/sfg/ - Spaceflight General

[Anonymous No.16228612]

Holy matrimony edition

Previous: >>16226142

[Anonymous No.16228618]

SPACE SEXXXXXX

[Anonymous No.16228620]

>>16228612
would rather see her legs if im honest

[Anonymous No.16228622]

>>16228620
Best I can do

[Anonymous No.16228626]

TIK-TOK

[Anonymous No.16228628]

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/as-nasa-watches-starship-closely-heres-what-the-agency-wants-to-see-next/
latest berger is mostly fluff but a couple of key lines you can read between:
>Officially, NASA maintains that the agency will fly a crewed lunar landing, the Artemis III mission, in September 2026. But almost no one in the space community regards that launch date as more than aspirational. Some of my best sources have put the most likely range of dates for such a mission from 2028 to 2032.
>If SpaceX completes this test during the first quarter of 2025, NASA will at least theoretically have a path forward to a crewed lunar landing in 2026.
translation: nobody in nasa expects the prop transfer demo to be finished by q1 2025
>>16228626
you stole my pic literally seconds before i was gonna post it...

[Anonymous No.16228631]

spam thread
the other one was started first

[Anonymous No.16228636]

>>16228631
if you weren't a baiting retard people wouldn't do this you know

[Anonymous No.16228637]

>>16228630
Is he trying to look up her skirt?
>>16228631
Look at the timestamps, this one was first

[Anonymous No.16228638]

>>16228599 is the real /sfg/

>>16228612
you lost by over 4 minutes

[Anonymous No.16228639]

>>16228626
>>16228628
i thought the propellant transfer demo failed

[Anonymous No.16228640]

>>16228638
Why are you trolling outside of /b/

[Anonymous No.16228643]

>>16228626
>>16228639
spacex and nasa fudging their criteria of success so they can move on kek

[Anonymous No.16228644]

>>16228638
Nigger

[Anonymous No.16228653]

>>16228637
no he's doing maintenance on her skirt it is extremely wholesome

[Anonymous No.16228655]

Dumbass spam thread

[Anonymous No.16228656]

>>16228637

[Anonymous No.16228666]

>>16228610
dw I got it, took me a while lul >>16228603

[Anonymous No.16228667]

>>16228666
good job

[Anonymous No.16228671]

Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
Another stupid thing is attempting a landing on Artemis III, which is too early for brand new rocket and lander.

[Anonymous No.16228675]

>>16228671
This

[Anonymous No.16228678]

>>16228638
fuck off

[Anonymous No.16228681]

>>16228671
nasa cannot even be sure the capsule coming back on Artemis I was a fluke or not
the heat shield got way more damaged than nasa predicted

[Anonymous No.16228685]

janny is going to delete this thread soon, don't know why you fags are wasting your time posting in it

[Anonymous No.16228687]

>>16228671
>Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
it was impossible but bridenstine used the fake 2024 deadline to force commercial HLS much in the same way congress used a fake 2016 deadline to get SLS mandated in the first place. it's a dirty business.

[Anonymous No.16228691]

>>16228639
It failed, they didnt show any numbers and didnt test it again last flight

[Anonymous No.16228697]

TIK TOK

[Anonymous No.16228702]

>>16228687
> it's a dirty business
Lets also not forget the bullshit lawsuit BO tried that delayed HLS and that the original 2024 target was setup to be a legacy item for the end of Trumps' second term and even that was before COVID fucked everything for 2yrs

[Anonymous No.16228703]

>>16228697
I am fine with letting the yellow man beta test the moon for us

[Anonymous No.16228704]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QybbBmrRvcY
>Ars Live: How Profitable Is Starlink?

live, discussion starts in 10 min
Eric Berger with dude from Quilty Space that did the analysis of starlink profitability and concluded that starlink should be profitable this year

[Anonymous No.16228706]

>>16228637
you lost by making the edition and picture non-relevant

[Anonymous No.16228715]

>>16228704
why would you name your company after a fictional pedophile

[Anonymous No.16228728]

https://www.vastspace.com/updates/vast-signs-with-the-exploration-company-for-second-haven-space-station-cargo-services
>Vast, a pioneer in space habitation technologies, and The Exploration Company, builder and operator of the Nyx reusable space capsule, signed a cargo services agreement for a 2028 mission to Vast’s second Haven space station. Walther Pelzer, Director General of the German Space Agency at DLR (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft-und Raumfahrt) and Bale Dalton, NASA Chief of Staff, attended the signing event along with Max Haot, Chief Executive Officer of Vast, and Helene Huby, Chief Executive Officer and Founder of the The Exploration Company.

[Anonymous No.16228729]

>>16228715
wtf are you talking about nigger
its an irish surname
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quilty

[Anonymous No.16228730]

>>16228703
Its better than a nig and a whore waving LGBT and BLM my amerimutt friend

[Anonymous No.16228731]

>>16228704

[Anonymous No.16228737]

>>16228728
seem to have a lot of these things now
did this with ESA a few days ago

https://spacenews.com/esa-and-vast-to-study-cooperation-on-future-commercial-space-stations/

[Anonymous No.16228739]

>>16228731
Does berger have a glass eye?

[Anonymous No.16228741]

>>16228739
I don't think so, but I guess its possible

[Anonymous No.16228743]

>>16228741
His right eye looks weird.

[Anonymous No.16228745]

>>16228639
Proofs

[Anonymous No.16228746]

>>16228739
just a lazy one maybe

[Anonymous No.16228747]

Have they found any medicine or materials that are economical to produce in zero G yet?

[Anonymous No.16228749]

>>16228671
Artemis II is gonna be delayed to 2026 anyways due to Orion issues

[Anonymous No.16228757]

>>16228730
true the thought of the first person returning and stepping on the moon after such a long time being some type of DEI hire would kill the moment for such a historic event.
don't know much about taikonauts but would rather it be some seasoned Chinese space man, they seem pretty based.

[Anonymous No.16228764]

>>16228626
https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/06/as-nasa-watches-starship-closely-heres-what-the-agency-wants-to-see-next/
>During her remarks, Koerner was also asked what SpaceX's next major milestone is and when it would need to be completed for NASA to remain on track for a lunar landing in 2026. "Their next big milestone test, from a contract perspective, is the cryogenic transfer test," she said. "That is going to be early next year."
>The test will entail a lot of technology, including docking mechanisms, navigation sensors, quick disconnects, and more. If SpaceX completes this test during the first quarter of 2025, NASA will at least theoretically have a path forward to a crewed lunar landing in 2026.

[Anonymous No.16228777]

>>16228622
every time i watch these videos i am distracted by judys BARE FEET. Very disrespectful.

[Anonymous No.16228781]

https://x.com/Erdayastronaut/status/1800588388313264530

[Anonymous No.16228792]

>>16228737
I thought this was a bit weird since Europe currently has as much station-building experience as nations like Russia and China and they've had plans for an ATV-based station for years. Now Europe is going to contract an American company to lead their post-ISS station plans? Something seems off.

[Anonymous No.16228793]

>Bill Anders is my favorite astronaut because he tried out the Apollo shitting device at home before Apollo 8, decided it wasn’t for him, asked to be put on a “low residue” diet, and then just didn’t shit for the entire six day mission.
https://x.com/NoahGarfinkel/status/1799691319780298754

[Anonymous No.16228794]

First of the dozen or so planned Chinese F9 copies is going to its S1 test stand, launch planned in September (fall launch actually isn't impossible based on their test schedule for their previous launcher)

[Anonymous No.16228795]

>>16228792
>Europe currently has as much station-building experience as nations like Russia and China
In what world?

[Anonymous No.16228796]

>>16228639
Based on what?

[Anonymous No.16228802]

>>16228793
What's the shitting device used in Orion?

[Anonymous No.16228806]

>>16228792
>Europe currently has as much station-building experience
Thales-Alenia has a lot of it, Airbus has lesser amount
Thales-Alenia is building the Axiom modules
Airbus is participating in Voyager Space and effectively replacing lockheed in it

That's the private companies, ESA just wants to fly astronauts there, and more importantly, they realise its minor member states (aka everybody no France Germany and Italy) have a desire for flying astronaut more often than once in 20 years and so ESA tries to get a step ahead in cooperating those who offers the service (american companies) instead of losing control of its minor state's crewed spaceflight activites had they sent their astronaut bilaterally without ESA

[Anonymous No.16228810]

>>16228795
They built most of the western side of the ISS and if you count Cygnus as temporary station modules, then Italy has been churning out two per year since 2013. They're also the primary contractors for HALO/I-HAB for the Lunar Gateway.

[Anonymous No.16228811]

>>16228795
Definitely not China (who's the only single country currently capable of making and launching independent complete modular station by themselves), but definitely above Russia, bulk of Nauka is a quarter century old and while there is *some* hardware for ROSS it's going very slowly.

[Anonymous No.16228814]

>>16228781
I am elated that this balding faggot is NOT going to the moon

[Anonymous No.16228818]

>>16228810
>all modules they have built have effectively just been empty tin cans, life support systems, propulsion and the like have to be relied on by the US or Russia
>has never had the capability to build their own space station, always had to rely on the Shuttle
I'm also a yuro but you're retarded. Building a few modules for an already built station is not the experience you make it out to be.
>>16228811
I don't think you know what "experience" is. The nation that has built and launched the most space stations are somehow not the ones with the most experience? Capability is a better word perhaps.

[Anonymous No.16228820]

>>16228781
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800597113635545184

[Anonymous No.16228821]

>>16228626
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800595236416364845

[Anonymous No.16228823]

>>16228810
Thales Alenia is also making module(s?) for Axiom station.

[Anonymous No.16228846]

>>16228823
They're contracted for AxH1 and AxH2. I can't find anything clear about the other modules.

[Anonymous No.16228848]

https://x.com/rfa_space/status/1800558612835922275

[Anonymous No.16228849]

>>16228814
You were just envious.
Who wouldn't have jumped at the chance.

[Anonymous No.16228852]

>>16228848
>Only one way to go from there
Yeah, fire 9 instead of 4 engines

[Anonymous No.16228854]

>>16228849
estrogenaut is still not going

[Anonymous No.16228858]

>>16228814
should wrote made FAGGOT in capital letters too

[Anonymous No.16228859]

when?

[Anonymous No.16228866]

>>16228818
>for an already built station
What? NASA didn't consider their core part of the ISS complete until harmony was attached
>life support systems...have to be relied on by the US or Russia
So tranquillity just doesn't exist then.
>Empty tin cans
t.cupola hater

[Anonymous No.16228871]

>>16228821
>Progress is accelerating
this is the fundamental mistake that makes him predict wrong timelines way too optimistically.
progress is more constant than accelerating.

[Anonymous No.16228872]

Also some of the ISS construction photos are pure kino

[Anonymous No.16228877]

>>16228859
never

[Anonymous No.16228878]

>>16228671
>Artemis timeline has been impossible from the very beginning and it's NASA's fault for all delays.
Just focus on your end of the job and everything will turn out peachy.

[Anonymous No.16228880]

https://x.com/StarshipGazer/status/1800563250851164363

[Anonymous No.16228884]

>>16228880
Have they stated why or has it just been guesses so far

[Anonymous No.16228885]

>>16228866
>What? NASA didn't consider their core part of the ISS complete until harmony was attached
I didn't say "for an already arbitrarily decided to be complete station". I said an already built station. ISS functioned before Harmony (who btw is mostly based on the MPLM and is the exact thing when I mentioned it being empty tin cans)
>So tranquillity just doesn't exist then
The lift support system was developed in the US.

