[Anonymous No.15810873]

>>15810869
If SpaceX's pricing markes Arianespace's business model unsustainable, THAT'S NOT SPACEX'S PROBLEEEEM
FUCK YOU ARIANEGGERS

[Anonymous No.15810876]

>>15810869
I think they mean
>oldspace companies could not live with that level of pricing

[Anonymous No.15810877]

>>15810869
Hey, it's the Der Spiegel article all over again. Literally quoting the previous CEO verbatim.

[Anonymous No.15810884]

>>15810869
https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die-amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html

[Anonymous No.15810895]

Are they going to talk or actually do something?

[Anonymous No.15810897]

>>15810895
This is government, they never do anything

[Anonymous No.15810901]

>>15810895
Talking is what the government does.

[Anonymous No.15810902]

Destroy all fish AND all wildlife

[Anonymous No.15810905]

> SpaceX is waiting for fish and wildlife

[Anonymous No.15810907]

>>15810832
>“I don’t think they had to go that low to have a commanding share of the market,” he said, estimating SpaceX could have gained significant business at prices of $10,000 to $12,000 per kilogram
This is insanity

[Anonymous No.15810908]

>>15810897
That man was born to be a unity asset in a cheap serial killer steam game

[Anonymous No.15810909]

>>15810884
Michael Whitaker is currently nominated to head the FAA. This is a subcommittee of the committee that decided to advance his nomination. So they are doing something i guess.

[Anonymous No.15810913]

>>15810832
Who could have predicted that a big reusable rocket is cheaper than a bunch of small expendible rockets?!?

[Anonymous No.15810914]

>Michigan
Ayy

[Anonymous No.15810915]

>supply chain question
Is this real life?

[Anonymous No.15810923]

I wonder if they don't understand that cheaper smallsat launches mean more companies making smallsats.

[Anonymous No.15810927]

>pushing supply chain QA back to the supplier
NOOOOOOOOOO

[Anonymous No.15810929]

>>15810915
Just wanted to make sure that they are using real american parts and not some euro faggot shit to build real american rockets

[Anonymous No.15810934]

>Virgin Galactic doesn't matter
It's true but it's not nice to say

[Anonymous No.15810942]

>NEW MEXICO
Come on man, you're in a hearing about why the FAA is taking too long, and you want people to get permission to launch over the CONUSA? Use your brain. Everyone in those chairs is looking at how long SpaceX is being forced to take to get a second launch license because they might, maybe, possibly, have disturbed some fish. How long does he think the second flight review process would take if they had done that over several populated areas?

[Anonymous No.15810951]

Gross they're doing the Current Thing thing

[Anonymous No.15810952]

>>15810934
If they can keep up a monthly launch cadence and manage not to kill anyone there's a wide open market in suborbital rides for very rich people. It's not a huge market, but there's enough money there to support one company.

[Anonymous No.15810954]

>>15810908
Chilla's Art presents: late night at the Capitol

[Anonymous No.15810955]

>>15810952
>there's a wide open market in suborbital rides for very rich people
Why? I believe you because I've seen 'em do it, but why? I wouldn't pay someone to bring me to the foot of a mountain without climbing it after we got there.

[Anonymous No.15810981]

>>15810558
lol just posted this on /o/
"We wouldn't need roads is the FAA didn't exist. Would have plenty of money too if half your income wasn't stolen either."

[Anonymous No.15810983]

>>15810897
Why don't people in power know how to act like normal humans?

[Anonymous No.15810990]

>>15810955
Rich people aren't the cleverest bunch, just ask those guys that paid to get imploded in that titan sub.

[Anonymous No.15810992]

>>15810983
It's literally called the power stance though

[Anonymous No.15810994]

>>15810942
If SpaceX kills everyone over those populated areas well, think about it.

[Anonymous No.15810995]

>>15810826
>waddles into your senate hearing

[Anonymous No.15810996]

>>15810955
Some people want to go to space but don't want to have to stay there long enough that they'd be required to shit in a zero gravity toilet.

