/sfg/ - Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.16056525]

Night WDR Edition

Previous - >>16053620

[Anonymous No.16056529]

First for SpaceX

[Anonymous No.16056532]

Second for Dragonfly

[Anonymous No.16056534]

second for Blue Origin

[Anonymous No.16056536]

Third for space elevator with a counterweight at 120,000km

[Anonymous No.16056541]

>>16056534
>BO is always late
Nice touch

[Anonymous No.16056543]

>>16056532
Kill yourself and cancel dragonfly
>>16056534
Kek get fucked bluetard
>>16056536
You elevatorcels also got fucked this is 4th

[Anonymous No.16056563]

fourth for bezos clock

[Anonymous No.16056572]

>Starship completed its rehearsal for launch, loading more than 10 million pounds of propellant on Starship and Super Heavy and taking the flight-like countdown to T-10 seconds

[Anonymous No.16056574]

>Starship completed its rehearsal for launch, loading more than 10 million pounds of propellant on Starship and Super Heavy and taking the flight-like countdown to T-10 seconds

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1764697392128156144?s=20

[Anonymous No.16056576]

>>16056574

[Anonymous No.16056578]

>>16056572
TWO
>>16056574
WEEKS

[Anonymous No.16056579]

>>16056574
beautiful

[Anonymous No.16056580]

[Anonymous No.16056582]

guesses when it launches?
licens

[Anonymous No.16056583]

>>16056582
14 days

[Anonymous No.16056586]

they do need to start removing that scaffolding

[Anonymous No.16056588]

>>16056582
1 fortnight

[Anonymous No.16056591]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764700900759634298

[Anonymous No.16056592]

>>16056572
>loading more than 10 million pounds
>pounds
>£
LOL and they call SLS a money pit

[Anonymous No.16056594]

>>16056580
what are the 4 tiled squares at the top?

[Anonymous No.16056595]

>>16056582
Give it to me straight will this thing reach Hawaii

[Anonymous No.16056596]

>>16056594
some antennas

[Anonymous No.16056601]

>>16056595
some of it will

[Anonymous No.16056602]

>>16056592
They mean more than 4,500 metric tons.

[Anonymous No.16056604]

>>16056592
>10 million pounds vs 4.2 billion dollars = 3,308 million pounds per sls
yeah I think starship is doing alright

[Anonymous No.16056605]

What do you think about CAS Space's revised roadmap?

[Anonymous No.16056606]

>>16056592
QRD on dosh as a propellant?

[Anonymous No.16056607]

>>16056605

[Anonymous No.16056608]

>>16056605
Are they also copying BO joyride or what is supposed to be that last thing?

[Anonymous No.16056611]

>SAST is actually making their 4m diameter reusable methalox rocket, supposed to launch next year
https://www.chinanews.com.cn/gn/2024/03-04/10174021.shtml

[Anonymous No.16056612]

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1764672820494090373

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/03/blue-origin-staffing-up-to-build-a-human-spacecraft/
> Blue Origin is getting serious about developing a human spacecraft
>Company seeks: "Experience with human spaceflight or high-performance aircraft systems?"

[Anonymous No.16056613]

>>16056608
Yep

[Anonymous No.16056614]

>>16056612
>blue crew
>not crew origin
one job berger

[Anonymous No.16056615]

>>16056605
what the fuck is that last thing lmaooo

[Anonymous No.16056617]

>>16056605

[Anonymous No.16056619]

>>16056605
=(

[Anonymous No.16056621]

Updated drawing of CZ-12

[Anonymous No.16056623]

Do chinese ever have an original idea?

[Anonymous No.16056624]

>>16056605
Straight to my meme folder

[Anonymous No.16056631]

>>16056623
they want to catch rockets with that wire system instead of an arm

[Anonymous No.16056632]

>>16056617
I wonder if falcon/starship clones are right to go with folding gridfins. starship has a high ass center of pressure between the gridfins and the fins on the ship. probably didn't help with the tumbling on IFT1. but folding gridfins that large can't be easy (well it can, but if it's easy it isn't light)

[Anonymous No.16056634]

>>16056631
the people on the NSF forum came up with that.

[Anonymous No.16056635]

>>16056631
Only because SpaceX hasn't succeeded yet

[Anonymous No.16056636]

>>16056615
太空飞行旅游器
Space tourism vehicle

[Anonymous No.16056637]

>>16056623
an optical telescope co-orbiting with their space station for easy repairs

[Anonymous No.16056638]

>>16056632
You can afford a bit more dry mass on S1 if it looks better.

[Anonymous No.16056648]

>>16056637
That is actually pretty smart.

[Anonymous No.16056649]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1MIw731X20
>Lake Nona Impact Forum – Fireside Chat Highlights with NASA Administrator Bill Nelson and Jeff Bezos

bezos talking with mr ballast/the lich, who seems to have drawn some lifeforce from bezos
bezos is starting to look gray

[Anonymous No.16056650]

>>16056605
To clarify

LJ-1 is the solid that is operational today

LJ-2 is a tricore liquid expendable and the LJ-2 Heavy is a pentacore liquid expendable. There is no single core variant.

LJ-3 aims for full reuse

The last one is a New Shepard clone

[Anonymous No.16056653]

>>16056637
how do they get to it? lift the station up until the telescope catches up and then birth it? drop the telescope down until it catches up and then birth it? fly a capsule over and spacewalk from that for repairs?

[Anonymous No.16056657]

>>16056632
At this point, I think LJ-3 is first and foremost investor bait. The exact details of the design can be solved later

[Anonymous No.16056661]

>>16056649
Musk would be bald and gray if not for his hair transplantations

[Anonymous No.16056662]

>>16056623
Air-launched rocket that is reusable using an air rudder
https://spacenews.com/china-is-working-on-a-design-for-a-reusable-air-launched-orbital-rocket/

[Anonymous No.16056690]

is there any reason why EVERY rocket first stage isn't given a parachute, recovered, and had its engines stripped off, refurbished, and reflown? it seems like a pretty cheap and low risk project that you can cancel if it doesn't pan out. easier than droneship landing. easier than SMART. you only lose like 100kg of payload maybe. which you weren't using on every launch anyway.

[Anonymous No.16056695]

>>16056690
parachutes are actually pretty complicated
so this isn't just something you bolt on, it needs engineering resources

[Anonymous No.16056697]

>>16056608
If they just copy everything then they're sure to find something that works.

[Anonymous No.16056699]

>>16056649
OLD MEN
WARNING
WARNING

[Anonymous No.16056702]

I recently read "Musk" by Walter Isaacson and he seems like a horrible person to work for. Constant shedding of talent because of petty mood swings.

[Anonymous No.16056706]

>>16056702
it is what it is

[Anonymous No.16056710]

>>16056653

[Anonymous No.16056712]

>>16056710

[Anonymous No.16056713]

>>16056710
>hubble tier tech
welcome to the 1980s china

[Anonymous No.16056714]

>>16056713
>It will feature a 2-meter (6.6 foot) diameter primary mirror and is expected to have a field of view 300–350 times larger than the Hubble Space Telescope.

[Anonymous No.16056722]

[Anonymous No.16056723]

>>16056710
>>16056712
>>16056713
>>16056714
Oh neat they're turning their station into a tiny Skylab, cool.

[Anonymous No.16056729]

is SpaceX profitable?

[Anonymous No.16056730]

>>16056723
>tiny
>skylab: Pressurised volume 12,417 cubic feet (351.6 m3)
>tiangong: Pressurised volume 340 m3 (12,000 cu ft)

[Anonymous No.16056732]

>>16056729
yes

[Anonymous No.16056733]

>>16056723
mir + skylab combo. now they just need to add a couple of international modules to get the mir + skylab + iss trifecta.