It's just plain retarded to say Europe has the same experience as the two nations that has built modular space stations entirely on their own (well, if you ignore China blatantly using Soviet module designs). Europe has experience building empty tin cans in comparison to that.

[Anonymous No.16228886]

>>16228880

[Anonymous No.16228887]

>>16228886

[Anonymous No.16228889]

>>16228877
>digit status
BObros...

[Anonymous No.16228890]

>>16228887

[Anonymous No.16228892]

https://twitter.com/Firefly_Space/status/1800575018448846914
>After 14 hot fires on stubby engines, a full length Miranda engine is up next! Thanks to the co-located manufacturing and test facilities at our Rocket Ranch, we can test and iterate rapidly to accelerate development for our MLV engines and structures.
Everyone is building their own engines these days. Aerojet on suicide watch

[Anonymous No.16228893]

>>16228889
never reply to me ever again

[Anonymous No.16228894]

>>16228880
Wouldn't it be faster just to shake them off?

[Anonymous No.16228896]

>>16228884
they are going to put an ablative backup layer beneath them and replace the tiles with upgraded tiles that are two times as strong (strong meaning what exactly is not known)
musk said this yesterday during a 5h diablo 4 stream

[Anonymous No.16228897]

>>16228894
no, setting up for a static fire takes all day and only ever shakes one or two off

[Anonymous No.16228901]

>>16228894
rude

[Anonymous No.16228902]

>>16228897
Just keep pumping in more fuel to keep the raptors fed continuously for a long burn

[Anonymous No.16228906]

>>16228896
Are they also getting rid of that insulating blanket then

[Anonymous No.16228908]

>>16228896
>musk said this yesterday during a 5h diablo 4 stream
I love that this is how we're getting major spaceflight news in this timeline

[Anonymous No.16228910]

https://x.com/mcrs987/status/1800608968341176439
>Catch tower....What..?
>New EIS for 39A...Wow

https://faa.gov/media/80626

[Anonymous No.16228911]

>>16228878
>Starship vertical landing
Shouldn't this be checked off

[Anonymous No.16228913]

>>16228906
I think the point is to replace that with an ablative layer but that might be speculation, I haven't listened to the whole 5h thing
the info was spread out here and then with long periods of just playing or talking about AI or talking about diablo 4 builds with the people he was playing with

[Anonymous No.16228914]

>>16228656
If there's any drawfriend with time to waste:
>captain of a secret agent organization with plenty of military experience
>literally a squid girl
>canonically shy
>scarred tentacles
She's perfect enough to be ika musume's substitute if need be.

[Anonymous No.16228915]

>>16228910
https://www.faa.gov/media/80626

12 page pdf for LC-39A EIS

[Anonymous No.16228916]

>>16228872
gay little modules are a waste of time and money

[Anonymous No.16228921]

>>16228872
Met the guy on the right here. He came to our school. Pretty neat.

[Anonymous No.16228922]

https://x.com/Starlink/status/1800603222861889965
>Starlink is available in Sierra Leone!

[Anonymous No.16228923]

>>16228914
no

[Anonymous No.16228924]

>>16228916
We need to be assembling 100 ton chunks

[Anonymous No.16228925]

>>16228924
Could have done that if the US just bought Energia launches from Russia in the 90's

[Anonymous No.16228927]

>>16228916
>>16228925
Next one will also cost >100 billion but we will actually get our money’s worth.

[Anonymous No.16228928]

>>16228922

[Anonymous No.16228929]

>>16228821
Starship hardware seems to slow. Their door didn't work, and it wasn't ready to retry for the next flight. And that's the money maker. It should take a long time to make propellant transfer docking stuff and I don't think anyone sleuths have photographed pathfinders for them

[Anonymous No.16228931]

>>16228911
he probably means a landing with a recovery

[Anonymous No.16228937]

God this is so ugly

[Artemis3 No.16228938]

>>16228911
Okay, removing that one off the checklist...the HLS never returns (of course) and the consensus seems to be that the tanker will be expendable. Any vertical landing is part of the re-usable variant and not critical to Artemis III.

[Anonymous No.16228940]

>>16228929
Wrong. Starship docking system has been built, NASA tweeted about it recently.
Just need to add a fluid interface and whatever method of settling and transferring prop they've decided on.

[Anonymous No.16228941]

>>16228892
What vehicle are these engines for?

[Anonymous No.16228943]

>>16228937
Not gonna happen. Ship to booster ratio needs to stay approximately the same or you're not making it to orbit.

[Anonymous No.16228945]

>>16228938
>consensus seems to be that the tanker will be expendable
it won't. they're not gonna expend 10 ships when landing has literally already worked that'd be stupid.

[Anonymous No.16228948]

>>16228941
MLV and Antares 3

[Anonymous No.16228949]

>>16228910
>35 engines on superheavy
based throoostmaxxer

[Anonymous No.16228951]

>>16228945
>>16228938
I believe it would be more accurate to say that reusability is not on the mission critical path, although if the capability exists it will be used
I find it likely that with the current trajectory the capability will exist

[Anonymous No.16228954]

>>16228922
>>16228928
not space flight

[Anonymous No.16228955]

>>16228910
>catch tower
I don't understand this catch tower meme.
Now the booster is not needs to be put on an SPMT and all this extra complexity.
They can practice catches at Boca are they expecting this many crashes?

[Anonymous No.16228958]

>>16228949
>35 engines on booster
>9 engines on Starship
ITS LIVES

[Anonymous No.16228959]

>>16228938
>changing the checklist rather than checking off items that were completed in older versions of your checklist
doesn't the fact that you have to keep changing your list of mission-critical milestones indicate that you have no idea what's mission-critical and what isn't and nobody should pay attention to your infographics?

[Anonymous No.16228960]

>>16228955
It might just be some regulatory requirement to make Starahip launches out of the cape happen

[Anonymous No.16228963]

>>16228848

[Anonymous No.16228964]

>>16228910
https://x.com/CSI_Starbase/status/1800614902408663280

[Anonymous No.16228966]

>>16228963
>that quick flash of green
It's a beautiful thing to see anons

[Anonymous No.16228968]

>>16228958
Booster will revert to carbon fiber structure when design is really nailed down.
Nobody can pass on free mass efficiency and it doesn't get nearly as hot as Ship.

[Anonymous No.16228970]

https://x.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1800503390864339051
>Checking in on Launch Complex 39A at 35cm/pixel with @umbraspace
>Captured just about 10hrs ago.

original pic is over 4mb
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GPydEZ6aMAAG9Xz?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

[Anonymous No.16228972]

>>16228968
you need to save 10kg of dry mass on the booster to gain 1kg of payload in orbit. it's almost certainly not worth the trouble.

[Anonymous No.16228973]

>>16228958
itsification

[Anonymous No.16228975]

>>16228954
shut up fag

[Anonymous No.16228976]

>>16228730
Yes I love gutter oil, concentration camps, building collapses and a low trust society. China is so much better

[Anonymous No.16228977]

>>16228820
So minor damage then.

[Anonymous No.16228979]

>>16228792
European private companies are HIGHLY capable, when permitted to operate. But any European quasi-government endeavor is destined to be an absolute boondoggle.

[Anonymous No.16228982]

[Anonymous No.16228984]

>>16228982
jump scare

[Anonymous No.16228986]

> As Starship slows down during its
landing approach, a sonic boom would be generated.

[Anonymous No.16228988]

>>16228986
yeah? shuttle did the same thing

[Anonymous No.16228989]

>>16228976
Building collapses are pretty funny so long as I'm not in one.

[Anonymous No.16228990]

>>16228984
>LET ME OUT!!

[Anonymous No.16228991]

>>16228880
This has to be the most tedious job in the program.

[Anonymous No.16228993]

>>16228982

[Anonymous No.16228994]

muh turtles oh no

[Anonymous No.16228995]

[Anonymous No.16228996]

>>16228990
>UNTIL NEXT TIME I'M SCOTT MANLEY, DIE SAFE

[Anonymous No.16228998]

[Anonymous No.16229001]

>>16228991
>ahh finally I've got the last tile affixed, a job well done
>wait a minute, boss is calling

[Anonymous No.16229002]

Per the EIS
>Super Heavy is expected to hold up to 4,100
metric tons of propellant and Starship up to 2,600 metric tons of propellant.
Maximum lift-off thrust of the launch vehicle is anticipated at 103 meganewtons1
(MN). Starship would have a maximum lift-off thrust of approximately 28 MN.
Those numbers are close to the original ITS estimates, glad to see that there's some thought behind the final design.

[Anonymous No.16229006]

>>16228993
>Valeri Polyakov
Imagine spending 15 consecutive months stuck in MIR yikes

[Anonymous No.16229009]

>>16229006
I'll do it if they let me go up alone for that long. Also I will screen calls from the ground.

[Anonymous No.16229010]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csIYsnzl8OI
>Amid Flight 5 preps SpaceX readies Second Tower Construction | SpaceX Boca Chica

[Anonymous No.16229012]

>>16228998
does it have anything about the environmental injustice of a rocket that's ugly because it's so skinny and the disproportionate cognitive burden placed on autists who have to look at it?

[Anonymous No.16229016]

>>16229012
The faster you grow up and accept that high fineness ratio rockets are more aesthetic the sooner you’ll be happy

[Anonymous No.16229017]

>>16229010
>no apparent damage
it's charred black

[Anonymous No.16229018]

>>16228990
Please stop bro I just got over the nightmares from Event Horizon

[Anonymous No.16229019]

>>16229017
painted black

[Anonymous No.16229020]

>>16229012
>>16229016
Obviously the solution to this is to strap two more Starships onto the side as b**sters.

[Anonymous No.16229023]

>>16229002
Starship 1 had a liftoff thrust of 7130 tons and a max thrust of 7590 tons (33X230t). So max thrust is 6.5% higher than liftoff.
Starship 2 has a liftoff thrust of 8240 tons, so we can assume its max thrust is probably 8775 tons. With 33 Raptor 3 engines, each engine probably produces 266 tons of thrust at maximum (266X33)
Starship 3 has a liftoff thrust of 10,000 tons, and a max thrust of probably about 10,650 tons. With 35 Raptor 3 engines, the thrust per engine at maximum is 304 tons each (304X33).

[Anonymous No.16229025]

>>16229017
surface char is not damage

[Anonymous No.16229026]

>>16228910
The catch tower is probably specifically for ship, it has a completely different method of being held than booster and would allow both ship and booster to land in a short period.

[Anonymous No.16229027]

>>16229020
ultrasupermegaheavy

[Anonymous No.16229030]

it can't be good for the turtle hatchlings to have to look at this pencilneck trash either. they'll grow up with no sense of proportions.

[Anonymous No.16229033]

>>16229030
the sooner they scrap this trash and invent the 18m variant the better.

[Anonymous No.16229037]

>>16229033
Do you post here just to fuck with me?

[Anonymous No.16229042]

I hate the elongated Starship

[Anonymous No.16229043]

>>16229037
I don't know what that guy's deal is, obviously the correct diameter is 12 meters

[Anonymous No.16229047]

>>16229042
Please don't post juggalos in this thread.

