[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   

File: 251 KB, 903x1222, married_space_couple.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16228612 No.16228612 [Reply] [Original]

Holy matrimony edition

Previous: >>16226142

>> No.16228618


>> No.16228620

would rather see her legs if im honest

>> No.16228622
File: 2.85 MB, 1280x714, space_cute_18.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Best I can do

>> No.16228626
File: 160 KB, 1411x734, Amit-prop-test.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228628

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
you stole my pic literally seconds before i was gonna post it...

>> No.16228631

spam thread
the other one was started first

>> No.16228636

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

>> No.16228637

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

>> No.16228638

>>16228599 is the real /sfg/

you lost by over 4 minutes

>> No.16228639

i thought the propellant transfer demo failed

>> No.16228640 [DELETED] 

Why are you trolling outside of /b/

>> No.16228643

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

>> No.16228644


>> No.16228653

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

>> No.16228655

Dumbass spam thread

>> No.16228656
File: 123 KB, 1648x2424, the_best_starship.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228666
File: 171 KB, 1142x1153, 1715725795219764.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16228667
File: 184 KB, 640x873, 0c5929a14ef034c692b74872224e9314.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

good job

>> 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.

>> No.16228675


>> No.16228678

fuck off

>> No.16228681

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

>> No.16228685 [DELETED] 

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

>> No.16228687
File: 14 KB, 645x363, ctwnwuxhymydrtcemq5y.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16228691

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

>> No.16228697
File: 103 KB, 768x768, b526ae97-a023-47b6-bc61-9e727a4ccb6a_94c4d569.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228702

> 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

>> No.16228703

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

>> No.16228704

>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

>> No.16228706

you lost by making the edition and picture non-relevant

>> No.16228715
File: 23 KB, 500x299, c67fe2d9e307256037689bfb340ba431.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

why would you name your company after a fictional pedophile

>> No.16228728
File: 396 KB, 1500x1000, 66687f0f6f506180b91819d3_vast-signing_Press-Release.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16228729 [DELETED] 

wtf are you talking about nigger
its an irish surname

>> No.16228730

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

>> No.16228731
File: 115 KB, 1920x1080, 011078.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228737
File: 100 KB, 1131x903, 011079.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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


>> No.16228739

Does berger have a glass eye?

>> No.16228741

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

>> No.16228743

His right eye looks weird.

>> No.16228745


>> No.16228746

just a lazy one maybe

>> No.16228747

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

>> No.16228749

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

>> No.16228757

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.

>> No.16228764 [DELETED] 

>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.

>> No.16228777

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

>> No.16228781
File: 63 KB, 654x868, 011080.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228792
File: 1.99 MB, 4500x3374, Artist_s_impression_of_the_Mini_Space_Station_scenario.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16228793
File: 44 KB, 811x613, empire of the sun kamikaze salute.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16228794
File: 133 KB, 1024x473, gpxtgm10.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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)

>> No.16228795

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

>> No.16228796

Based on what?

>> No.16228802

What's the shitting device used in Orion?

>> No.16228806

>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

>> No.16228810

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.

>> No.16228811

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.

>> No.16228814

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

>> No.16228818

>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.
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.

>> No.16228820
File: 11 KB, 659x165, 011081.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228821
File: 91 KB, 664x774, 011082.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228823

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

>> No.16228846

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

>> No.16228848
File: 74 KB, 654x630, 011083.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228849

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

>> No.16228852

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

>> No.16228854

estrogenaut is still not going

>> No.16228858

should wrote made FAGGOT in capital letters too

>> No.16228859
File: 25 KB, 512x380, unnamed.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228866
File: 2.54 MB, 1684x947, Eurocanintospace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> No.16228871

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

>> No.16228872
File: 2.01 MB, 3032x2000, STS-116_spacewalk_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Also some of the ISS construction photos are pure kino

>> No.16228877


>> No.16228878
File: 569 KB, 786x1200, Starship-Mins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16228880
File: 73 KB, 659x571, 011084.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228884

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

>> No.16228885

>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.