[Anonymous No.16056735]

>>16056729
Yes but you can't see their financial statements

[Anonymous No.16056737]

>>16056729
I think just barely for a quarter or two, but Starlink is growing rapidly

[Anonymous No.16056740]

>>16056730
If they can't run around the interior I'm calling it cramped. This applies to every station ever made that wasn't Skylab.

[Anonymous No.16056742]

>>16056732
>>16056735
>>16056737
great. it's the only venture that hypes me unambiguously, so I hope it doesn't die

[Anonymous No.16056744]

>>16056621
So, the main difference is that they enlarged the fairing compared to the original plan? I guess it makes sense if the main use will be megaconstellation deployment

[Anonymous No.16056746]

>>16056740
fair enough

[Anonymous No.16056757]

>>16056746
That's a lot of headspace, is that a higher deck or is that where you jam equipment? I'm not sure why you'd need to separate the open room/s in the lower deck but at least it wouldn't be a trip hazard in 0g. I like the main deck, nice and open, even if you crammed it full of laptops and ipads like ISS it'd still be more open.

[Anonymous No.16056761]

>>16056722
implessive

[Anonymous No.16056765]

>>16056690
Parachutes are impractical for medium lift first stages and bigger. Also impractical for high energy first stages of any size without a retropropulsive entry burn

[Anonymous No.16056774]

Now I remember the parachute I had with that one anon. He said parachutes are high tech devices that aren't well understood.

[Anonymous No.16056776]

>>16056765
>Parachutes are impractical for medium lift first stages and bigger
stick them on the bottom, use the tanks as a shock absorber and eat the rough landing
>Also impractical for high energy first stages of any size without a retropropulsive entry burn
ok yeah, I can see why parachutes would struggle there

[Anonymous No.16056778]

>>16056456
The actual cost of Space Launch System is only $250 mil per flight. It’s a pretty cheap rocket overall and will only go down with economy of scale

[Anonymous No.16056793]

>>16056774
thats true
during crew dragons parachute development they discovered some entirely new faillure modes I think
they are difficult to model

[Anonymous No.16056794]

>>16056778
It's not that low but almost not as high as $4.1bn
although for the money we've spent already i feel like Block 2 should've been Block 1.

[Anonymous No.16056802]

>>16056774
there is no known model which can accurately simulate parachute dynamics…… so I’d say the other anon is right and you are wrong hkktt

[Anonymous No.16056804]

>>16056778
>>16056794
>real estimate is 2 billion per launch

[Anonymous No.16056806]

>>16056794
>it's not $4 billion because some retard on twitter said so
>>16056804
2 billion for SLS and 2 billion for Orion

Don't believe the NASA crooks

[Anonymous No.16056808]

>>16056806
>2 billion for SLS and 2 billion for Orion
good fucking lord

[Anonymous No.16056809]

>>16056806
don't they reuse orion?
not that any have been, but isn't that the plan?

[Anonymous No.16056811]

>>16056802
mate it's a piece of cloth with strings. Simple principle of action

[Anonymous No.16056816]

>>16056808
The $2B for SLS I can almost understand. It's just an exercise in grotesque mass-autistic artisanal rocketry. But how the fuck do you get an equal price tag for a reusable Apollo-scale capsule?

[Anonymous No.16056818]

>>16056811
simple principle of action, difficult to model

[Anonymous No.16056826]

>>16056816
Probably insane amounts of "safety"

[Anonymous No.16056827]

Is there a reason to explore the lunar North Pole? Seems like everyone is focused on the South Pole

[Anonymous No.16056832]

>>16056827
not really I guess, craters are too shallow to be permanently shadowed and trap water
or that is what I assume from the wikipedia article
if there was water and volatiles on the north pole I would assume that was mentioned in the article

[Anonymous No.16056837]

You can reuse Lunar rovers btw
Just swap the battery

[Anonymous No.16056846]

>>16056699
the sound they'll make rattling their cage will serve as a warning to the electronic old men

[Anonymous No.16056849]

>want your lander to survive the lunar night? you NEED a radioactive heater
>no you can't have one radiation is dagerous don't you know
>NO you CANT use a chemical reaction and fuel to heat your battery
>why not? you JUST cant!

[Anonymous No.16056859]

>>16056778
Get real. Grumman alone is getting paid $400 million for each pair of solid fuel boosters.

[Anonymous No.16056874]

>>16056859
Yeah, but they are reusable.

[Anonymous No.16056876]

>>16056874
hehehe... yeah...

[Anonymous No.16056878]

>>16056806
you’re pulling numbers out of your bare ass

[Anonymous No.16056885]

>>16056878
have these numbers changed?

[Anonymous No.16056887]

>>16056849
>"Just add oxidizer!™"

[Anonymous No.16056888]

>>16056849
SLIM didn't have any heaters and survived.
I expect the same of Odysseus.
It's not as bad as (((they))) make it out to be.

[Anonymous No.16056894]

>>16056874
The SRBs are being expended on SLS. There are no provisions for recovery or refurbishment.

[Anonymous No.16056901]

>>16056878
NASA Office of the Inspector General, November 15th 2021 report: https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-22-003.pdf

>We project the cost to fly a single SLS/Orion system through at least Artemis IV to be $4.1 billion per launch at a cadence of approximately one mission per year.47 Building and launching one Orion capsule costs approximately $1 billion, with an additional $300 million for the Service Module supplied by the ESA through a barter agreement in exchange for ESA’s responsibility for ISS common system operating costs, transportation costs to the ISS, and other ISS supporting services. In addition, we estimate the single-use SLS will cost $2.2 billion to produce, including two rocket stages, two solid rocket boosters, four RS-25 engines, and two stage adapters.

[Anonymous No.16056906]

No duh.

[Anonymous No.16056911]

https://spacenews.com/astra-warns-of-liquidation-if-proposal-to-go-private-falls-through/

[Anonymous No.16056928]

Failure rewarded, corruption continues. No real cuts to the most catastrophically mismanaged areas of the NASA budget:

The bill provides $24.875 billion for NASA, 2% less than what the agency received in 2023 and 8.5% less than the $27.185 billion NASA requested for 2024. The final figure is also below the levels in the separate House and Senate bills of $25.367 billion and $25 billion, respectively.

The report directs NASA to spend no less than $300 million, the amount in the Senate bill, on MSR, and up to the request of $949.3 million, the amount in the House bill. It also directs NASA to not lay off any more people in the MSR program until the agency provides Congress with the report on the future of MSR.

The report directs NASA to fund the Space Launch System and Orion programs at their 2023 levels of $2.6 billion and $1.339 billion, respectively, slightly more than what NASA requested for 2024.

https://spacenews.com/final-nasa-2024-spending-bill-defers-decision-on-msr-funding/

[Anonymous No.16056937]

>>16056911
This is for Tropics-1

[Anonymous No.16056940]

>>16056928
fuck nasa
fuck oldspace

[Anonymous No.16056960]

>>16056911
so the guys who founded the company as a private company went public with it in 2021, becoming the first publically traded space company on the ny stock exchange. 10 launches and 8 failures later the company is in deep shit and will be disolved if they can't get a deal to sell the shares back to the founders. I hope they can reach an agreement instead of wasting all the development.

[Anonymous No.16056965]

Can fusion propulsion make SSTOs viable?

[Anonymous No.16056974]

>>16056928
$4 billion for SLS+Orion
Between $300 million and $950 million for MSR.
Curiosity was like $200 million not including the Atlas V launch vehicle. So if MSR ends up being in the middle of the range ~$600 million, then its not that much considering the complexity of the mission. This has to cover the lander, maybe 2 rovers, ascent vehicle, orbiter and return capsule, potentially all the rockets to launch them too.