[Anonymous No.16229049]

>Based on data released directly by SpaceX, an ASDS landing comes with a performance penalty of 30 to 35% while a land-based recovery (RTLS) requires approximately half the rocket's performance. Preliminary performance data for Falcon Heavy indicates a penalty of approximately 55% when recovering the vehicle's cores.
I really don't understand why SpaceX sold the oil rigs. They could have repurposed them as catching vessels.

[Anonymous No.16229050]

If you're concerned about the implications of skinny starship for the future of spaceflight, NOW is the time to contact the FAA. Tell them that you believe the FAA should include a mitigation requirement that SpaceX develop wider-diameter tooling for any Starship launch license.

[Anonymous No.16229054]

>>16229049
the oil rigs weren't suitable for conversion into a catching tower for various reasons, but it wasn't a total loss because ripping all of the rigging out of them was cheaper than buying that stuff elsewhere

[Anonymous No.16229057]

>>16228928
New whiteness map just dropped.

[Anonymous No.16229060]

How much volume did ITS have? Starship has 1000 m3 I think

[Anonymous No.16229062]

>>16228818
>I don't think you know what "experience" is. The nation that has built and launched the most space stations are somehow not the ones with the most experience?
Experience gets lost over time as people age out of the industry or otherwise get dropped due to budget cuts; happened after Apollo

[Anonymous No.16229069]

>>16229060
with a 17m diameter and a roughly similar geometry to starship it's probably around 3500

[Anonymous No.16229076]

>>16229026
>>16228955

Its probably just a second launch tower. Might as well add a launch mount too.

[Anonymous No.16229081]

So we're using this thread right? Damn /sfg/ doesnt even need my OP spergery to know when to split threads anymore

[Anonymous No.16229087]

I love this little guy like you wouldn't believe

[Anonymous No.16229088]

>>16228968
You will take your cheaply constructed, rugged launch hardware and you will like it.

[Anonymous No.16229091]

>>16228948
Wonder how much of Antares first stage Northrup Grumman is developing, or if Firefly is just doing the engines.

[Anonymous No.16229094]

>>16228963
Thanks king

[Anonymous No.16229104]

>>16229027
Omegaheavy

[Anonymous No.16229106]

>>16229087
>*crashes*

[Anonymous No.16229113]

>>16229087
What were the benefits of this system again?

[Anonymous No.16229119]

>>16229113
you aren't a sharks lunch

[Anonymous No.16229131]

>>16229113
Pulls fewer Gs on reentry. Nicer on fragile cargo.

[Anonymous No.16229134]

>>16229030
ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly

[Anonymous No.16229136]

Starbooba

[Anonymous No.16229141]

>>16229087
Die

[Anonymous No.16229151]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1800606627319456065

[Anonymous No.16229156]

next OP img

[Anonymous No.16229159]

>>16229151
>first reply is a bitcoin scam
Fix your website elon

[Anonymous No.16229161]

>>16228626
Maybe I am strawmanning here but I just KNOW the niggers within NASA will be quick to say
>ummm we are ready for Artemis III but SpaceX are holding us back
knowing full well the serpentine half-truth that this is

[Anonymous No.16229167]

>>16229081
shut up nigger

[Anonymous No.16229171]

>>16229050
KEK. This is how 18m chads will win.

[Anonymous No.16229175]

>>16228866
it's funny to me that most of the graphic design found on and within the International Space Station is sort of soft-locked in the late 90s/early 00s ('y2k aesthetic' as the kids are calling it, these days) because that's when a majority of the hardware was built and sent up

[Anonymous No.16229178]

what the fuck is Richard Branson's master plan here

[Anonymous No.16229180]

>>16229043
The correct diameter is whatever can fit an NT engine with enough ISP to reach Titan

[Anonymous No.16229181]

>>16229091
None or all, depending on how far along Northrop's inevitable acquisition of firefly is.

[Anonymous No.16229182]

>>16229180
Nuclear thermal is gay gay gay gay gay gay gay gay GAAAAAAAY, and I am a tried and true nuclearfag

[Anonymous No.16229184]

>>16229106
>>16229141
>Elon can blow up 20 trillion rockets testing them but when someone else does it it's bad

[Anonymous No.16229185]

>>16229182
the only correct choice is nuclear pulsed

[Anonymous No.16229186]

>>16229178
he already cashed out

[Anonymous No.16229187]

>>16229182
>triple the isp with caveman technology
the only gay one is you

[Anonymous No.16229188]

>>16229182
if you've got 12m+ diameters to work with it's a lot less impractical

[Anonymous No.16229190]

>>16229184
Dreamchaser would be based if it were even remotely close to on schedule.

[Anonymous No.16229191]

>>16229187
Glowing rock bad. Trust in burning stick!

[Anonymous No.16229193]

>>16229184
I know you know the answer, and are just posting this because you equally enjoy cock down your throat and (you)s... but I am too autistic to let it slide without correcting you: the point of each dream chaser test (including the upcoming maiden flight) was/is to be a complete success, without failure.
The point of the SpaceX Starship campaign (including the hop tests through the most recent starship test and future tests) was/is to "do as good as possible, try not to blow up, if it blows up it is because we are learning as we go"

[Anonymous No.16229194]

>>16229184
It's bad when any destruction of hardware sets your program back years. Wrecking a spacecraft should only delay you by a few months at the most and should be easily absorbed as a development expense. Anything else is poorly planned and even more poorly designed

[Anonymous No.16229198]

>>16229188
Not really. The mass of your reactor is going to have to increase. The math is always trying to play catch-up. And yes, normally the utter advantages of NT would outweight the costs regardless... but Raptor has [arguably] already gotten good enough to make NT useless. Raptor is an insanely good chemical engine that will, more likely than not, only further increase in benefit (not even mentioning the extreme decrease in cost compared to a fucking NUCLEAR REACTOR; yeah how is that $/kg of shipment going for you?)
If you have the theoretical green light to use nuclear, and handwaiving any costs (i.e. "the government pays whatever I ask so who cares about making this thing cheap?") then the better alternative is pulsed fission fragment, or R&D into electric fission-fusion

[Anonymous No.16229199]

>>16229113
looks cool
gentler g-forces for cargo
more crossrange capability
capable of evading point defense and strategic SAM fire during terminal phase

[Anonymous No.16229203]

>>16229188
diameter doesn't matter once you're bigger than about a meter

[Anonymous No.16229204]

>>16229161
If they took the flaps and fins off of the booster and starship, no heat tiles, zero cargo, full fuel, fully expendable I wonder if it could land in the moon
Just as a fuck you to SLS

[Anonymous No.16229209]

>>16229191
Burning stick good, make plane go far!

[Anonymous No.16229214]

>>16229198
>If you have the theoretical green light to use nuclear, and handwaiving any costs (i.e. "the government pays whatever I ask so who cares about making this thing cheap?") then the better alternative is pulsed fission fragment, or R&D into electric fission-fusion
it isn't because it doesn't exist. NTP is good because it's already been built. No chemical engine will get close to NTP. Faster travel times are needed for practical Mars travel

[Anonymous No.16229215]

>>16229187
Who gives a fuck bro, would you fly your human mission to Mars on ion engines just because that 3,00 sec isp?

[Anonymous No.16229218]

>>16229215
No because the thrust is too low. If it wasn't I would. I don't get your point

[Anonymous No.16229219]

>>16229187
You get 900 Isp, double that of hydrolox, and for that you have to put up with hydrogen storage bullshit and all the other headaches from the reactor.

[Anonymous No.16229221]

>>16229209
>Hold my grog

[Anonymous No.16229223]

>>16228820
Who's the judge of what major damage is?
Sounds like sugar coating to me

[Anonymous No.16229224]

>>16229219
You can use other fuels

[Anonymous No.16229228]

>>16229224
And then deal with an isp that's a lot lower than ~900s.

[Anonymous No.16229230]

>>16229218
That was exactly my point. The thrust-to-weight of NT engines is awful. There are practical realities that can make good designs on paper bad in reality.
Hydrolox is similarly championed for high isp but look at the tradeoffs. Low volume fuel requires massive tanks, blah blah blah... in the end, methalox becomes a way better alternative because a variety of factors end up changing the game. Same thing with NT. It has a lot of advantages; it has a lot of DISadvantages that make it suck ass. And chemical engines are almost rendering them completely useless as they catch up in other categories (cost, thrust, higher and higher isp obv not as high as NT but still getting better nontheless, reusability and ease of maintenance, readily available fuel sources such as CH3 and O2 that are probably going to get spammed into space for the next 100+ years around Earth + Moon + Mars + Asteroid Belt, etc.)

[Anonymous No.16229234]

>>16229223
ummm he is literally the chief engineer sweaty

[Anonymous No.16229235]

>>16228896
>(strong meaning what exactly is not known)
He immediately said 'half as likely to crack' afterwards so strong in the structural sense.

[Anonymous No.16229236]

>>16229224
Yeah but then your Isp drops to the chemical range or just above. If your reactor is tolerant of lots of propellant types its a different story because then ISRU could tip the balance in its favor. Boosting to Ceres with hydrogen and coming back with water as reaction mass for example.

[Anonymous No.16229239]

>>16228728
>>16228737
Taking from the Starlab playbook

[Anonymous No.16229240]

>>16229219
>You get 900 Isp, double that of hydrolox, and for that you have to put up with hydrogen storage bullshit
But...you already have to deal with hydrogen storage with hydrolox, because hydrolox uses hydrogen as fuel. ??

[Anonymous No.16229241]

>>16229223
"Standard pad maintenance" as seen after flights:
>paint, QD refurb, launch clamps, prop hose change
"Minor" damage:
Raptor powered unplanned pad excavation
"major" damage:
It's gone, FUBAR

[Anonymous No.16229244]

>>16229236
i just don't see what the downside of methane NTRs is if they still beat out hydrolox by 150s+

[Anonymous No.16229245]

https://x.com/RocketLab/status/1800649850305851498

rocketlab posting cope

[Anonymous No.16229247]

>>16229230
>The thrust-to-weight of NT engines is awful

stop basing NTP mass on NERVA

[Anonymous No.16229249]

>>16229244
People are scared of nuclear. It's disgusting.

[Anonymous No.16229250]

>>16229247
Blue Origin is designing your next engine :)

[Anonymous No.16229251]

>>16228626
This is actually hilarious because it shows how far along spacex is

[Anonymous No.16229254]

>>16229245
>Stoke posts FFSC hot firing
>Firefly posts an engine with many hot fires
>Hobbits post their bootleg BE-4 that hasn't fired once
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.16229255]

>>16228728
>RAUMFAHRT
German is a funny language. Side note, are they allowed to like von Braun or do they pretend he doesn't exist?

[Anonymous No.16229256]

>>16229245
Day late and soon to be a dollar short

[Anonymous No.16229258]

>>16229250
BWxT and Blue might both start with the same letter but are not the same company.

[Anonymous No.16229259]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecMlV4W_CLU
>IFT-4 and the Future of Starship: All You Need to Know (with @scottmanley and @MarcusHouse )

[Anonymous No.16229261]

>>16229250
*Spacex, for the Pentagon

[Anonymous No.16229267]

>>16229235
more like half as likely to smoke crack hehehehe FREE MY NIGGA H

[Anonymous No.16229269]

>>16229259
who is the non balde dude?