[Anonymous No.15811003]

>>15810995
hnnnnggggg

[Anonymous No.15811016]

>>15810905
ted cruz never said this though. also greentext correctly newfag

[Anonymous No.15811020]

>>15811016
said something like in that vein

[Anonymous No.15811030]

>>15810983
Because they aren't.

[Anonymous No.15811059]

>>15810992
Looks more like the sore anus stance

[Anonymous No.15811074]

It's real if you believe it goys, remember that.

[Anonymous No.15811087]

IT'S HAPPENING

[Anonymous No.15811096]

>india is gonna put people on the moon before 2040
lol! XD
sure

[Anonymous No.15811099]

>>15811096
Looks real to me.

[Anonymous No.15811113]

>>15810316
not really, next year they have a lot of work to do before they can master orbital refilling, which pushes back the next potential mars transfer window to 2026/2027

[Anonymous No.15811119]

>>15810385
not worth shit if it doesn't at least slow down aging

[Anonymous No.15811123]

can we get some more ITS OVER posters in here? i cant keep doing this by myself come on now, especially with these tests happening and that warning put out for november launch activities. need more demoralization help here like ift-1 had a month leading up to launch

[Anonymous No.15811127]

>>15811123
November launch activities warnings mean nothing. It's just SpaceX making sure that they have filed all the necessary shit should they get the launch license. Only the actual license brings us back.

[Anonymous No.15811128]

i just shit my pants only on /sfg/

[Anonymous No.15811130]

Which of you will take one for the team and volunteer for the 4ASS human torpor tests?

[Anonymous No.15811132]

>>15811127
ok then help me with overposting

[Anonymous No.15811136]

>>15810832
> “They definitely control and have a dominant position in the market,” said Curt Blake, former chief executive of launch services company Spaceflight who now leads the commercial space group at law firm Wilson Sonsini, of SpaceX. “I think the real question is pricing, and what is their cost, and why so low, so dramatically low?”
holy shit, this retarded boomer wants oldspace prices to continue into eternity doesn't he

[Anonymous No.15811143]

https://spaceflightnow.com/2023/10/18/spacex-battles-regulatory-process-that-could-hold-up-starship-test-flight-for-months/
>Ahead of the hearing before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Space and Science, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service told Spaceflight Now its regulatory approval process for the second Starship test flight could potentially last until the spring of 2024.
lmao its so over

[Anonymous No.15811147]

>>15811143
this was known, and i told you fags that there would be no 2023 launches. none of you believed me AND NOW LOOK
IT. IS. OVER.

[Anonymous No.15811148]

>>15811143
>the real enemy is American government

[Anonymous No.15811151]

>>15811147
>>15811148
at this point, musk should consider just scrapping boca chica launch infrastructure and focusing entirely on getting a new floating launch pad set up in international waters

[Anonymous No.15811152]

>>15811148
Told you so

[Anonymous No.15811154]

>>15811143
Just launch anyway, what are the fish gonna do?

[Anonymous No.15811155]

>almost half a year to write a paper
What an absolute joke. A competent person could write that approval within a week.

[Anonymous No.15811161]

>>15811154
it's not just the fish. it's the wildlife too

[Anonymous No.15811162]

>>15811151
FAA and FWS have jurisdiction there btw. And there's lots of fishies to be protected in the ocean

[Anonymous No.15811164]

>>15811162
then do it in a foreign country

[Anonymous No.15811168]

>>15811164
nope, US would use its power to lean on the countries politicians to do something like they always do.

[Anonymous No.15811170]

What do Florida fish think about all those rocket launches?

[Anonymous No.15811172]

>>15811168
fuck it, give all the technical information to china russia and india

[Anonymous No.15811173]

>>15811170
still under FAA and FWS jurisdiction

[Anonymous No.15811176]

>>15811164
give musk some time

[Anonymous No.15811177]

>>15811172
if the us wants to suppress innovation so bad then it doesn't deserve to have spacex or elon musk

[Anonymous No.15811178]

>>15811172
congratulations you just broke ITAR and now musk is an international criminal who will has all of his assets siezed and the incompetent governments of russia china and india will do nothing with the info

[Anonymous No.15811180]

>>15811172
the dead man switch

[Anonymous No.15811186]

>>15811178
hello CIA niggerman!