[Anonymous No.16056983]

>>16056974
MSR just needs some prominent public facing women/blacks. then it will never face budgetary criticism. that's how it works for artemis

[Anonymous No.16056993]

>>16056744
Yeah, although both 4.2m and 5.2m fairing are explicitely said to exist
The SSO payload has also slightly increased from 5 to 6t

[Anonymous No.16057012]

>>16056574
absolute kino, looks like a shot from an 80's sci-fi set.

[Anonymous No.16057031]

>>16056974
>So if MSR ends up being in the middle of the range ~$600 million, then its not that much

Per year. Until it launches. In another 10 years. If ever.

[Anonymous No.16057032]

>>16056802
>accurately simulate parachute dynamics
Have u heard of a wind tunnel

[Anonymous No.16057037]

Anyone wanna take some bets on when the NOTMAR shows up? Ive got March 11th

[Anonymous No.16057040]

Apparently that CBS 60 minutes space industry segment is really bad, I havent watched it yet

[Anonymous No.16057043]

>>16057012
We live in the fog machine timeline

[Anonymous No.16057048]

>>16057040
Not gonna watch it but predicting oldspace fluff piece or a CSS style EDS rant

[Anonymous No.16057050]

>>16057040
just watch it, it's linked in the last thread.
it's fine. not hard enough on BO. the points it brings up are points made here but sanitized for normies.

[Anonymous No.16057057]

>>16057050
my understanding of it was space is too expensive and you are unrealistic and failing and just stop. like the message is we should spend money on earth not space

[Anonymous No.16057059]

>>16056563
why is board fascinated with Bozos' tiny cock?

[Anonymous No.16057064]

>>16057057
that wasn't my takeaway.
>sls too expensive but they don't hammer this home
>too much new technology on starship lander, worried about schedule slips
>exact same problems with BO lander but this is kinda handwaved
>spacex has a better track record than blue but they don't hammer this home either

[Anonymous No.16057066]

>>16057064
The whole thing is just concern trolling

[Anonymous No.16057068]

>>16057064
You honestly believe they'd let facts come in the way of their attempt at shutting the whole program down?

[Anonymous No.16057070]

my friend works for boeing now

[Anonymous No.16057072]

>>16057070
Cut ties

[Anonymous No.16057075]

>>16057066
par for the course
>>16057068
artemis isn't getting shut down but thanks for playing

[Anonymous No.16057096]

What did y'all think of Shuttle Sunday?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sz6qcjolcwY

[Anonymous No.16057110]

Transporter 10 launch in a few minutes

[Anonymous No.16057116]

>>16057110
oh fuck I was off I thought it was an hour from now
https://www.spacex.com/launches/mission/?missionId=transporter10

[Anonymous No.16057121]

>spacemoths

[Anonymous No.16057122]

daytime launches are kino. I've missed them with all the night launches starlink does

[Anonymous No.16057124]

>>16057121
and rats in the engine

[Anonymous No.16057125]

holy fuck, that angle was crazy

[Anonymous No.16057126]

he can't keep getting away with it

[Anonymous No.16057128]

From that angle, the fall down of the booster looks much more violent than I imagined

[Anonymous No.16057129]

>>16057121
yeah that was funny. Thought they had some flies taking a ride in the camera housing!

[Anonymous No.16057160]

>>16057126
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEupBbJI07g
He continues to get away with it
T-60:00

[Anonymous No.16057165]

>>16057160
sub 2hrs between launches?
unprecedented

[Anonymous No.16057178]

>>16056605
Two LM-10s with a LOR is so much more elegant than the Artemis 3 trainwreck that we have undeniably entered the timeline where China lands first

[Anonymous No.16057191]

>>16056650
>They're daring to go Falcon Heavy Heavy
What second stage plus payload could possibly be heavy enough to need that much thrust off the pad

[Anonymous No.16057206]

>>16057191
With five cores they're still only getting the lower end of Falcon 9 ASDS performance. Those cores are smaller than the ones on the Falcon 9 v1.0. That should make is really easy to truck them back to Jiquan if CAS Space goes for an inland launch option.

[Anonymous No.16057218]

what exactly is being getting away withed

[Anonymous No.16057220]

>>16057218
things he can't

[Anonymous No.16057226]

>>16057160
A real Vadenberg kinda day down at the cape

[Anonymous No.16057229]

starlink launch get in here. or don't nobody cares about starlink

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1764800644106666386

[Anonymous No.16057236]

>>16057229
post a screenshot of the tweet faggot

[Anonymous No.16057238]

>>16057236
but if I did that you would figure out that it's krystal porn

[Anonymous No.16057240]

>>16057126

[Anonymous No.16057253]

>>16056960
>I hope they can reach an agreement instead of wasting all the development.

I don't think their tech is too hot with only a 20% success rate.
If they couldn't get it right after 10 launches, that's their problem. Their equipment will be sold off to the highest bidder, and I'd bet Rocket Lab is ready to jump on it. They have a massive backlog of shit to do and are trying to scale. They bought up Virgin Orbit hardware after they tanked.

[Anonymous No.16057264]

>>16057253
They didn't buy up VO hardware as much as they bought some facilities that were conveniently located just down the street from them. Astra's factory is up in Alameda and I don't think Rocket Lab is looking to expand into the bay area. Astra's got a nice production line built for Rocket 4, but they lost their in-house propulsion when they started buying from Firefly and Ursa Major so it's really just a neat tank production machine. RL's not interested in building in metal but someone else might be.

[Anonymous No.16057266]

>>16057238
>It's not Krystal porn
Booooooo

[Astranon No.16057271]

>>16057253
>I don't think their tech is too hot with only a 20% success rate.
Both the intended lower and upper stage engines for Rocket 4 are bought/licensed from Firefly. The bald Jew itoddler "chief engineer" had been the one who insisted on a pressure fed upper stage which never ever worked right (the two "successes" merely reached orbit before the RP-X fuel leak starved the Aether engine into a hard shutdown), which is why Kemp fired him.

[Astranon No.16057277]

>>16057264
Astra also has a facility for ion thruster development elsewhere in the bay area but I don't know if a) it ever ramped up fully or b) is worth the acquisition given that Hobbitlab has their own spacecraft systems.

[Anonymous No.16057294]

>>16057277
There's not much left of Apollo Fusion

https://techcrunch.com/2023/08/28/astras-apollo-fusion-acquisition-followed-by-delays-and-desertion/
>Two years ago, Astra hailed its acquisition of satellite propulsion startup Apollo Fusion as a strategic move that would round out its launch business and bring expert engineers into the fold. But under Astra leadership, Apollo Fusion quickly disintegrated, with the majority of the original team resigning, leaving few people to staff the one part of the business that had substantial customer demand and the promise of revenue.

Probably the worst $50M Astra ever spent

[Anonymous No.16057296]

>>16057253
the not-Firefly Alpha engine IP is probably their most valuable asset now

[Anonymous No.16057347]

>>16057271
>hey you know how pressure fed rockets suck so Hitler et al developed the turbopump and every rocket since then has used turbopumps?
>yeah?
>well, we're not going to use turbopumps

[Anonymous No.16057349]

Can we talk about how SpaceX cut down the prop load time from 90 minutes to just 35? Like holy shit, starting to see those initial signs of FAST Starship launches.

[Anonymous No.16057355]

what happens to the methane after a wdr? Does it all get vented?

[Anonymous No.16057356]

>>16057347
>since Hitler and von Braun invented the turbopump
>Jewish ChEng insists on pressure fed
This is making way too much sense.

[Anonymous No.16057359]

>>16057355
they stick it back in the tanks and use it again

[Anonymous No.16057369]

>>16057349
It's to keep the subcooled propellant as cold as possible to pack more in. F9 also loads subcooled LOX at T-35min.