[Anonymous No.16229271]

>>16228995
Kino. Imagine seeing this when you look up.

[Anonymous No.16229275]

>>16228656
>>16228667
>>16228914
Begone pedo

[Anonymous No.16229276]

>>16229236
Doesn't really matter anyway. Any chemical engine also needs to deal with boiloff. Difference is it needs to not boil off for 9 months instead of 3 on a trip to Mars. That adds a lot of mass

[Anonymous No.16229278]

>>16229240
Hydrogen storage for missions where you have to keep tanks full for months until you make the insertion burn at Mars/Callisto/wherever is a huge challenge. Its not like doing TLI a few hours after launch like Apollo did.

[Anonymous No.16229281]

>>16228995
the tail looks like a guy with a missing tooth when an engine is out

[Anonymous No.16229282]

>>16229230
Thrust to weight is not bad enough to make the spacecraft impractical for human spaceflight. The whole trip would be much shorter so I'm not sure what point you're making.

[Anonymous No.16229283]

>>16229276
Starship can do chemical three month Mars transfers

[Anonymous No.16229284]

>>16228872
What the ball do?

[Anonymous No.16229285]

>>16229283
No it can't. What do you gain from just making things up?

[Anonymous No.16229286]

>>16229285
just shut the fuck up troll.

[Anonymous No.16229287]

>>16229278
just don't do insertion burns, easy

[Anonymous No.16229289]

>>16229285
Starship can do one week transfer

[Anonymous No.16229291]

>>16229285
7 km/s is plenty to do short transfers, anon, especially if you aerobrake instead of doing an insertion burn

[Anonymous No.16229292]

>>16229291
especially especially if you set off from NRHO instead of LEO

[Anonymous No.16229294]

>>16229286
starship has enough delta v to do a standard honman transfer and land and that's it. That will take about 8.6 months. So what are you smoking

[Anonymous No.16229295]

>>16229292
do not do this it makes mustard gas

[Anonymous No.16229296]

>>16228916
the cost looks a lot worse due to inflation.

[Anonymous No.16229298]

>>16229244
Downside is not being able to go near the engine once its been used because the decay products are too gamma spicy

[Anonymous No.16229299]

>>16229294
youre baiting and also gay.

[Anonymous No.16229300]

>>16229241
>single use paint
What an innovation

[Anonymous No.16229304]

why doesn't elon use the diamonds from his mines to make an unbreakable launch mount?

[Anonymous No.16229307]

>>16229304
diamond is the strongest metal, but doesn't have the highest heat tolerance.

[Anonymous No.16229308]

>>16229294
standard Hohmann transfer to Mars is like 3.6 km/s, anon
Starship has 7 km/s of delta V
please stop lying

[Anonymous No.16229310]

>>16229308
it needs to land though dickhead

[Anonymous No.16229312]

>>16229298
Radiation is the biggest scam in history.

[Anonymous No.16229314]

>>16229310
you need what, 700 m/s for that?

[Anonymous No.16229315]

>>16229308
>makes claims about delta v
>posts porkchop c3 chart as if that proves anything
just as expected from an ignorant muskrat shill

[Anonymous No.16229317]

>>16229285
It can, are you retarded?

[Anonymous No.16229320]

>>16229308
where's the lie? You literally just agreed with me

[Anonymous No.16229321]

>>16229304
>>16229307
Yep, they can shatter easily from thermal abuse. Also it was an emerald mine, not diamond mine, that Musk's father had an investment in.

[Anonymous No.16229322]

>>16229284
measures wind speed

[Anonymous No.16229323]

>>16229317
>Musk is going to get there 2x faster and do a 24km/s areobrake into a precision landing at the land site
I simply don't believe this

[Anonymous No.16229325]

>>16229315
C3 is directly convertible to delta v from LEO if you're not a brainlet
I'm currently trying to figure that equation out but uh

[Anonymous No.16229326]

>>16229308
this chartmakes no fucking sense. you postd one for the moon not for mars.

[Anonymous No.16229327]

>>16229323
yeah GG ez no re
>>16229326
it says "earth mars ballistic transfer trajectories 2031" right there up top, anon

[Anonymous No.16229328]

>>16229325
Pedo

[Anonymous No.16229329]

>>16229323
it's pretty easy to do when you have an 18m diameter

[Anonymous No.16229330]

>>16229323
>Elon simply can't
Gee whiz, never heard that one before

[Anonymous No.16229332]

[Anonymous No.16229334]

>>16229332
That interstage would crunch in on itself from the sheer thrust

[Anonymous No.16229335]

>>16229245
KEEEEEEEEEK

[Anonymous No.16229337]

>>16229330
I'm not a bling musk hater but just assuming incredible capabilities without actually seeing testing is retarded sorry. The current iteration of starship will get there in 8 months like everyone else

[Anonymous No.16229338]

>>16228731
what the fuck is that?!

[Anonymous No.16229339]

>>16229328
probable frogposter

[Anonymous No.16229340]

>>16229337
It's basic physics buddy boy

[Anonymous No.16229341]

>>16229338
some kind of broccoli

[Anonymous No.16229343]

>>16229341
Hey afros are cute

[Anonymous No.16229347]

>>16229340
Standard transfer take around 3.6m/s so I'm not sure what physics you practiced. Even if you burn 100% of starships fuel that's still over 4 months of travel

[Anonymous No.16229351]

>>16229334
>Teledyne Brown Engineering, the prime contractor on the project, along with several small business partners, has worked to design and build the Launch Vehicle Stage Adapter (LVSA), a highly engineered and weight optimized piece of spaceflight hardware. LVSA provides the fundamental structural strength required to withstand the launch loads and the maximum dynamic pressure (max q). It also provides the critical separation system used to separate the core stage of the rocket from the second stage, which includes the astronauts in the Orion crew vehicle. The cone-shaped adapter is roughly thirty feet in diameter by thirty feet tall and consists of sixteen aluminum-lithium 2195 alloy panels.
If SpaceX can't build something better than these clowns, human spaceflight is doomed

>16229332
The sad thing is this rocket would still cost something like $1.5B

[Anonymous No.16229356]

!!!SEPARATE CATCH TOWERS!!!

[Anonymous No.16229358]

>>16229332
its not that easy in space. please understand.

[Anonymous No.16229359]

>>16229347
Who cares? They can chill out for eight months.

[Anonymous No.16229360]

>>16229347
>Standard transfer
Uh oh, stinky!

[Anonymous No.16229361]

>>16229356
your dad, my pussy, NOW.

[Anonymous No.16229365]

>>16229325
>>16229325
don't quote me on this but [math]\Delta v = \sqrt{2 \frac{\mu}{r} + C_3} - \sqrt{\frac{\mu}{r}}[/math], assuming you're starting from a circular earth orbit with an altitude of 0.

[Anonymous No.16229369]

>>16229230
>>16229282
i don't want to hear any bellyaching about how NTRs don't have enough thrust after artemis I did TLI on a single rl-10

[Anonymous No.16229370]

How come the Chinese video sites have more relevant content than the US ones on Starship? Like what the fuck? Youtube is full of bot channels when you search Starship and lot of negative takes. The chinese one seems to be following pretty closely to the development and lot of cheers on that.

[Anonymous No.16229375]

/sfg/s thoughts on Stoke, Vast, Firefly and Gravitics?

[Anonymous No.16229376]

>>16229370
yeah because they're trying to steal their technology

[Anonymous No.16229377]

>>16229375
1) Not real company until they start flying.
2) Interested in Stoke/Vast, other 2 are meh

[Anonymous No.16229378]

>>16229375
deserves to make it but who knows, definitely gonna make it, gonna make it but they're gonna turn to shit in the process, not gonna make it

[Anonymous No.16229381]

>>16229375
>Stoke
Stoked
>Vast
cool but I don't see the business case
>Firefly
small sat meme
>Gravitics
same as vast but based that they want to launch on starship

[Anonymous No.16229382]

when musk says its a strech goal to reach uranus is he trolling?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4SH4GsGRZ4

[Anonymous No.16229385]

>>16229382
Its a stretched goal, aka long term stuff.

[Anonymous No.16229386]

>>16229385
i'm pretty sure what elon means is that it's gonna take some real stretching to hit the tight entry corridor for uranus

[Anonymous No.16229387]

>>16229375
Firefly has been doomed to irrelevance as soon as they decided to partner with Northrup instead of doing their own thing, Polyakov and Markusic were just the nail in the coffin.
Stoke is exciting and real and given what they've done they can credibly get the investment needed to make Nova fully and rapidly reusable.
Vast and Gravitics are cool but I fear profitability is a long way out for orbital destinations, maybe too long for a startup to survive.

[Anonymous No.16229388]

>>16229381
Hey retard Vast is launching on Starship too. Just their later Havens

[Anonymous No.16229389]

>>16229381
>>16229387
vast has somehow managed to pull in some actual contracts with actual customers. gravitics hasn't.

[Anonymous No.16229391]

>>16229389
Speaking of
https://x.com/vast/status/1800583548942074032
>Vast signs with The Exploration Company for second Haven space station cargo services

[Anonymous No.16229393]

>>16229391
>The Exploration Company
>SpaceX: Space Exploration company

[Anonymous No.16229392]

>>16229382
I think it's a half-truth (i.e. "hopefully the long-term future of 18m+ Starship is going to every planet from Mercury to Pluto and even beyond") but in this instance he was more just making a joke about le funny butt planet XD

[Anonymous No.16229397]

>>16229375
Stoke is proving that propulsion is a lot easier than previous generations were led to believe, and that's a very good thing. They're also the only group designing a launch vehicle for an industry defined by Starship instead of one defined by Falcon 9.

Vast is doing good work taking back market share from Thales Alenia and is likely to claim the first commercial space station prize that everyone was expecting to go to Axiom. If they can mass produce small-module stations that be launched cheap on Falcon they have a lot of possibilities they can follow.

Firefly is doing good work keeping Northrop Grumman just relevant enough to still exist in the industry, but doesn't seem to have much ambition beyond serving specific government needs. They'll never prosper, especially with Alpha being out lifted by Stoke's Nova, but you can survive on intermittent high-price DoD contracts.

Gravitics has great ambition but they're going to run into problems relying on a launch vehicle that hasn't quite figured out how it wants to handle its payload doors.

[Anonymous No.16229403]

Well, Musk?

[Anonymous No.16229404]

>>16229245
>Engine install & leak checks complete
>Test stand infrastructure checks complete, incl. LNG/LOX system flow tests
>Engine and stand operations validated
>Next up: Engine firing dry runs
So fuck all basically and you just posted this because Stoke had a hot fire and people were noticing Archimedes is a strictly worse, less complex engine that's been in development for longer.
Holy fuck public companies suck and Peter Beck is at the very heart of this faggotry.
Trying his hardest to emulate oldspace then wondering why they're getting undercut LMAOO

[Anonymous No.16229410]

>>16229403
you do not need any bell nozzle walls if you have infinite combustion chambers

[Anonymous No.16229411]

>>16228995

[Anonymous No.16229413]

>>16229410
Would an annular aerospike be better or worse?