[Anonymous No.15811187]

>>15811178
ok? starship at this point is clearly a dead end anyway. might as well do that out of spite at this point

[Anonymous No.15811188]

>>15811186
meds now

[Anonymous No.15811190]

>>15811143
Jesus FUCKING CHRIST

[Anonymous No.15811192]

>>15811180
exactly.

[Anonymous No.15811194]

>>15811143

[Anonymous No.15811196]

Daily reminder that endgame is Musk hiring multiple PMCs to mobilize and coup the United States Government in partnership with sympathetic elements of the US armed forces.
He'll run it about as well as Twitter but at least Starship will start flying again.

[Anonymous No.15811197]

>>15811194
back to discord, faggot

[Anonymous No.15811198]

>>15811188
your frankenstein controls are powerless here

[Anonymous No.15811200]

>>15811190
i think its safe to say at this point the starship program is a complete failure
>>15811196
it'd be far superior to the current US government at least

[Anonymous No.15811203]

>>15811196
meds now

[Anonymous No.15811204]

>>15811197
Sorry, I should have posted an angry Pepe or a pink Wojak.

[Anonymous No.15811206]

>>15811204
do better

[Anonymous No.15811207]

>>15811204
yes you should have go back

[Anonymous No.15811210]

>>15811200
Replacing every government function with a magic 8 ball would be superior at this point

[Anonymous No.15811214]

>>15811203
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-RH6HvgPJU
Never.
Also what do you stock a Martian pharmacy with to ensure productive colonists?
>inb4 meth

[Anonymous No.15811216]

>director of Fish and Wildlife Service is a lawyer with no scientific background

Interesting

https://apnews.com/article/fish-wildlife-service-director-removal-dc52f3156751ff995919f33f73071ddf

[Anonymous No.15811223]

We have made it to the point where monthly space tourism missions are happening.

[Anonymous No.15811230]

>>15811216
Politically motivated sandbagging is starting to look increasingly likely. Hilarious part is that this is holding up Boeing's SLS gravy train. Noticer hat on: Nelson was making extremely vague statements about Artemis III and it is increasingly likely he knew this was coming. I fully anticipate Artemis III will be reclassified as a visit to Gateway.

[Anonymous No.15811239]

>>15811223
below the karman line is not space. axiom is the only company that can claim the title of space tourism business

[Anonymous No.15811240]

>>15810397
>maybe there could be some general investigation or something
lawfare. the process itself is punishment

[Anonymous No.15811242]

135 DAYS IS THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TIME YOU FUCKING RETARDS! WHY THE FUCK ELSE WOULD THE FAA AND SPACEX SUGGEST A NOVEMBER LAUNCH AND PREPARE FOR IT? BIOLOGICAL ASSESMENT MIGHT BE FINISHED IN AS LITTLE AS 30 DAYS. THE MEDIAN TIME IS 62 DAYS. FAGGOTS.

[Anonymous No.15811248]

>>15811242
What are the odds some other change adds another 135-day window?

[Anonymous No.15811252]

>>15811248
100%

[Anonymous No.15811255]

>>15811248
>>15811252
FUCK YOU PESSIMISTIC FAGGOTS

[Anonymous No.15811256]

>>15811096
>reminder starlink is trying to connect majority of places like pajeetia to the net
wtf I like EDS now

[Anonymous No.15811266]

>>15811256
Papeets are already connected thanks to dirt cheap smartphones ser.

[Anonymous No.15811271]

>>15811143
hold these obstructive agencies' budgets hostage until more permanent measures are available

[Anonymous No.15811275]

>>15811223
Off all the companies to run more than one mission I was not expecting Virgin Galactic.
>>15811196
Very Ayn Rand of you, let do it.

[Anonymous No.15811280]

>>15811256
>>15811266
Is India really that big of a market for Starlink? It seems pretty urbanised with only a small number in rural.