[Anonymous No.16057371]

>>16057356
Imagine the "I'm going to prove Hitler wrong" hubris

I can see logic, reasoning, and orbit taking a backseat

[Anonymous No.16057424]

>>16057371
they had blm on their rocket this is expected

[Anonymous No.16057428]

>>16057424
*GSE

[Anonymous No.16057456]

Just watched the CBS shitshow.

"IFT-1 and IFT-2 exploded. Wow SpaceX so unreliable, how does NASA justify it?"

You can NEVER trust the media to report on anything Musk related.

[Anonymous No.16057459]

>>16057456
No mention of Falcon and that Starship isnt taking customer payloads?

[Anonymous No.16057460]

>>16057456

[Anonymous No.16057462]

>>16057456
>nooo the media doesn't know every last detail about SpaceX's modus operandi, they can't be trusted
With a competent interview partner, that's a perfect springboard to explain how SpaceX works, a good interviewer may even intentionally do that to give the opportunity to explain it to the public that definitely doesn't know (although ideally you explain it in an introduction so you can get right to the meaty questions). Of course chief SLS shill Jim Free or random BO shills have little interest in explaining that because their development philosophy is the opposite.

[Anonymous No.16057469]

>>16057456

[Anonymous No.16057472]

>>16057456
luckily it literally doesn't matter what the public thinks because spaceX is private, the NASA selection committees are old space stooges, and the DoD will always salivate over global leading edge technology. What the average person thinks about them or the space program is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.16057473]

Once again, SpaceX demonstrated 3 launches in 20 hours. We're SO BACK

[Anonymous No.16057475]

>>16057472
It does matter. It matters when federal agencies are headed by civilians, politicians and rife with political agenda makers who would justify any chance to kneecap the company. Without the support from public, it would just whimper away. Even the justice system is being corrupted by political activists on whims of personal beliefs rather than upholding a blind justice.

[Anonymous No.16057476]

ETA on the march launch?

[Anonymous No.16057479]

>>16057476
Two weeks

[Anonymous No.16057481]

>>16057476
Track mid this month.

[Anonymous No.16057482]

>>16057476
Indeterminate. I'm hoping for mid-month.

[Anonymous No.16057484]

>>16057476
march 18th

[Anonymous No.16057487]

>>16057476
If you see a NOTMAR go out launch is within 5 days

[Anonymous No.16057506]

>>16057462
it doesn't matter because the only clip people will see is just the interviewer bringing up 2 for 2 explosions, not the response

[Anonymous No.16057512]

>>16057506
Desu that doesn't ultimately matter much either, some people may complain about it in the moment but once Starship stops constantly exploding hopefully soon and starts launching more and more frequently it'll be obvious that it didn't matter.

[Anonymous No.16057557]

gradatim for Blue Origin

[Anonymous No.16057563]

>>16056606
money can be exchanged for good and services

[Anonymous No.16057567]

The oldspace industry is collapsing it's over bros

[Anonymous No.16057568]

>>16057456

[Anonymous No.16057588]

>>16057568
you have to link the really outrageous ones
it's hard to believe they're real
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764864406511567061

[Anonymous No.16057599]

>>16057588
>really outrageous
>hard to believe

lol who the fuck are you trying to agitprop for?

[Anonymous No.16057625]

>>16057599
Chudlon Husk

[Anonymous No.16057672]

>>16057568
Wew lad that's some bravado going up against a blatant hit piece on one of the most watched news shows in the country

But like he says, it's a TV show in an era where no one watches TV anymore

[Anonymous No.16057676]

>>16057568
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764864406511567061
they make it seem that SpaceX is having very big problems and both of the launches ended the same (RUD and then an explanation how that is spacex speak for explosion)

[Anonymous No.16057679]

>>16057676
The problem of using what is a joke euphemism for explosion is that the average person can easily be made to think you're trying to downplay the fact that it exploded by hiding it with jargon

[Anonymous No.16057681]

>>16057679
its not even a joke they came up with originally
but I don't think it really matters if something can be framed in a dishonest way
you could do that about anything, if it wasn't RUD then it would be something else
or they would just not mention SpaceX like NASA used to do

[Anonymous No.16057686]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1764897927485693970

[Anonymous No.16057687]

>>16057686
I'm honestly kind of suspicious about the news blackout around Crew-8

[Anonymous No.16057693]

>>16057687
what do you mean by blackout? there are docking streams going on right now

[Anonymous No.16057701]

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1LyxBnOMbBOxN

https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1OdJrjNPQlkJX

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPTD2gnZFUw

[Anonymous No.16057704]

>>16057568
>>16057588
That's actually pretty crazy. Really goes to show how far the news has fallen (assuming it was even reputable in the first place). It's always interesting to see a "reputable" source of information do a video or presentation on a topic that you're familiar with. Really tells you how much you can trust them on the other stuff they put out that you're unfamiliar with. That cut from the explosion to the camera in the launch control room was specifically done to make it look like no one knew what happened, but the shot from the control room was from minutes after the FTS went off when they were just looking over the data. And then they just cut off the NASA person before he even finished his sentence cause they got their sound byte out of it (assuming that's even the same question he's replying to and not something surreptitiously spliced in).

[Anonymous No.16057705]

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1764892499657585022

[Anonymous No.16057706]

>>16057701
What is with your obsession with this oldspace pork station?

[Anonymous No.16057707]

>>16057693
Maybe it's just the fact that nobody reports on people-in-space missions unless something bad happens that bothers me

I guess it really is that routine now

[Anonymous No.16057710]

>>16057706
nothing, I am not watching the stream, just posted it due to >>16057687

[Anonymous No.16057712]

>>16057707
it is
boring to people interested in spaceflight as well, these are becoming as routine as starlink launches

[Anonymous No.16057713]

>>16057705
If they accepted more origami I bet they could actuate those side mirrors and make them way bigger

[Anonymous No.16057714]

Hello why do they waste payload landing their rockets when they can catch them with flying landing pads?

[Anonymous No.16057715]

>>16057713
no
make it as simple as possible and then just start spamming them
at least 10

[Anonymous No.16057716]

>>16057714
Faster, simpler ops and "just make the rocket bigger" beat this sort of autism every time.

[Anonymous No.16057717]

>>16057714
I'm not sure if you're aware how landing a Falcon 9 works, but it does something called a suicide burn right before it hits the ground that is designed to kill its speed at precisely that moment. Catching it any higher in altitude than sea level would actually require more fuel to slow it down.

[Anonymous No.16057719]

>>16057714
this is loss

[Anonymous No.16057724]

>>16057716
why did they bother with the floating drone landing pad then?
>>16057717
im not aware at all true. apparently the fuel costs aren't that much of what they spend for launches so wouldnt the increase in fuel spend be worth the higher payloads sent to orbit anyway?
>>16057719
oh shit

[Anonymous No.16057726]

>>16057705
https://twitter.com/JeffGreason/status/1764880484624986311

[Anonymous No.16057728]

>>16057724
Unless you're talking about some kind of flying catcher's mitt in which case may I point you at not one, not two, but three different companies concluding that catching a falling rocket midair is not economic or safe

[Anonymous No.16057732]

>>16057728
I'd like to see these sources if you have them

[Anonymous No.16057735]

>>16057714
Are you literally 13 years old?

[Anonymous No.16057739]

>>16057735
because i used ms paint to illustrate a question i had?

these companies have obviously explored the idea themselves considering what >>16057728 claims, what's stupid about it?