[Anonymous No.16229417]

What do we think of this? Waste of money? Who's even funding it?

https://youtu.be/q5em38GeWiA?feature=shared&t=72

[Anonymous No.16229418]

>>16229020

[Anonymous No.16229419]

Rocket lab used to be pretty much universally liked on /sfg/, from what I recall. It's so interesting to note the rapid decline in popularity. I always rooted for them as the underdog but around the third redesign of Neutron it became apparent that things were stagnating

[Anonymous No.16229422]

>>16229417
If they're not living at 2 bar at least then it's totally worthless

[Anonymous No.16229426]

>>16229403
>>16229418

[Anonymous No.16229427]

>>16229417
Ultimately the people who sign up for these things are major LARPers but I certainly do not blame them. I would absolutely participate in one, but they usually require masters/PhD degrees just to be considered.
I think they are useful though. You can't really waste time putting your real astronaut corps in long-duration missions like these. And spending money on good candidates who can accurately simulate months/years in a confined base teaches you little tricks and tips that will be needed on actual hardware you are designing for use with real astronauts

[Anonymous No.16229428]

>>16229403
You sacrifice modularity, increasing cost of maintenance. Increases costs of time/installation. Increase costs of manufacturing since you cant produce deformed bells as easily as you can a proper bell shaped with a machine and slows down manufacturing.

[Anonymous No.16229429]

>>16229284
Propellant is stored in the balls.

[Anonymous No.16229432]

>>16229419
the love of the crowd is forever a fickle thing and once he started complaining about spacex undercutting electron with rideshares he stopped being the loveable hobbit larping as a mini-elon

[Anonymous No.16229436]

>>16229426

[Anonymous No.16229438]

>>16229042
>>16229050
Now hold on a moment, let Elon cook.
Erectship only looks dumb in cargo variation because it's featureless and bizarre.
But could Erectship serve as the Space Shartle orbiter's proper successor?

[Anonymous No.16229439]

>>16229432
Nah it was when he SPACed and the whole company turned ever more conservative such that number doesnt go down.

[Anonymous No.16229440]

>>16229113
It can land at any nearby runway. Plus, it's like the space shuttle that was supposed to be, rather than the massive and chunky pile of disaster that still managed to perform quite well.

[Anonymous No.16229441]

>>16229428
NTA but
>You sacrifice modularity
What do you even mean by this, can you provide an example?
>increasing cost of maintenance
What
>Increases costs of time/installation
Whaaaat, you are just speculating. Who cares if it takes two more hours to install these wacky engines... for a reusable booster that's NEGLIGIBLE when it's awaiting flight and/or flying most if its life span
>Increase costs of manufacturing since you cant produce deformed bells as easily as you can a proper bell shaped with a machine and slows down manufacturing
I am not sure how Raptors are manufactured, but there are some rocket engine bell manufacturing techniques where it would be negligible. Such as autoclave forming from individual pipes.
I am not saying its a good idea I guess I am just playing devil's advocate but in some stupid alternate universe where this engine was a good idea, it is not impossible to imagine a company like SpaceX being able to do it, and do it at a low cost at that

[Anonymous No.16229442]

>>16229403
Turn on part-clipping in editor to achieve this

[Anonymous No.16229443]

>>16229441

[Anonymous No.16229446]

Just make it 40 engines and take the differential thrustpill

[Anonymous No.16229448]

>>16229375
I'll praise them when they accomplish something notable

[Anonymous No.16229449]

>>16229403
So no engine bells? except the outer engines?

[Anonymous No.16229451]

>>16229438
>But could Erectship serve as the Space Shartle orbiter's proper successor?
no? shuttle was like 6:1 length:diameter and that was pretty consistent across all concepts studied. they understood the looks-good-flies-good principle as well as anyone. without proper wings you're going to want to go a little squatter, but v3 is already up to 7.8:1. i'm not going to let elon throw away his life's work over something this irritating to look at. 5.5:1 or fight.

[Anonymous No.16229452]

>>16229449
The opposite

[Anonymous No.16229453]

>>16229417
Wouldnt mind doing a Mars breeding experiment with her

[Anonymous No.16229457]

>>16229451
I meant spiritual successor to shartle in the sense that all crewed starships can carry cargo.

[Anonymous No.16229461]

>>16229452
opposite of what

[Anonymous No.16229463]

>>16229457
SUSIE hands typed this

[Anonymous No.16229467]

>>16229033
>>16229043
Yeah, I know how difficult it would be to change EVERYTHING about ss/sh in an upgrade to a wider dimeter, but its the obvious course of action.

[Anonymous No.16229472]

>>16229269
Jerad Fogle

[Anonymous No.16229474]

>>16229467
It's not happening because the longer rocket is not actually an issue.
Landers can stay reasonably short still until they have pads on moon and Mars.

[Anonymous No.16229475]

10 more years?

[Anonymous No.16229478]

>>16229475
felon husk. completely unironically.

[Anonymous No.16229481]

>>16228666
>>16228667
frog x cirno

[Anonymous No.16229483]

>>16229475
>10 more years
he literally said so
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qSuwIQhGeyI

[Anonymous No.16229499]

https://twitter.com/heospace/status/1800677349870211554
>These two angles of ESA and JAXA's EarthCare are our first images of the satellite moments after it successfully deployed its solar panel in orbit. Identification means mission success

[Anonymous No.16229500]

looks like when spacex finlly make a reusable launch pad it will have a flame diverter

[Anonymous No.16229504]

>>16229500
source my vague screenshot no context

[Anonymous No.16229506]

>>16228943
why
block III ship has 6 rvacs

[Anonymous No.16229508]

hi there. was the moon landing an hoax?

[Anonymous No.16229512]

>>16229508
I find that most of the evidence “against” it can be dismissed by even just moderate digging. That is to say; it’s more likely it actually happened than not. You would have to subscribe to the fact that even the Soviets were in kahoots to lie about everything ‘beyond the firmament,’ and that’s just too retarded to accept, sorry

[Anonymous No.16229513]

>>16229417
>mars colony
>interstellar
what is it with normies calling everything interstellar or "intergalactic"?

[Anonymous No.16229516]

>>16229513
I believe she's saying it looks like the movie interstellar for the sake of the youtube algorythm

[Anonymous No.16229519]

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1800688151389958381
>Since the images showing the proposed layout for 39A Starship are such low resolution I decided to put together this Soar Earth Draw project, allowing you to interact with the map in high resolution over recent satellite imagery
http://soar.earth/draw/1026

[Anonymous No.16229522]

kinda funny how the american space program practically halted after the operation paperclip scientists left NASA
and isn't it curious how we don't have the full documentation from Apollo?

[Anonymous No.16229526]

>>16229440
The fact that the first space plane/lifting body to reenter from LEO weighed 78 tons rather than 5 tons is insane

[Anonymous No.16229527]

>>16229522
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.16229531]

>>16229522
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search?q=apollo which documents are missing?

[Anonymous No.16229533]

>>16229475
Impossible to late

[Anonymous No.16229534]

>>16229214
NTP isn't particularly fast

[Anonymous No.16229536]

https://twitter.com/raz_liu/status/1800697681935024402
>More detail pics of Tianlong-3 first stage.
>Will Arrive at hot fire test site at 0613.
>Hot fire test at end of June
>Need to go back to assembly factory to test with second stage at early July
>Ready to be shipped to Wenchang at end of July

[Anonymous No.16229537]

>>16229417
>they have a urinal
i was jus thtonking, surely on the moon youwould get DIABOLICAL splashback? there would be PISS EVERYWHERE whenever you urinate in the toilet

[Anonymous No.16229538]

>>16229531
the voices in my head told me we can't actually make more F-1 engines, not having the notes or the brains of the engineers who worked on them

[Anonymous No.16229539]

>vast has lots of jobs available
>check https://www.vastspace.com/careers
>see gorillions of jobs listed
wtf

[Anonymous No.16229542]

science fiction has brainedwashed into thinking space travel is infinitely easier than it is. even if we end up having a small colony on mars that's all it will ever be, it won't be self sustaining. and even if by miracle it managed to be that would be the maximum extent of our space travel. anything else is completely out of reach. we will sooner live in virtual reality

[Anonymous No.16229543]

>>16229542
>it wont be because i said so
Show math

[Anonymous No.16229546]

>>16229537
surely they would have a vacuum system to make things go the right way, not unlike the iss

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VoeRAR0YgE

[Anonymous No.16229549]

air-breathing superheavy when?

[Anonymous No.16229554]

>>16229538
it does kinda upset me to think that now that everyone knows you can cluster 30+ raptors and it'll be fine that we're probably never gonna see F-1/RD-170-sized engines again

[Anonymous No.16229555]

>>16229543
blind hope cope

[Anonymous No.16229561]

>>16229539
this is way too many real jobs and not enough jobs that i could conceivably qualify for

[Anonymous No.16229563]

>>16229417
any serious colonist would consider applying for one of these missions

[Anonymous No.16229567]

>>16229481
shes mean to frogs :(

[Anonymous No.16229570]

[Anonymous No.16229571]

>>16229539
>https://boards.greenhouse.io/vast/jobs/4373021006?gh_jid=4373021006
>IT Support Specialist L1: $26.98-$32.97/hour
lol

[Anonymous No.16229574]

>>16229542
The seether recoils at progress, and gets angry at those with more ambition that he possesses.
Many such cases!

[Anonymous No.16229579]

>>16229570
SSME got similar numbers to the advanced engine other than being way smaller. is the advanced air cycle just skylon or what?

[Anonymous No.16229581]

>>16229574
is this what delusion sounds like? I think it might be

[Anonymous No.16229604]

i think we are doomed bros
no way we make it off this rock before society collapses, have you seen the absolute state of children? 1 in 9 have adhd now lmao

[Anonymous No.16229607]

>>16229604
plastics will be banned on mars, use of which will always be punished by immediate death

[Anonymous No.16229609]

SN15 Starship + IFT 4 booster

[Anonymous No.16229618]

>>16229604
launches will be banned to save the climate. no way soacex could get away with multiple superheavy launches a week.

[Anonymous No.16229624]

>>16229618
>launches will be banned to save the climate
this is unironically going to happen

[sage No.16229625]

>>16229618
I have a suspicion that they'll use carbon neutral methane despite a higher price specifically so this doesn't happen. There's a startup that made real progress towards that

[unsage No.16229629]

>>16229625
Whoops forgot to change my name
>>16229624
No way man, they swapped to methane for a reason. By 2035 Starship will technically be solar powered

[Anonymous No.16229642]

>>16229607
all plastic will be either imported from earth or manufactured whole cloth from methane
synplastic like this is a pain in the ass but once you've started it there's basically no reason not to do biodegradable plastics
that or the weird corn bioplastics that are biodegradable
either way it'll only be used for very specific high performance applications where plastic is required, like firearms
>>16229629
>>16229625
okay, but what about:
satellite reentries depositing aluminum and silicon in the upper atmosphere
Starship reentries creating mixed oxides of nitrogen in the upper atmosphere (a potent ozone depleteant)
uhhhhhhhhhh methane in the upper atmosphere? the exhaust is fuel rich and not all of it combusts and methane is a potent greenhouse gas

[Anonymous No.16229644]

>>16229629
>>16229625
the public won't care
rocket bad
pollution bad
(it actually is bad since its above the atmosphere)

[Anonymous No.16229646]

>>16229642
>biodegradable plastics
not actually a thing btw
fun fact, most things labeled as biodegradable are not UNLESS you bury them(being inside your body does not count either)

[Anonymous No.16229648]

>>16229618
climate is a moot point now, solar is cheaper than any other energy source everywhere except Northern Europe with costs still going down rapidly, EVs are as good as ICE cars and the world population will start to decline in a few decades. Emissions per capita are already declining/flat and total emissions will start going down fairly soon

[Anonymous No.16229649]

>>16229646
I guess we'll just need to engineer a plastic-eating microbe that eats nothing but plastic and unleash it upon the world

[Anonymous No.16229654]

>>16229538
Manufacturing ability pretty much stops the day you stop manufacturing
If Maytag stops making a dishwasher model, in 2 years it would be impossible to remake the same dishwasher as fast. And that's something that has a full CAD
F1 has a bunch of hand crafted stuff. You can't even put that on paper if you try.