>> No.16228886
File: 642 KB, 1536x2048, GPziu_mbkAAJ6MG.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228887
File: 341 KB, 1536x2048, GPziu7rbkAAS_HI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228889 [DELETED] 
File: 405 KB, 768x768, EzFG4OKRbm-no-background.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>digit status

>> No.16228890
File: 380 KB, 1536x2048, GPziu8NaMAA8ilF.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228892
File: 2.43 MB, 4096x2731, GPzpsqcW8AE95QQ.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> No.16228893

never reply to me ever again

>> No.16228894

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

>> No.16228896

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

>> No.16228897

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

>> No.16228901 [DELETED] 
File: 433 KB, 768x768, 1718133318573721.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228902

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

>> No.16228906

Are they also getting rid of that insulating blanket then

>> No.16228908

>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

>> No.16228910
File: 221 KB, 996x1350, GP0MHJ3X0AAfK8n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Catch tower....What..?
>New EIS for 39A...Wow


>> No.16228911

>Starship vertical landing
Shouldn't this be checked off

>> No.16228913

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

>> No.16228914
File: 239 KB, 386x675, RotM_render_Captain.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16228915
File: 197 KB, 797x993, 011085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


12 page pdf for LC-39A EIS

>> No.16228916
File: 79 KB, 763x571, Space Station skylab vs ISS.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

gay little modules are a waste of time and money

>> No.16228921

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

>> No.16228922
File: 39 KB, 677x549, 011086.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Starlink is available in Sierra Leone!

>> No.16228923


>> No.16228924

We need to be assembling 100 ton chunks

>> No.16228925

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

>> No.16228927

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

>> No.16228928
File: 630 KB, 1280x720, zfhxp-lncGdC3_w7.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228929

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

>> No.16228931

he probably means a landing with a recovery

>> No.16228937
File: 37 KB, 291x477, IMG_3704.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

God this is so ugly

>> No.16228938
File: 561 KB, 786x1200, Starship-Mins.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16228940

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.

>> No.16228941

What vehicle are these engines for?

>> No.16228943

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

>> No.16228945

>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.

>> No.16228948

MLV and Antares 3

>> No.16228949

>35 engines on superheavy
based throoostmaxxer

>> No.16228951

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

>> No.16228954
File: 84 KB, 936x900, 1709580820847009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

not space flight

>> No.16228955

>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?

>> No.16228958
File: 178 KB, 550x818, Interplanetary_Transport_System_launch-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>35 engines on booster
>9 engines on Starship

>> No.16228959

>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?

>> No.16228960

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

>> No.16228963
File: 3.89 MB, 1280x720, xdownloader G5QE52Xxr.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228964


>> No.16228966

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

>> No.16228968

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.

>> No.16228970
File: 75 KB, 659x710, 011087.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Checking in on Launch Complex 39A at 35cm/pixel with @umbraspace
>Captured just about 10hrs ago.

original pic is over 4mb

>> No.16228972

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.

>> No.16228973


>> No.16228975

shut up fag

>> No.16228976

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

>> No.16228977

So minor damage then.

>> No.16228979

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

>> No.16228982
File: 63 KB, 554x838, GPzdZW5XMAAS3nl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16228984

jump scare

>> No.16228986

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

>> No.16228988

yeah? shuttle did the same thing

>> No.16228989

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

>> No.16228990
File: 120 KB, 554x838, GPzdZW5XMAAS3nl2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228991

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

>> No.16228993
File: 71 KB, 794x726, mxdn790qnco41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16228994
File: 92 KB, 590x643, 011088.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

muh turtles oh no

>> No.16228995
File: 71 KB, 1667x2500, GPznlAGWAAISw3p.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16228996


>> No.16228998
File: 74 KB, 596x419, 011089.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16229001

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

>> No.16229002
File: 148 KB, 1272x701, qTcgvRv6pjjCQ8aHwEXwaD.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229006

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

>> No.16229009

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

>> No.16229010
File: 178 KB, 1921x1092, 011090.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Amid Flight 5 preps SpaceX readies Second Tower Construction | SpaceX Boca Chica

>> No.16229012
File: 1.12 MB, 2118x3072, thinny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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?

>> No.16229016

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

>> No.16229017

>no apparent damage
it's charred black

>> No.16229018

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

>> No.16229019

painted black

>> No.16229020

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

>> No.16229023
File: 480 KB, 1810x1009, IMG_3705.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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).

>> No.16229025

surface char is not damage

>> No.16229026

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.

>> No.16229027


>> No.16229030
File: 40 KB, 324x581, YLtlUq35li.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229033

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

>> No.16229037

Do you post here just to fuck with me?

>> No.16229042
File: 77 KB, 1080x1083, 1700719600336228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I hate the elongated Starship

>> No.16229043

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

>> No.16229047

Please don't post juggalos in this thread.