[Anonymous No.16057740]

>>16057714
You should probably kys if youre this stupid ngl

[Anonymous No.16057743]

>>16057740
unreasonably mad. you should remember this for when someone actually does it so you can humble yourself

[Anonymous No.16057750]

>>16057743
obvious newfag wants to be spoonfed as soon as he steps foot in the thread and complains when he doesnt get what he wwnts. you are ruining /sfg/ with just your presence go back to teddit retard

[Anonymous No.16057756]

Dont respond to the MSPaintcel he's fishing for (You)'s and concern trolling

[Anonymous No.16057758]

>>16057750
you want to belong somewhere so desperately. im sorry buddy

remember when they used a big goofy net to try catch rocket fairings? if you saw this proposed in a thread like this you'd think it was equally retarded right?

[Anonymous No.16057760]

>>16057724
Learning how to land rockets on solid ground in populated areas leads to a lot of useless government paperwork. Imagine a full FAA investigation every time an F9 failed to land before they could return to flight.

[Anonymous No.16057763]

>>16057760
what are you responding to here?

[Anonymous No.16057768]

>>16056649
Blue Origin bros. It's looking like back.

[Anonymous No.16057769]

>>16057732
SpaceX:
https://arstechnica.com/space/2023/08/spacexs-vp-of-launch-shares-the-companys-special-algorithm-for-innovation/
ULA:
https://spectrum.ieee.org/ulas-new-vulcan-rocket-comes-back-to-earth-via-helicopter
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur#SMART_reuse (the actual source for the change to splashdown recovery is paywalled)
Rocketlab:
https://www.theverge.com/2023/7/18/23798686/rocket-lab-electron-reusable-satellite-launch

[Anonymous No.16057770]

>>16057763
>why did they bother with a drone ship instead of RTLS

[Anonymous No.16057784]

docked

[Anonymous No.16057800]

>>16057784
Cocked

[Anonymous No.16057802]

>>16057769
Thanks.

It looks like Rocket Lab is still trying to figure out their manned-helicopter retrieval approach unless they gave up after 2023 - Why aren't they using something like a drone? Apparently GRIFF makes an octocopter model that lifts 500 pounds.

[Anonymous No.16057830]

>>16057784

[Anonymous No.16057866]

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4753/1

[Anonymous No.16057870]

https://www.thespacereview.com/article/4752/1
>But even as JWST hits its stride, scientists and engineers are starting the planning for a future large space telescope, the Habitable Worlds Observatory, or HWO, projected for launch in the 2040s

[Anonymous No.16057893]

LiveWatch: US-Russian crew successfully dock with space station https://www.bbc.com/news/live/science-environment-68473404

[Anonymous No.16057896]

>>16057893

[Anonymous No.16057900]

>>16057896
mic fault

[Anonymous No.16057912]

>>16057768
>my billionaire nigger is better than your billionaire nigger
kys

>>16057866
I want them to send big K up there so he can watch over us

[Anonymous No.16057932]

>>16057768
all the money in the world and he still can't get it up

[Anonymous No.16057966]

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/03/04/texas-spacex-boca-chica-park-land-swap/
>The Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously Monday to pursue an exchange that would give 43 acres of Boca Chica State Park in Cameron County to Elon Musk’s SpaceX spacecraft company.

[Anonymous No.16057971]

>>16057456
>Starship has a 100% failure rate... and that's a GOOD THING
Do muskrats really?

[Anonymous No.16057974]

I will dock my pressurized mating adapter to your mother and fill up her vestibule.

[Anonymous No.16057975]

>>16057971
its not binary, its an iterative development process

[Anonymous No.16057978]

>>16057966
>The vote grants Texas Parks and Wildlife Department staff the authority to begin negotiations with SpaceX for the land swap, including conducting environmental assessments that could take up to 18 months.
>At Monday’s TPWD meeting in Austin — the last opportunity for people to give feedback on the land swap — almost all chairs were occupied and people stood in the back. During nearly four hours of public testimony, most speakers opposed the exchange, including some who drove more than 300 miles to Austin from Brownsville in three minivans.

https://twitter.com/AnotherGulf_/status/1764684234080334105
its a thread

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgRSADC6dpA

[Anonymous No.16057979]

>>16057971
It is a good thing. If it instead had barely cleared those hurdles then all those failure modes would still be lurking making the system less reliable.

[Anonymous No.16057982]

>>16057870
>just one more telescope, bro
I'm starting to feel like it's a scam

[Anonymous No.16057984]

>“This land is our ancestral land. These were lands that were fishing areas for my people,” Mancias said. “If you are looking at us as if we don’t exist, we are here.”
kek

[Anonymous No.16057987]

>>16057982
what do you mean? each telescope tells more

[Anonymous No.16057989]

Real astronomy has never been tried. We just need a bigger lens!

[Anonymous No.16057993]

>>16057989
it has been tried and been successful, a bigger lens will expand what we know

[Anonymous No.16057994]

>>16057989
Real astronomy is an ongoing, iterative process of discovery. Once a given telescope starts generating data, it starts making discoveries. When people collate the discoveries, they can make further observations to refine their knowledge. When they hit the limits of observation, they need a new telescope optimized to answer the questions that have been raised but can't be answered by existing instruments.

[Anonymous No.16057995]

>>16057987
What did JWST tell us?

[Anonymous No.16057997]

>>16057995
https://www.space.com/news/live/james-webb-space-telescope-updates
all kinds of shit you don't probably care about

[Anonymous No.16057998]

>>16057995
It's not done telling us things. JWST has told us that the early universe does not match our models and predictions.

[Anonymous No.16058000]

>>16057995
Absolutely nothing. There's nothing to be gained by staring at tiny lights in the sky.

[Anonymous No.16058001]

>16058000
What an utter waste of a get.

[Anonymous No.16058002]

>>16057982
>>just one more rocket, bro
>I'm starting to feel like it's a scam

[Anonymous No.16058003]

>>16057705
>FINALLY
And yet it has already been studied for Habitable Worlds Observatory. The truth is that monolithic concepts have always been around, that isn't novel. JWST is the exception being segmented.
Having a space telescope with huge transmissive optics (lenses) is a bad idea, it will ruin the ultraviolet performance completely.
Also if you post someone's slide then at least say who the fuck they are.
>>16057726
>>Why not build 10?
>Why not give everyone in the world a million dollars each, we could solve poverty like that?
Money, money, money. Pulling numbers out of thin air is also not a real cost, that's one of the reasons JWST ended up so expensive relative to the initial estimates. The cost is what it is modeled to be, not what you wish it was.
Even funding one of these might be beyond what is possible. Particularly given there isn't really a funding stream for non-NASA space astronomy missions in the US. For reference both US-lead ELTs are very broke, in particular GMT has less than half the money it needs.

[Anonymous No.16058006]

>>16058002
>just one more node improvement bro
computers were a mistake and scam

[Anonymous No.16058017]

>>16057769
>https://spectrum.ieee.org/ulas-new-vulcan-rocket-comes-back-to-earth-via-helicopter
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcan_Centaur#SMART_reuse (the actual source for the change to splashdown recovery is paywalled)
I'll care when they start making actual attempts.

[Anonymous No.16058021]

>>16057724
fuel economy has nothing to do with the cost of the fuel. its not about money. being inefficient with the fuel means less payload to orbit. the kerosine fuel is practically free compared to the cost of the rocket.

[Anonymous No.16058022]

>>16058017
Estronaut should sue, they are shamelessly copying his slogan.

[Anonymous No.16058025]

>>16058003
>compare Starship with New Glenn but at different scales to make it look like New Glenn is comparable.

[Anonymous No.16058028]

>>16058025
You could literally just read.
>Starship can fit any 6m off axis option with margin.
>New Glenn can launch a folded, segmented off axis telescope (mass and volume constrained).

[Anonymous No.16058036]

>>16058028
>You could literally just read.
Can he, though?

[Anonymous No.16058037]

>>16058028
I read it. a misleading figure is still a misleading figure.
also no pic of the monolith configuration mentioned

[Anonymous No.16058041]

>>16057473
They have 3 pads. What would be impressive is if they launched more than 3 rockets within 20 hours.