You would know this if you ever had any professional experience in any technical domain for like, 2 days

[Anonymous No.16229666]

>>16229642
Do NOT let the public think anything beyond "carbon neutral".

[Anonymous No.16229668]

>>16229649
Nature did it already with wood, I'm guessing we can speed up the process this time

[Anonymous No.16229670]

>>16229534
yeah not by car standards. You're not thinking about it right

[Anonymous No.16229672]

>>16229542
>we'll figure out how to send stuff to mars and then we'll just stop for no reason

[Anonymous No.16229681]

>>16229649
i am sure that won't end in a disaster :)
not like we use plastic for basically everything in the medical industry or the food industry to keep thing sterile

[Anonymous No.16229686]

>>16228990
in space no one can hear you jak

[Anonymous No.16229691]

an essential piece of equipment for all survivors
working on my gyrocopter pilot outfit now
obviously I need to wear the survivor goggles and a bandana and wield a composite crossbow

[Anonymous No.16229698]

fuck, I'm missing the helmet portion of the firefighter outfit
I also have the firefighter PCB but I'm wearing it because it's good

[Anonymous No.16229701]

>>16229691
>>16229698
Wrong general, it would seem

[Anonymous No.16229703]

>>16229701
based

[Anonymous No.16229709]

[Anonymous No.16229711]

>>16229709
It's hard to understate how true this is

[Anonymous No.16229715]

>>16229536
Hope it ruds on the pad.

[Anonymous No.16229717]

>>16229691
>>16229698
>>16229701
based loadout. fight the ayys.

[Anonymous No.16229718]

>>16229709
>this is literally happening
wtf memes are real?

[Anonymous No.16229723]

https://x.com/SpaceX/status/1800709666382770304

[Anonymous No.16229727]

>>16229723

[Anonymous No.16229743]

>>16229475

[Anonymous No.16229751]

>>16229743
Wait, he told the truth???? He was RIGHT?>????

[Anonymous No.16229752]

>>16229743
are you really gonna pretend we'll get to mars in the next 10 years?

[Anonymous No.16229755]

>>16229752
there's a high chance

[Anonymous No.16229756]

>>16229743
so worst case 2031 and anything beyond that proves elon perjured himself?

[Anonymous No.16229757]

>>16228612
i haven't paid attention to spaceflight since ift1, what have i missed?

[Anonymous No.16229758]

>>16229752
are u gonna pretend we wont

[Anonymous No.16229759]

>>16229757
some absolute kino live reentries.

[Anonymous No.16229760]

>>16229757
ift2, ift3, ift4

[Anonymous No.16229761]

>>16229756
everyone thinks 2033 is the date for humans, but they'll likely send unmanned ships by 2029

[Anonymous No.16229762]

>>16229752
Are you really going to pretend headlines are reality?

[Anonymous No.16229763]

>>16229755
>>16229758
you poor souls. I envy your naivety

[Anonymous No.16229764]

>>16229763
this isnt a nasa mission, there's a very high chance of death. you go into it knowing this.

[Anonymous No.16229765]

>>16229761
funny, futures markets indicate only 18% of everybody thinks 2033 is the date for humans https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3515/when-will-the-first-humans-land-successfully-on-mars/

[Anonymous No.16229766]

>>16229018
THE WARP IS A SONG, LET ME PLAY A VERSE FOR YOU!

I PRAY THAT ONE DAY YOU WILL FEEL AS I DO, THAT THE PRIMORDIAL TRUTH SHALL RULE SUPREME!

[Anonymous No.16229768]

>>16229752
The only reason this isnt crazy is because the HLS architecture overlaps so much with it. The delta V to the moon is higher, the only thing harder about mars is the long trip there and back, which isn't a problem when you have big mass. Really the biggest problem with the 10 year timeline is the orbits dictate the window. You could be ready in 10 years but the window could be 2 years away so EDS retards explode

[Anonymous No.16229770]

>>16229764
if spacex had the hardware to go to mars there would be a nasa mission

[Anonymous No.16229775]

>>16229770
i think so too but it'll have it's own requirements separate from the rest of the colony

[Anonymous No.16229779]

>>16229770
NASA is run by congress and congress only understands SLS and jobs numbers
they'll setup a companion program to artemis around artemis 3

[Anonymous No.16229780]

>>16229397
Based on rate of progress between IFTs, you seem extremely pessimistic about starship. Pretty sure they'll be able to handle cargo doors if they can handle orbital reentry and landing with half a flap buddy.

[Anonymous No.16229781]

>>16228982
>mouth on top
>eyes on the bottom
what the fuck is that thing?!

[Anonymous No.16229784]

>>16228995
"There are 33 lights"

[Anonymous No.16229787]

>>16229784
gul elon tortures captain philip mason

[Anonymous No.16229789]

>>16229475
>only built one shitty megaconstellation that changed terrestrial communication forever
>only built one shitty rocket that changed spaceflight forever
what an asshole!

[Anonymous No.16229792]

>>16229781
a man who is upside down

[Anonymous No.16229794]

>>16229020
>You will live to see Kino you can hardly imagine

[Anonymous No.16229795]

>>16229604
>adhd
A byproduct of information overload, in great excess of what evolution prepared people for.

[Anonymous No.16229797]

>>16229795
this is false
otherwise it would be more common
children in the 1900s learned far more at school too

[Anonymous No.16229798]

>>16229691
Learn to speak snake

[Anonymous No.16229800]

>>16229760
>>16229759
yeah, im caught up on the starship stuff mostly, but everything else im not
i have to say, the progression from starship is better then i expected. i didnt expect any successful soft touchdown of starship, damaged or otherwise, until 2025

[Anonymous No.16229802]

>>16229752
First cargo flights in 2029, second round of cargo flights in 2031, and manned landing in 2033.
very reasonable timeline. people forget that 9 years ago spacex hadnt even landed falcon 9 once successfully, or launched a single crew into orbit. or even really started on starship development. 9 years is a very long time for spacex.

[Anonymous No.16229804]

>>16229765
a significant portion (>35%) of those people probably dont even know starship exists, so its probably pretty biased

[Anonymous No.16229806]

>>16229802
Realistically you could throw cargo at Mars right now and probably be alright putting it into orbit for later use. Yes, using Starship as-is.

[Anonymous No.16229807]

>nasa goes to mars
ok but which would be the second american government agency to go? noaa? space force? usgs?

[Anonymous No.16229810]

>>16229804
and if there's one thing /sfg/ has been consistent about over the years it's unbiased and reliable predictions about spacex's timetables

[Anonymous No.16229813]

https://x.com/SawyerMerritt/status/1800750167462998516

Starlink dish prices drop 50%($300) for limited time deal for those in certain states. If any of you fucks are on the fence and want a spare starlink dish.

[Anonymous No.16229816]

>>16229807
either the IRS or BATFE
gotta stop those machine gun conversion devices on mars

[Anonymous No.16229818]

>>16229810
sfg is just as known for people who make predictions about how starship will never do xyz. i remember when people were saying the whole program was doomed after sn1 failed during cryo testing and that they would never even static fire

[Anonymous No.16229819]

>>16229806
you could, but i think spacex will mostly be focusing on artemis and starlink stuff until artemis III. i suppose its possible they'll send one starship to mars in the 2026 window to test Mars EDL and maybe land some extra cargo ahead of the 2029 window, but its not necessarily going to happen.

[Anonymous No.16229820]

>>16229818
Do you really perceive this place as having as many pessimists about starship as optimists?

[Anonymous No.16229823]

>>16229820
ive been here for over 4 years.
yes. most threads ive been in, say one optimistic thing about starship and you get 2-3 replies telling you you're wrong. if you say something pessimistic, people will probably agree with you.

[Anonymous No.16229826]

>>16229823
those people are trolling and/or tourists

[Anonymous No.16229830]

>>16229823
I'm incredulous but I'll try to pay attention next time anon

[Anonymous No.16229832]

Next flight the engine relight test and door test are going to work, and starship will re-enter with no serious damage. I don't know when the tower catch will happen because the booster if the booster doesn't like something it suicides in the ocean, but if the booster decides to go for it, it will work because it can land on the grid fins.

[Anonymous No.16229842]

>>16229823
pulling up a random /sfg/ with some future predictions from july 2020:
>>/sci/thread/11950077#p11950730
>I can see an unmanned flyby in 2022, I can't imagine a manned landing until 2024 though.
>I think we're not going to see reliable orbit and recovery before 2023-2024, but that Artemis and Dear Moon will likely happen in 2024-2025... Realistically, it's probably going to be cargo Starships on one-way trips prepositioning materials in 2026 followed by a manned launch in 2028, likely with intentions to stay.
>I'd be shocked if we see anything more than an unmanned flyby/landing in 2024... I doubt we'll see a truly reliably recoverable LEO starship before 2022, and it probably won't make a manned flight before 2023.
>We'll be lucky if starship gets to orbit by 2022, let alone to mars.
>We'd be lucky if starship got to orbit in early 2021. It'll probably get to orbit in mid or late 2021
of the anons making concrete predictions, 80% were wildly too optimistic. 0% were too pessimistic. that basically comports with my memory of the time.

[Anonymous No.16229857]

>>16229842
Anybody who knows a little bit of spaceflight knows you have to be pessimistic to be realistic, thats why I laugh at muskrats that talks about starship to mars or shit like that, they seem too inocent. Now were in mid 2024 and starship didnt get to orbit yet, but we dont have to be mean to muskrats, they start watching spaceflight in 2018

[Anonymous No.16229864]

>>16228990
So he tries to keep his sanity
With the help of his robot friends

[Anonymous No.16229881]

>>16229857
There was a 2 year delay due to EIS

[Anonymous No.16229890]

>>16229881
and fortunately this is the last time ever that an unforeseen delay will push everything back by years

[Anonymous No.16229891]

>5th helium leak detected on star liner
Lol, what a POS

[Anonymous No.16229895]

>>16229890
Pointless to add that into predictions, its unkowable

[Anonymous No.16229900]

>>16229807
USGS is not a bad prediction. They make maps of everything, even the Moon and Mars.

[Anonymous No.16229916]

>>16229895
>you don't get it, the predictions are SUPPOSED to have a wildly overoptimistic bias

[Anonymous No.16229919]

>>16229916
Yes. Those predictions should be mandates too.