[Anonymous No.15811281]

>>15811242
So from 2 2 weeks or 9 2 weeks

[Anonymous No.15811283]

>>15811280
1.4 billion people some of which are not poor. All have bad internet. Realistically it could become a bigger market than the USA. Just hard to bet on the Indian bureaucracy already in bed with One Web.

[Anonymous No.15811284]

>>15811196
equipped with the latest from Tesla weapons research division and neuralink (non-invasive) controlled power armor

[Anonymous No.15811288]

>>15811283
Starlink doesn't work in cities tho

[Anonymous No.15811290]

>>15811280
even if only 15% of the people live in rural areas, that's still hundreds of millions of potential customers

[Anonymous No.15811293]

Why did the manned asteroid redirect idea from Obama’s era have to be manned?

[Anonymous No.15811295]

>>15811290
They will have to crater their price structure because rural Indians are dirt poor. They already have shitty cellphone internet which is enough to watch 480p YouTube and ask for bobs and vageen on facebook.

[Anonymous No.15811301]

>>15811293
guessing astronaut's union.

[Anonymous No.15811304]

>>15811210
Total bureaucrat death.

[Anonymous No.15811307]

>>15811301
Also the reason why the Shuttle had to be manned, despite Buran showing otherwise.

[Anonymous No.15811311]

>>15811242
Maximum in this context means minimum. They will delay it for few more years.

100% guaranteed

[Anonymous No.15811312]

we staging or what?

[Anonymous No.15811314]

>>15811312
No, we die

[Anonymous No.15811315]

>>15811242
>let's hand the Moon to China for the sake of protecting the fishies from water
Yeah.
Are they just Luddites, or active 5th columnists controlled from Beijing?

[Anonymous No.15811317]

>>15811315
mix of both

[Anonymous No.15811322]

>>15811136
Yup. He wants to see expendable vehicle prices for reusable fleets so that investors can in the long term demand dividends for their investments and the only way that happens is if the price gouging continues. SpaceX said no and priced it relative to their vehicle cost and refurbishment and fuel/regulatory costs wherein they made decent margin per Transporter flight.

Elon screamed from every building that reusable is the future for over a decade. Everyone said he is a massive faggot that snorts farts. Now they're panicking because Elon was proven right and SpaceX has become the market.

[Anonymous No.15811323]

>>15811322
>Imagine throwing away 747 after each flight

[Anonymous No.15811324]

>>15811323
I mean they did with the 737-Max8. Twice.

[Anonymous No.15811325]

>>15811322
>Elon screamed from every building that reusable is the future for over a decade. Everyone said he is a massive faggot that snorts farts. Now they're panicking because Elon was proven right and SpaceX has become the market.

Despite the government faggotry, it is lovely watching the chickens come home to roost.

[Anonymous No.15811333]

>>15811325
*watching the boosters come home

[Anonymous No.15811376]

Thread has staged.

Ignition:
>>15811374
>>15811374
>>15811374

[Anonymous No.15811382]

>>15811376
What if i don't want it to stage

[Anonymous No.15811386]

>>15811382
then you won't reach orbit

[Anonymous No.15811395]

>>15811382
then stay stuck in this well, we are going PAST the karman line and not under it, pathetic worm

[Anonymous No.15811398]

>>15811143
as that one dude said during the hearing, why should fish and wildlife oversee rocket launches? this is fucking ridiculous

[Anonymous No.15811543]

>>15811143
>>15810760
ehe

[Anonymous No.15811594]

>>15811280
Per google 64% of Indians live in rural areas. For reference the US is at around 20% in rural areas. Of course those 60 million or so Americans have probably 10 times the total wealth of those 900 million Indians.

I'm pretty sure that picture is somehow faked (or maybe from a particular day where everyone was awake, i.e. an election night or holiday or something), since the neighboring countries are much darker despite being about the same in terms of economic development and other images I can find show significantly less light.

[Anonymous No.15811613]

>>15811172
The lesser nations don't have the metallurgy
It's over