[Anonymous No.16058054]

>>16058037
The middle cup up design will effectively be the same if the mirror is monolithic or segmented.

[Anonymous No.16058056]

>>16057472
Federal departments and agencies are not independent entities. Ultimately, politicians pull the strings. Media attacks can serve as cover for not giving new contracts, leases or licenses, or for pulling existing ones.

[Anonymous No.16058059]

>>16057714
Better idea
Just teleport the rocket back, and then use an inertial dampener field to quickly bleed its momentum

[Anonymous No.16058075]

>(good) NEWS: Today the Texas Parks and Wildlife Commission voted unanimously in favor of a resolution to authorize the land swap with SpaceX. The TPWD Executive Director David Yoskowitz is to pursue acquisition of about 477 acres near the Laguna Atascosa National Wildlife Refuge-Bahia Grande Unit in exchange for approximately 43 acres from Boca Chica State Park.
>In the attached photo, the tracts in green show the land that the TPWD would provide to SpaceX in proposed land swap. The land in orange is Boca Chica State Park.

https://x.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1764786365508559180?s=20

[Anonymous No.16058083]

>>16057160
>Nova-C picture is sideways
Cheeky

[Anonymous No.16058092]

>>16056806
>>16056804
now take away Orion R&D and manufacturing costs from that

[Anonymous No.16058116]

>>16056827
Krampus lives there

[Anonymous No.16058117]

>>16058092
>R&D
R&D costs WERE taken away you nigger. if we include those you're looking at more like 50 billion.

[Anonymous No.16058118]

>>16058075
So expansion of current LC and another one a little bit down the road.

[Anonymous No.16058119]

S28 destack habbening

https://x.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1765007298978594904

[Anonymous No.16058121]

>>16058075
>David Yoskowitz
>pursue acquisition
he's moving on pure instinct

[Anonymous No.16058126]

>>16058119
FTS installation please

[Anonymous No.16058130]

>>16058118
its going to take like 18 months to do an enviromental assessment so I don't think this is going to have an impact on the current or upcoming launch tower
the green area is infront of the gateway to mars wall, so I guess they might be able to build a third launch tower there but its going to be tight
I think this is mostly to just clean up some random patches of land around the factory and get more land for housing

[Anonymous No.16058135]

>16058130
Concern trolling do not feed (You)s

[Anonymous No.16058136]

>>16058126
Well if it doesnt get carted away from LC then launch super soon but if it does its ogre

[Anonymous No.16058149]

/sfg/ - Superfag General (/med/ approved name)

[Anonymous No.16058166]

Amazing things are happening in cope-urope

[Anonymous No.16058174]

>>16056534
Jeff Bezos: Does nothing but get payload from a to b for 20 years straight

people: NOOoOOoOOoOOOOO blue origin will never succeed

midwits I swear

[Anonymous No.16058178]

>>16058174
Learn to greentext faggot

[Anonymous No.16058182]

>>16058166
>amerifat is too retarded to think of a good cross between europe and cope
typical

[Anonymous No.16058186]

>>16057739
no because you have a question only an underdeveloped simplistic toddler-like mind could have

[Anonymous No.16058190]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTJEjl4XArA
>Starship Passes Final Test Before Launch | Starbase Update

[Anonymous No.16058206]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyeEoNd7-qQ
>A Reusable Chinese Stainless Steel Rocket in 2025?

[Anonymous No.16058216]

>>16058206

>in 2025

[Anonymous No.16058257]

humanity is at the precipice of exiting the planetary era and entering the solar system era. we live in historical times. future historians will mark our years among the most important in all of history.

[Anonymous No.16058262]

>>16058257
We will all kill one another if we stay cooped up in this accursed atmosphere much longer.

[Anonymous No.16058264]

>>16058174
>Jeff Bezos: Does nothing for 20 years straight, no payload, carnival ride goes from point a to point a
so this is the true power of gradatim

[Anonymous No.16058291]

>>16058206

>2025

[Anonymous No.16058300]

>Look how CASIC-EXPACE describes how they made the landing legs design, inspired by SPACEX’s Falcon-9: "recent graduates took a straightforward but effective approach. They extensively studied foreign rocket videos,analyzed them frame by frame, and deduced the process in reverse through the screen" because they don’t know "Why did the Falcon 9 rocket use four landing legs and an inverted triangle shape?"

[Anonymous No.16058301]

>>16058257
Nothing's going to happen.
This era will be remembered for increasing chink military posturing (including space stuff on the side) and communism failing once again.
There will be a footnote mentioning private space doing some stuff like bringing low cost drone comms to warfare.

The history of mankind is one of war.

[Anonymous No.16058302]

>Look how CASIC-EXPACE describes how they made the landing legs design, inspired by SPACEX’s Falcon-9:
>When the program was in early studies in 2020, the 3 group members were a 2-years experience structural engineer & 2 fresh graduates. "Why does the Falcon 9 uses 4 landing legs, and an inverted triangular one?" During the initial studies for the landing legs, there were literally 0 reference materials & experience available in China. Back then the trio decided to go the "dumb" way - watch, rewatch frame-by-frame of videos of rockets aboard that could be referenced, deducing backward through the monitors. Through this the study group completed calculations to create a simulation model that can compare all parameters affecting landing accuracies/targets in detail.

[Anonymous No.16058313]

>>16056778
Weve spent 14 billion dollars on the program which has been renamed 3 times over 18 years.
It's a hunk of shit. They need to shut can it's funding.
>>16058206
The don't have the facilities to make enough of the type of steel they need. Spacex bought up the production patent which was discovered for mas production 5 years ago

[Anonymous No.16058338]

>>16058000
this, space telescopes are just as worthless and gay as land based ones are.

[Anonymous No.16058353]

>>16057726
I mean, having a space array of "affordable" telescopes does sound like a pretty good move.

[Anonymous No.16058359]

>>16057070
kill him immediately to put him out of his misery
you are doing him a favor

[Anonymous No.16058376]

>>16058359
B*sed

[Anonymous No.16058382]

>>16058359
it cant be that bad! i bet boeing is nice and cushy

[Anonymous No.16058383]

>>16057165
except for that one time for the Gemini program I guess

[Anonymous No.16058392]

>>16058353
Everything is affordable when you're spending other people's money

[Anonymous No.16058395]

I'm fucking tired of these cunts saying that SpaceX feeds preburner exhaust directly into their oxygen tanks and then giving zero sources or evidence for it. "HLS insiders" that conveniently only work for NASA should all kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.16058403]

>>16058382
People are just hating on Boeing because of the rocket side of things, but this anons friend could be working on the aeroplanes instead.

[Anonymous No.16058410]

>>16058403
uhh

[Anonymous No.16058418]

>>16058257
that and also using AI

[Anonymous No.16058422]

>>16058301
your picture is absolutely irrelevant
the space budget is small because space has been largely useless
after starship comes online, this has the possibility to change

[Anonymous No.16058444]

>>16058403
Thats even worse you fucking mongrel the entite MAX fleet got grounded because of horrible production quality

[Anonymous No.16058454]

>almost mid march
>Another destack
>Not even FTS installed
>No FAA license

Yeah were not having IFT3 until late april if were lucky

[Anonymous No.16058460]

>>16058444
it wasnt because of quality, but because they sold it as "you dont need to retrain your pilots" because they had a computer that would translate moves meant for the old planes into the appropriate ones for the new one. but you actually did need to retrain them, or atleast make them aware this was happening.

[Anonymous No.16058493]

>>16056710
This is supposed to fly autonomously, and then from time to time, redock to the station for refurbishment.

[Anonymous No.16058510]

>16058454
this is awful bait.