[Anonymous No.16229920]

>>16229916
not that wild

[Anonymous No.16229922]

I mean you could put all kinds of retarded shit in there
what if there is ww3? What if a asteroid induced tsunami wipes out the whole east coast?
What if SpaceX gets nationalized and the project gets cancelled?
pointless
of course things could happen but then you just adjust the timelines for these unforseen things

[Anonymous No.16229931]

https://spacenews.com/pentagon-embracing-spacexs-starshield-for-future-military-satcom/
>All of our users are on the commercial Starlink constellation,” Hopper explained. DoD has “unique service plans that contain privileged capabilities and features that are not available commercially.”
>She noted the flat-panel user terminals that CSCO purchases from SpaceX are designed to be compatible with commercial Starlink and government-owned Starshield satellites. “The terminal is capable of roaming on the Starlink and the Starshield constellation,” Hopper said.

[Anonymous No.16229940]

>>16229931
Total Muskrat Domination

[Anonymous No.16229945]

>>16229881
>>16229842
don't forget covid fucked up the world way more than anyone realized back then

[Anonymous No.16229947]

https://spacenews.com/fifth-helium-leak-detected-on-starliner/
>WASHINGTON — NASA confirmed that Boeing’s CST-100 Starliner spacecraft has suffered a fifth, although minor, helium leak in its propulsion system as engineers work to prepare the vehicle for its return to Earth next week.

[Anonymous No.16229961]

>>16229891
>>16229947
NASA should unironically cancel the program. If Boeing can't get their shit together, they are just flying a literal death trap. I understand why they want dual launchers, but for the love of Christ, try someone else. They had no qualms allowing SpaceX fly alone for four years. What's another four?

[Anonymous No.16229970]

>>16229947
reminder that bobendoug's mission went so well that it got extended to 63 days

[Anonymous No.16229976]

>>16229931
The hell are they going to accomplish with just 100 sats? Will they be connected to the greater network?

[Anonymous No.16229978]

>>16229947
lol

[Anonymous No.16229982]

>>16229947
>engineers work to prepare the vehicle for its return to Earth next week
i got a bad feeling about this

[Anonymous No.16229986]

>>16228821
hate to be the doomer but:
raptor doesn't work reliably
the heat shield doesn't work properly
they couldn't manage to make a door work

We're on schedule for a 2030 moon landing

[Anonymous No.16229991]

>>16229986
Starship HLS doesn't need heat tiles

[Anonymous No.16229995]

>>16228703
except we beta tested the moon for them 50 years ago.

[Anonymous No.16229998]

>>16229991
Are they going to make ten expendable tankers?

[Anonymous No.16229999]

>>16229991
But it requires reliable engines, it also requires multiple flight to fuel up. But really the engines are the biggest issue for Starship right now.

[Anonymous No.16230000]

>>16229998
they probably will if nasa want to land on the moon asap

[Anonymous No.16230004]

>>16229999
Like I have been saying, hypergolic HLS would have been superior

[Anonymous No.16230005]

>>16230004
well yes.

[Anonymous No.16230008]

>>16229947
FIVE

I

V

E

HELIUM

E

L

I

U

M

LEAKS

E

A

K

S

[Anonymous No.16230015]

>>16230004
>>16230005
>you should build the wrong thing instead of the right thing
kys
>>16229999
>engines are the biggest issue
no actually it's the heat shield as could be seen on the flight and was confirmed by elon to be the most important remaining issue

[Anonymous No.16230016]

[Anonymous No.16230022]

>>16229016
For me, it's not the fineness ratio that bothers me, but the ratio between the stages. I feel like the booster should be longer compared to Starship. Aesthetically speaking

[Anonymous No.16230024]

>>16230015
They can do the Artemis missions without the heatshiled, but not without the engines. Also they need to develop new engines just for the lunar landing.

[Anonymous No.16230027]

>>16230024
You either build a fully reusable rocket or you don't.
That is the primary objective and that is how they're prioritizing it.
Next flight will Booster catch and Starship relight in orbit.
They have no intentions of flying HLS tankers expendably.

[Anonymous No.16230034]

>>16230027
As far as we know, the tanker itself is expendable because it won't have flaps.

[Anonymous No.16230037]

>>16230034
that sounds kind of unrealistic
the depot will be "expendable" i.e. not coming back to earth but why would the tanker be expendable? For Mars missions the tanker is going to be the ship that is flown most often

[Anonymous No.16230042]

I shall submit my alternative method of catching/landing the booster and ship on Earth that's more reliable than the arm thing.

[Anonymous No.16230056]

>>16230037
Sorry, I meant depot. My brain is fried from cooming.

[Anonymous No.16230058]

[Anonymous No.16230064]

>>16230058
"Tis but a scratch" sounds like a cringy Electron mission name.

[Anonymous No.16230065]

>>16230058
Header tanks as soda can is clever.

[Anonymous No.16230067]

>>16228880
Surely it's literally faster to just scrap it, and build a new one.

[Anonymous No.16230068]

Do you think that well ever see a fairing version of Starship? How exactly does Vast plan on getting their shit into space on Starship given how big the modules are?

[Anonymous No.16230070]

>>16230065
So does that mean raptors firing = starship-chan peeing??

[Anonymous No.16230072]

>>16230070
Braaping

[Anonymous No.16230076]

>>16230070
>>16230072
Booster Raptor = braaaptor

[Anonymous No.16230082]

>>16230076
she is drinking a liquid, the excreted fluid must be pee

[Anonymous No.16230094]

>>16230082
>Liquid => Combustion => Gas

[Anonymous No.16230112]

new Artemis lunar spacesuit just dropped

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

[Anonymous No.16230118]

https://archive ph/QQxPE

WSJ with the deets about Elon fucking female SpaceX employees

[Anonymous No.16230119]

>>16230118
Based

[Anonymous No.16230121]

https://x.com/tzukran/status/1800839079132799067/


WTF Starlink confirmed for UFO tech?

[Anonymous No.16230124]

>>16230118
Fraudulent cancel culture trying to create fake shit.

[Anonymous No.16230125]

>>16230121
Imagine looking up and seeing this coming directly for you

[Anonymous No.16230127]

>>16230118
>elon was fucking prime teen pussy intern and put her on executive staff at spacex after she graduated as a reward
wtf

[Anonymous No.16230136]

>>16230127
fradulent hitpiece as usual, even the woman herself disputes much of the bullshit and they say it here
she is the one that asked Musk to get dinner

[Anonymous No.16230138]

>>16230127
>Former employees said that while she was a talented engineer, they found it odd that someone so junior was given such a high-profile role so close to the boss.
>After she arrived in California, Musk invited her for drinks and came on to her, touching her breast, friends said she told them at the time. One of them said the woman recalled Musk saying, “Oh, I’m so bad. I shouldn’t be doing this.”
>She told friends that she was unhappy at SpaceX, had no authority and had trouble getting executives to take her ideas seriously.

>She visited Musk at his home multiple times, as she struggled at work to establish herself, according to people familiar with the matter and friends she confided in.
>“He would text her, like a lot,” said one of the friends. When she didn’t respond to a nighttime invitation to come over to his house, Musk texted her name repeatedly, the friend recalled.
>When she still hadn’t responded, he wrote, “Probably best if we don’t see each other.”
>“Well I mean I think he broke up with me this morning. If I interpreted that last text ,” she wrote.
>“Why are so many of the men in my life so weiiiiirrddddd,” she wrote.

>She said in one of the affidavits that she and Musk texted frequently as she supported him through difficulties, including issues at Tesla and his divorce from actress Talulah Riley.
>He was married to Riley when the teen and Musk were in a romantic relationship years earlier. They divorced in 2016.

>On the few occasions that she went to Musk’s house, the woman said in one of the affidavits, they watched TV and talked. In the email, she said they watched anime and talked about the Tesla Model 3 production ramp up and the “technical future of humanity.”

[Anonymous No.16230139]

>>16230138
Whats musks favorite anime?

[Anonymous No.16230142]

>>16230136
>even the woman herself disputes much of the bullshit
Source?

[Anonymous No.16230143]

>>16230118
If I was Elon I would

>>16230127
So much for SpaceX being a meritocracy.

[Anonymous No.16230144]

>>16230142
the start of the article

[Anonymous No.16230147]

>>16230121
Mass production series

[Anonymous No.16230150]

>>16230139
probably some harem groomer show

[Anonymous No.16230152]

>>16230118
They created thw whole russiagate and the pissgate with zero evidence. They created the whole covid lies about origin, efficacy, and funding. They created the whole cover up and lies about Hunter Biden laptop story.

Zerotrust in anything media says

[Anonymous No.16230157]

>In the summer of 2013, a woman who reported directly to Musk left the company and later returned with a lawyer. She alleged that Musk had asked her on multiple occasions to have his babies, according to people familiar with the allegations.
>Musk, who has at least 10 children, has said that the world faces an underpopulation crisis and that people with high IQs should procreate. He has encouraged some of his employees to have children.
>But the woman at SpaceX declined Musk’s offer. She had continued working for Musk after he asked her to have his children, but their relationship deteriorated. Besides the baby allegations, Musk had denied the woman a raise and complained about her performance, according to people familiar with the matter.
>The woman received an exit package of cash and stock valued at more than $1 million, according to a person familiar with the agreement.

[Anonymous No.16230160]

>>16230127
>>16230138

[Anonymous No.16230165]

[Anonymous No.16230166]

>gwynne was triggered that a female spacex employee was alone with her husband so she tried to get HR to fire her immediately but elon wanted to keep her on
lol

[Anonymous No.16230167]

>>16230157
damn what a creep. Reminds me a bit of Epstein's breeding ranch.

[Anonymous No.16230168]

>>16230157
I believe all women

[Anonymous No.16230172]

Step aside Musk.

[Anonymous No.16230174]

Fuck off, this juvenile gossip isn't spaceflight.

[Anonymous No.16230175]

hitpieces have really ramped up
the vote for musks compensation package ratification ends today
kind of convenient timing don't you think?

[Anonymous No.16230177]

>>16230175
He might still get his $50B?

[Anonymous No.16230178]

>>16230172
What the fuck is that

[Anonymous No.16230180]

If he gets $50bil, SpaceX gets $50bil. I hope he gets it

[Anonymous No.16230181]

>>16229961
Rocket Lab or Locksneed could probably churn out a decent vehicle if funded

[Anonymous No.16230182]

>>16230166
>elon fucked her too
but of course he did

[Anonymous No.16230183]

Imagine showing your rocket factory to THIS guy

[Anonymous No.16230184]

>>16230172
why is his bitch such a mess? he could have got anyone.

[Anonymous No.16230185]

>>16230178
it's the magical smiling negro of safety.

[Anonymous No.16230186]

>>16230184
We can only speculate.

[Anonymous No.16230187]

>>16230181
Why do that when crewed dream chaser is pretty already finished?

[Anonymous No.16230189]

[Anonymous No.16230190]

spaceflight?

[Anonymous No.16230192]

>>16230190
Why are his engineers such a mess? He could've hired anyone.

[Anonymous No.16230197]

>>16230177
well not right away, it will still continue in the courts

[Anonymous No.16230213]

>>16230175
I wonder, out of passing curiosity and nothing else, if anyone ever compiled a list of compromised journos who write obnoxious propaganda like that?
>inb4 "you'd just list all journalists"
I know, I mean specifically in relation to anti-Musk/SpaceX hitpieces since those are on-topic.
Imagine certain writers getting "community notes" under every single one of their articles laying out their pattern of propaganda and who pays them.