[Anonymous No.16058519]

>>16058460
Did you miss the part when they grounded them again due to shoddy build quality?

[Anonymous No.16058539]

>>16058454
>another year of two flights a year
we're going to be old men or dead by the time starship is as active as falcon 9

[Anonymous No.16058563]

Hot off the presses

https://x.com/olivernerd7/status/1765088984886022478

[Anonymous No.16058570]

>>16058313
>Spacex bought up the production patent which was discovered for mas production 5 years ago
What kind of delusion is this?

[Anonymous No.16058574]

>>16058563
We're back!

[Anonymous No.16058594]

>>16058262
we should remove it

[Anonymous No.16058596]

>>16058563
It's almost time!

[Anonymous No.16058601]

>>16058382
if you enjoy sitting in a cubicle staring at a screen sending emails trying to solve problems that don't exist instead of doing your job, yes
and HR meetings about diversity or whatever, and union enforced bullshit even if you're not in a union location

[Anonymous No.16058607]

>>16058403
anon I have bad news
>>16058574
stupid frogposter we never left

[Anonymous No.16058612]

>>16058607
KEEEEEEK CRY SOME MORE CIRNOCEL

[Anonymous No.16058615]

>>16058612
stupid frogposter

[Anonymous No.16058620]

[Anonymous No.16058627]

test

[Anonymous No.16058630]

>>16058563
two weeks?

[Anonymous No.16058647]

>>16058460
Did you miss the bit where that system depended on a single angle of attack sensor? A system which flew two planes into the ground because of faulty readings?

[Anonymous No.16058648]

>>16057760
>Imagine a full FAA investigation every time an F9 failed to land before they could return to flight.
??? There's been like 100 successful landings in a row.

[Anonymous No.16058659]

>>16058630
just know that it was I who made that meme

[Anonymous No.16058663]

>>16058659
based cirnoposter

[Anonymous No.16058665]

>>16057705
Some commentary from people who actually design space telescopes.

Unsurprisingly there is skepticism. The concept is a bit over hyped, the conceptual instruments in the paper that were published are a lot more humble than what would be proposed for flagship telescopes. For example exoplanet imaging is the main science case but I won't have the contrast to detect Earth like planets (the main driver of HWO, HabEx, LUVOIR).

It will be interesting if they can actually deliver on the cost reductions. But that's if they can even find the cash.

[Anonymous No.16058678]

>>16058620
there's always people trying to nitpick and complain for every industry

[Anonymous No.16058679]

>>16058665
the off-axis monolithic design won't suffer from any of the complaints this fag raises, because his complaint is dependent on the false assumption that what is being proposed is "lets use Starship as our telescope body" which is simply not true
there is no world where building a cutting edge monolithic telescope into the body of a Starship is a good idea for a few reasons, mostly because you can't cut open the top of a starship to get a hollow tube without destroying the reentry capability which is the only fucking reason you'd want to do it in the first place
doing a SOFIA and mounting a smaller telescope sideways in there looking out the side would preserve reentry capability for servicing and instrument swaps, but the isolation equipment (the solution to what he's bitching about) would make it horrendously expensive just like SOFIA
see: >>16058003
tl;dr the fag is retarded and should be dunked on

[Anonymous No.16058696]

https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/

[Anonymous No.16058709]

https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/earth/

seems to be lots of stuff here, you can click on the destinations (space stations, earth orbit where the pic is from, the moon and mars) and they open their own scrollable pages

[Anonymous No.16058711]

[Anonymous No.16058714]

[Anonymous No.16058717]

https://www.spacex.com/humanspaceflight/mars/

[Anonymous No.16058718]

>>16058679
>the off-axis monolithic design
The proposed design is on axis, as you can see from the original tweet. There is a big fucking hole in the primary mirror. The mirror they are studying is already ground, on axis.
>his complaint is dependent on the false assumption that what is being proposed is "lets use Starship as our telescope body" which is simply not true
I have no idea how you jumped to this assumption. If you read the paper 70% is dealing with the floppy mirror, and modeling all the instabilities in the optics. They have to use active optics which has never been used in space (JWSTs alignment is only updated on the monthly timescales). So yes the concept is unstable, and yes it has a huge central obstruction.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.04934

[Anonymous No.16058721]

>>16058717

[Anonymous No.16058722]

>>16058718
oh that's retarded
both of them should be less retarded please, that would make everything much better

[Anonymous No.16058725]

>>16058721
okay I get it I get it, I'll read your stupid webpage
I'm sorry I thought it was going to be more stupid horseshit but I see that it's relevant

[Anonymous No.16058743]

>>16058725
I didn't see anything new

[Anonymous No.16058746]

>>16058563
One week?

[Anonymous No.16058752]

>>16058717
>Still using the 2017 BFR design in the landing simulation
ngmi
it lacking the movable flaps and being a Blended wing lifting body radically changed its approach compared to later designs.

[Anonymous No.16058757]

new wallpaper just dropped

[Anonymous No.16058760]

>>16058752
seems like someone just thought it would be a good idea to collate some previously shown stuff on the page and couldn't be bothered or couldn't ask for more up to date simulations

[Anonymous No.16058761]

https://twitter.com/SenBillNelson/status/1765032330312241602

Gwynne and Bill linked up sneed it or feed it

[Anonymous No.16058768]

>>16058757
is that even new?
huh, I guess it is

[Anonymous No.16058771]

>>16058760
But they did publicily show a more up to date simulation for the 2018 BFR (Dear Moon) video, that was the "tripod" BFR,but its control surfaces were much closer to the current one

[Anonymous No.16058782]

>>16058761

[Anonymous No.16058786]

>>16058782
>praised SpaceX during Crew-8 launch, wowed about Falcon 9's flightrate
>looks forward to Starship

Based Bill

[Anonymous No.16058788]

>>16058782
https://twitter.com/Gwynne_Shotwell/status/1765033657658646932

[Anonymous No.16058791]

>The studies are intended to examine four specific design reference missions to explore commercial opportunities to support Mars exploration: delivery of small payloads of up to 20 kilograms to Mars orbit, delivery of large payloads of up to 1,250 kilograms to Mars orbit, services to provide high-resolution imaging of the Martian surface and communications relay services between Mars and Earth.

CMPS is real

CMPS is happening

CMPS is inevitable

[Anonymous No.16058793]

>>16058791
These all appear to be to Martian orbit rather than landings.

[Anonymous No.16058797]

>>16058793
stepping stones

[Anonymous No.16058799]

>>16058791
>CMPS
>Rapidly Iterating
>Wait 2 years after each failure

[Anonymous No.16058804]

Damn, a whole cubic kilometer (culometer) is a lot of room for activities !

[Anonymous No.16058810]

[Anonymous No.16058830]

>>16058810
THANKS, I was looking for that

[Anonymous No.16058835]

>>16058830
Top that cake anon

[Anonymous No.16058839]

>>16058835
sounds faggy. like literally something homosexual.

[Anonymous No.16058848]

>>16058839
actually the straightest phrase you can utter

[Anonymous No.16058850]

>>16058761
Id sneed all over that conference room

[Anonymous No.16058851]

>>16058850
bless you

[Anonymous No.16058861]

>>16057012
Looks like your mom's dildo caught on fire. Which is, as you soẏboys say, "kino".

[Anonymous No.16058871]

>>16057714
youre a genius, 1st time i heard about idea like this and its very very cool
how would this flying landing pad look like?

[Anonymous No.16058872]

Yo, Amazon is going to build nukes

[Anonymous No.16058875]

>>16058872
not spaceflight gtfo

[Anonymous No.16058877]

>>16058872
spicy rock boils water nukes or big boom nukes

[Anonymous No.16058879]

Is TRUE self-sufficiency more of a philosophical idea? Like a cashless society?
I was thinking in terms of o’neill cylinders.

[Anonymous No.16058881]

>>16058879
>spincel
kek never gonna happen wellGODS squish you like a bug

[Anonymous No.16058883]

>>16058877
kettle nuke

[Anonymous No.16058889]

>>16058881
What prompted me to ask was my disdain for o’neill cylinders so… try to answer the question!

[Anonymous No.16058892]

>>16058889
it will always be cheaper to import certain things than attempt to refine them out of your waste heap
also you will eventually just lose gasses to space over time, leaks are impossible to completely avoid

[Anonymous No.16058900]

>>16058872
Electrosphere timeline confirmed

[Anonymous No.16058944]

Two weeks btw

[Anonymous No.16058948]

>>16058302
>zoom and enhance
>steal it frame by frame
Is this the power of Chyna Stronk?

[Anonymous No.16058951]

>>16058659
then I made this one
also checking your (9)

[Anonymous No.16058954]

>>16058951
yeah and your version is still shit

[Anonymous No.16058958]

>>16058810
delicious cake

[Anonymous No.16058960]

>>16058954
hello frogposter

[Anonymous No.16058963]

>>16058960
stupid fairy

[Anonymous No.16058969]

>>16058659
>>16058960
>>16058963
mental illness
>>>/vg/

[Anonymous No.16058976]

Boeing says funding SLS "critical for planetary defense" thereby making the launcher a "priceless asset"

[Anonymous No.16058981]

>>16058976
>that'll be 300 billion and 25 years please

[Anonymous No.16058989]

>>16058976
wouldn't it be cheaper to launch multiple falcon 9s instead?

[Anonymous No.16059002]

>>16058627
Shuttle mating dance.

[Anonymous No.16059004]

>>16058861
Fatherless post, hope you get better.

[Anonymous No.16059010]

>>16058627
>are you having heat problems?
>*intentional thermal inadequacies*

[Anonymous No.16059014]

>>16058627
What's this? A shuttle for recaptcha?

[Anonymous No.16059023]

>>16058627
Observe the King Shuttle's attack stance, shortly before lunging at the defenceless runway and rolling it whole

[Anonymous No.16059026]

>>16058976
the oldspace pork train chugs on

[Anonymous No.16059056]

>>16058976
So, what the lead time on assigning an SLS booster to an essential planetary defense mission?

[Anonymous No.16059096]

>>16059056
lol

[Anonymous No.16059128]

[Anonymous No.16059163]

https://twitter.com/7NewsGoldCoast/status/1764903034264666399
>Helensvale business has taken one giant leap forward in their race to reach space. 'Gilmour Space's' Bowen Spaceport has been granted an orbital launch licence by the Federal Government

Turns out Australia was actually pretty quick getting it's paperwork digested

[Anonymous No.16059183]

>>16059163
They're scared shitless they have no answer to the chinese, at all, in any theater

I foresee a lot of "throw money at the wall" in Australia's future

[Anonymous No.16059220]

>It'll be interesting to hear the push back on these launches eventually, similarly to when large airplanes started flying into smaller airports over residential areas. I live ~50 miles from Vandenberg Space Force Base in a very affluent area, and the residents around here are getting pretty ticked off at all the sonic booms. I've been jolted out of bed at 2am several times by the entire house shaking, thinking someone was breaking in or a big earthquake was happening.

kek

[Anonymous No.16059223]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1765037578343121372

[Anonymous No.16059229]

>>16059223
WHAAAAAAAT HOW COULD YOU JUST POST THIS WITH NO FUCKING SCREENSHOT ITS CONFIRMED IFT-3 ON MARCH 14th

[Anonymous No.16059230]

>>16059229
how did SpaceX post this at 10AM and no one noticed

[Anonymous No.16059233]

>>16059223
>>16059230

Curious, if you check engagements, only Japanese are reposting it

[Anonymous No.16059236]

>>16059223
Oh shit!

[Anonymous No.16059237]

>>16059233
its so weird what is going on

the account is SpaceX's account

post has lots of reposts and likes but 0 comments

and the stream is legit and when I click on the three dots it says unfollow SpaceX so it is a legit SpaceX stream not a fake/phishing account

[Anonymous No.16059241]

>>16059237
Twitter fuck up

[Anonymous No.16059245]

WEEEEE AAAAARRREEE BAAAAAAAACKKKKKK!!!!!!! GET THE FUCK IN HERE BROS

[Anonymous No.16059249]

Our girl discovered it

[Anonymous No.16059250]

>4:30 AM

[Anonymous No.16059253]

1:30 AM for me
fuck

[Anonymous No.16059255]

We suddenly went from 2 weeks to 8 days

[Anonymous No.16059259]

>>16059255
I'm certainly not complaining

[Anonymous No.16059261]

We're back
https://youtu.be/zjx0D1Ivy-Q

[Anonymous No.16059265]

>>16059249
>>16059223
Whoever you anons are I kneel, and clearbros are officially a protected class for this action. The word has been spread.

[Anonymous No.16059266]

1. Japan
2. /sfg/
3. Discord
4. the rest of xitter

[Anonymous No.16059271]

>>16059265
Yeah I first found out from Clears repost showing up in my feed, the post is not on SpaceX's main feed either for some reason

[Anonymous No.16059277]

>>16059261
Good taste in thread themes.

[Anonymous No.16059281]

based Nippon defying Western timing standards

[Anonymous No.16059308]

How the fuck did /sfg/ get a hold of this before fucking Eric Berger or any of these other dedicated massive businesses, even if we were semi-late. AND HOW DID THE NIPS GET IT???

[Anonymous No.16059310]

excellent news

[Anonymous No.16059311]

>>16059308
Elon wanted Clear to hear of it first.

[Anonymous No.16059312]

>>16059310
Absolute thad, next do the FAA

[Anonymous No.16059313]

>>16059311
Not even complaining, thanks clearGODS for your work.

[Anonymous No.16059314]

[Anonymous No.16059316]

>>16059314
TOTAL
PLOVER
DEATH

[Anonymous No.16059317]

I think I'll take the day off

[Anonymous No.16059318]

>>16059314
B*SED B*SED SOMEONE GET THE OCELOTS AND BEETLES NEXT

[Anonymous No.16059319]

Spongetroon predicted IFT-3?

[Anonymous No.16059320]

>>16059308
>>16059281
X (formerly Twitter) coding

[Anonymous No.16059321]

[Anonymous No.16059327]

>>16059321
Nice setup E.

[Anonymous No.16059330]

[Anonymous No.16059331]

What the fuck i just woke up two ninutes ago

[Anonymous No.16059335]

>>16059331
MARCH 14TH

[Anonymous No.16059340]

1 WEEK

[Anonymous No.16059351]

wow so this means it will launch in april?

[Anonymous No.16059354]

>>16058313
Yeah I'm sure China will really struggle to make steel lol

[Anonymous No.16059357]

>>16059351
No this means it will launch march 14th
t. knower

[Anonymous No.16059361]

>>16059354
>chink steel
>the name universally applied to shit quality steel
Yeah?

[Anonymous No.16059368]

Staging

>>16059367
>>16059367
>>16059367
>>16059367
>>16059367

[Anonymous No.16059371]

>>16059351
https://i.4cdn.org/gif/1709702641335955.webm

[Anonymous No.16059406]

>>16058976
HAHAHA wow
I can't believe anyone buys into this shit

[Anonymous No.16059689]

>>16058804
It's the same as the ISS lol, no way they plan to launch 50+ people in its' current design, more likely that starship ends up as a LEO workhorse to build an actual mars colony ship

[Anonymous No.16059695]

>>16059354
>china
>steel
pic related.

[Anonymous No.16059728]

>>16059281