[Anonymous No.16230216]

>>16230213
Too many to list. Many are leftists, some are jist opportunists looking for one time payday, others bought into the EDS.


The bar for libel and defamation is high in the US so Musk cant do much about it

[Anonymous No.16230221]

>>16230213
Institutional rot is there so its not just random gossipers, but also the editors. Media has no trust and no one trusts them anymore for this reason.

[Anonymous No.16230222]

>>16230213

In case you're proposing some sort of Jewish conspiracy against elon
>>>/X/

[Anonymous No.16230224]

>>16230222
What the fuck is an /X/?

[Anonymous No.16230227]

>>16230224
It's Elon's new board on 4chins

[Anonymous No.16230229]

>>16230222
I never mentioned a specific group, but you did.
Curious.

[Anonymous No.16230233]

>>16230227
fuck that got me

[Anonymous No.16230236]

>>16230184
Maybe he has a bimbo fetish.

[Anonymous No.16230239]

>putin signed the ILRS agreement into law today
>construction is expected to be completed by 2036
https://tass.ru/info/21076673

[Anonymous No.16230242]

>>16230239
I would be very disappointed if it takes china and russia that long.

[Anonymous No.16230259]

>>16230008
Four more broken thrusters,
Three coding errors,
Two dead astronauts,
and another Boeing catastrophe!

[Anonymous No.16230264]

>>16230242
I will be very surprised if they ever have hardware to look at, much less launch

[Anonymous No.16230265]

>>16230224

[Anonymous No.16230267]

Realistically, assuming that Starliner does actually kill two astronauts, is it over for Boeing? Unironically, how can they recover?

[Anonymous No.16230269]

>>16230267
How many passengers has Boeing killed over the years?

[Anonymous No.16230270]

>>16230267
Can't they just land the capsule without astronauts in it.

[Anonymous No.16230274]

>>16230269
at least 346

[Anonymous No.16230278]

>>16230270
But then you've got two astronauts stuck in space

[Anonymous No.16230280]

>>16230265
lmao thought this was the dragon failure picture.

[Anonymous No.16230281]

>>16230264
I'd be surprised if they don't. China is the only other market right now where both companies and the government are seriously pursuing reusability.

[Anonymous No.16230282]

>>16229672
That's exactly what happened with going to the moon.

[Anonymous No.16230284]

>>16230278
Who will come back on dragon?

[Anonymous No.16230289]

>>16230278
A non-issue. It's not like they are going to starve. Send up a Dragon with only two Astronauts. Send it back down with 4.

[Anonymous No.16230290]

>>16230118
he's just like me!

[Anonymous No.16230294]

>>16230289
Why can't the dragon be empty?

[Anonymous No.16230297]

>>16230242
It'll take longer it's supposed to start construction in 26', which is even more unlikely than Artemis 3 by September 2026

[Anonymous No.16230307]

>>16230297
That's probably true but I expect the new space race to pick up by 2030 and both artemis and the chinese moon missions will be in swing by then. After 2030 I expect accelerated timelines on both sides.

[Anonymous No.16230310]

>>16230307
>by 2030
Why is Space so fucking slow. Wasn't spaceX supposed to be sending Starship around the moon by now.

[Anonymous No.16230314]

>>16230310
>Why is Space so fucking slow
Nearly all global resources are not allocated towards spaceflight, but instead towards controlled wars for profit.

[Anonymous No.16230324]

https://robbreport.com/motors/aviation/spacex-new-star-factory-1-rocket-per-day-1235650057/

[Anonymous No.16230326]

>>16230310
Lack of competition, spacex is still the only company to manage propulsive landings of orbital class boosters.
It took the rest of the world an embarrassingly long time to figure out this is the future and it'll take a while before the rest catch up.
I expect china to actually have better prices than spacex due to this, theres a ton of chinese companies pursuing reusability and they can learn from spacexs mistakes by using methalox to bring down refurb costs farther than falcon 9 could manage.
Sorta like how china managed to make EVs cheaper than tesla thanks to high competition and learning from tesla.

[Anonymous No.16230329]

>>16230310
COVID, BO and Starliner failures delayed Artemis by 2.3yrs. Not to mention how much time was wasted by the Obama and Trump administrations following the death of Constellation and Asteroid Redirect.

[Anonymous No.16230336]

Been shitting on Boeing hard this entire thread bros.

[Anonymous No.16230338]

>>16230294
It's not an emergency, Dragon has a capacity of 4. A two person team allows them to rotate out two additional crew members off the ISS, and NASA still gets part of a ride.

[Anonymous No.16230341]

>>16230138
>Tesla has a product that would solve females fucking everything up
>doesn't develop it
??

[Anonymous No.16230342]

https://x.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1800891196274856280

https://spaceflightnow.com/2024/06/12/faa-nasa-seek-public-input-on-spacex-starship-launches-at-the-kennedy-space-center/

[Anonymous No.16230344]

>>16230324
When are they planning to 10x raptor production

[Anonymous No.16230345]

>>16230344
First they need to make it reliable then reduce the cost from $50 million per engine.

[Anonymous No.16230346]

>>16230326
No one, literally not a soul, is going to launch on China that isn't China. Russian payloads will stay with Ruscosmos. European ones stay with Ariane and America, and America stays American and Ariane. Same goes with India. You might see a token payload from African countries, but no one is fucking launching on Chinese rockets that also isn't Chinese.

[Anonymous No.16230351]

>>16230344
when raptor production rate is about to become the launch cadence limiting factor, it isn't one now as far as I know
they stopped mass producing raptors a while back
if I had to guess they probably have enough raptors stockpiled for the 4 remaining Starship v1/block 1 to launch
right now the limiting factor is engineering and labour to make modifications for the next launch and iterating/fixing stage 0
even if everything goes very well then they might not launch a v2 until next year

[Anonymous No.16230353]

>>16230346
>No one, literally not a soul, is going to launch on China that isn't China
Brazil developed a bunch of satellites with china and they went up on long marches.
France put the apstar satellites on long marches.
Argentina put their nusats on long marches.
Egypt put their earth obs satellite on a long march.
Skysight satellites went up a long march and skysight is from the US.
They also sent up the einstein probe from esa.
Finally they put up paksat for pakistan.
But sure, besides all those unimportant places no one besides china uses chinese rockets.
This is only from the last 4 years btw and only on long marches.

[Anonymous No.16230355]

>>16230351
>enough raptors stockpiled for the 4 remaining Starship v1/block 1 to launch
And that's a bad thing because this batch clearly doesn't work well.

[Anonymous No.16230361]

>“Thought the Action is located approximately six miles from the closest nesting beach, the height of these towers has the potential to be seen by nesting sea turtles during the sea turtle nesting season.”

Abolish NEPA and kill all the turtles

[Anonymous No.16230362]

>>16230355
they are still developing raptor and this batch works fine enough for the rest of the system to get tested and iterated upon

[Anonymous No.16230364]

>>16230361
turtles getting mentally scarred by seeing pencilship

[Anonymous No.16230369]

https://x.com/HarryStebbings/status/1800634346467917877

[Anonymous No.16230372]

>>16230355
The last two flights had no engine outs on ascent on the booster, so that is encouraging. They can lose around 3 on liftoff and still get the upper stage to orbit. The other engines out are probably due to fuel slosh and other stresses caused by forces from the booster flip and descent

[Anonymous No.16230383]

>>16230372
I also want to add to your post that to be fair to the first stage during IFT-4, it only lost one engine via RUD. We just know that the computers turned off that outer engine during initial ascent and that's all. Could it have exploded had it been allowed to burn? Maybe, but the margin for redundancy caused the computer to shut it down. If Starship didn't have that redundancy, the computer wouldn't have shut down the engine and it would have continued to burn until something happened, or didn't. What's interesting is that we know at least one engine exploded during descent during IFT-3 as well. The six that didn't relight during the flip were caused by debris, which has been solved. Or so it seems. But still, something caused an engine to explode on the way down twice now.

[Anonymous No.16230384]

>>16230372
Last flight had a booster engine out on ascent and it literally did not matter. They probably could have lost one or two more without issue.

[Anonymous No.16230390]

>>16230384
To clarify, I meant flights 2 and 3 had none out on ascent. The amount of engines they could lose is still only a handful at most though

[Anonymous No.16230408]

>>16230384
I wouldn't want to fly on a starship until it's expected that all engines are working

[Anonymous No.16230410]

>>16229549
The O2 mass flow of one raptor 2 is ~500 kg/s for a total of 16,500 kg O2/s for the booster. Air is slightly less than 1/4 O2, so we need 66,000 kg air/s. At sea level air is about 1 kg/m^3, so we need ~65,000 m^3/s of air flow. If the whole 9m cross sectional area of the booster was an inlet the air would have to be entering it at 1 km/s to achieve that.

[Anonymous No.16230415]

>>16230410
nobody needede your gay math dickhead. just make it work.

[Anonymous No.16230423]

>>16229649
And then bioengineer it to be incapable of mutating to take advantage of the abundant alternative energy sources around it everywhere, greatly improving its own reproductive fitness, right? R-r-right?

[Anonymous No.16230435]

>>16230361
lmao

LMAO

LMAAAAAAOOOOOO

NEPA IS A FUCKING JOKE

Anyways the towers are already built so they can fuck off

[Anonymous No.16230437]

>>16229947
fiery but peaceful reentry in the near future

[Anonymous No.16230442]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCd6hvmEJ2U
>Polaris Dawn crew will FINALLY test long-awaited spacesuits in a month!

30min Jared Isaacman interview, the one which had the 12th July date clip earlier

[Anonymous No.16230444]

>>16229549
engine would have to be compatible with wide range of velocities and air densities.

[Anonymous No.16230446]

>shuts off random thrusters
>leaks helium everywhere
>refuses to elaborate
>leaves

[Anonymous No.16230452]

>>16230446
>is unable to leave because thrusters don't work

[Anonymous No.16230471]

>>16230118
>“Elon is SpaceX, and SpaceX is Elon,”
Elon is spaceflight, and spaceflight is Elon
I envy the security crew whose job is to catch bullets meant for Elon

[Anonymous No.16230476]

>>16230452
IMAGINE

LOL

[Anonymous No.16230478]

STAGING

>>16230475
>>16230475
>>16230475
>>16230475
>>16230475

[Anonymous No.16230482]

>>16230138
>so many [...] men in my life
it seems she clearly understands her role in the world and what she's good for
why should anyone else treat her with more respect?

[Anonymous No.16230496]

>>16230482
She's obliviously flirty lol, and likely slow. known many girls in tech exactly like this, they are cute little cocksleeves, to be sure

[Anonymous No.16230545]

>>16230233
we aim to please

[Anonymous No.16230551]

>>16230314
Just wait until the Tahni attack, then we'll see some prioritization on space.

[Anonymous No.16230559]

>>16230496
>She's obliviously flirty lol
do we have imagery of her?

[Anonymous No.16230661]

>>16230282
It wasn't no reason. The reason was the ussr couldn't compete and the government hates spend money on things that aren't guns and isreal