>> 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.

>> No.16229050
File: 140 KB, 493x737, aEPuZYvZpl.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229054

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

>> No.16229057

New whiteness map just dropped.

>> No.16229060
File: 186 KB, 1920x1080, IMG_3707.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229062

>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

>> No.16229069

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

>> No.16229076


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

>> No.16229081

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

>> No.16229087
File: 1.05 MB, 2514x1890, Dream_Chaser_pre-drop_tests.7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I love this little guy like you wouldn't believe

>> No.16229088

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

>> No.16229091

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

>> No.16229094

Thanks king

>> No.16229104


>> No.16229106


>> No.16229113

What were the benefits of this system again?

>> No.16229119
File: 85 KB, 574x856, space capsule rescue vs spaceplane style.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

you aren't a sharks lunch

>> No.16229131

Pulls fewer Gs on reentry. Nicer on fragile cargo.

>> No.16229134

ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly ugly

>> No.16229136
File: 208 KB, 2048x1536, GPyBwFubgAEPggC.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229141
File: 21 KB, 474x298, OIP (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229151 [DELETED] 


>> No.16229156

next OP img

>> No.16229159

>first reply is a bitcoin scam
Fix your website elon

>> No.16229161

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

>> No.16229167 [DELETED] 

shut up nigger

>> No.16229171

KEK. This is how 18m chads will win.

>> No.16229175
File: 191 KB, 996x562, iss columbus logo crop.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229178

what the fuck is Richard Branson's master plan here

>> No.16229180

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

>> No.16229181

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

>> No.16229182

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

>> No.16229184

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

>> No.16229185
File: 42 KB, 578x702, THE DEVICE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

the only correct choice is nuclear pulsed

>> No.16229186

he already cashed out

>> No.16229187

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

>> No.16229188

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

>> No.16229190

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

>> No.16229191

Glowing rock bad. Trust in burning stick!

>> No.16229193

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"

>> No.16229194

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

>> No.16229198

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

>> No.16229199

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

>> No.16229203

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

>> No.16229204

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

>> No.16229209
File: 258 KB, 800x1200, 87982394879203042042.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Burning stick good, make plane go far!

>> No.16229214

>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

>> No.16229215

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

>> No.16229218

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

>> No.16229219
File: 73 KB, 522x739, 1959 Time magazine Boris Artzybasheff space moon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229221
File: 230 KB, 1024x1024, Earliest rocket launch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Hold my grog

>> No.16229223

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

>> No.16229224

You can use other fuels

>> No.16229228

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

>> No.16229230

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.)

>> No.16229234

ummm he is literally the chief engineer sweaty

>> No.16229235

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

>> No.16229236
File: 80 KB, 850x401, ntr isp co2 ch4 etc.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229239

Taking from the Starlab playbook

>> No.16229240

>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. ??

>> No.16229241

"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

>> No.16229244

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

>> No.16229245
File: 120 KB, 658x744, 011091.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


rocketlab posting cope

>> No.16229247
File: 362 KB, 1536x2048, IMG_3496.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

stop basing NTP mass on NERVA

>> No.16229249

People are scared of nuclear. It's disgusting.

>> No.16229250

Blue Origin is designing your next engine :)

>> No.16229251

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

>> No.16229254

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

>> No.16229255

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

>> No.16229256

Day late and soon to be a dollar short

>> No.16229258

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

>> No.16229259
File: 106 KB, 1280x720, 78978ui.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>IFT-4 and the Future of Starship: All You Need to Know (with @scottmanley and @MarcusHouse )

>> No.16229261

*Spacex, for the Pentagon

>> No.16229267

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

>> No.16229269

who is the non balde dude?

>> No.16229271

Kino. Imagine seeing this when you look up.

>> No.16229275

Begone pedo

>> No.16229276

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

>> No.16229278
File: 96 KB, 647x810, LOX-Augmented Nuclear Thermal Rocket 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229281

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

>> No.16229282

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.

>> No.16229283

Starship can do chemical three month Mars transfers

>> No.16229284
File: 379 KB, 1080x645, Screenshot_20240611_182830_Chrome.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the ball do?

>> No.16229285

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

>> No.16229286

just shut the fuck up troll.

>> No.16229287

just don't do insertion burns, easy

>> No.16229289

Starship can do one week transfer

>> No.16229291

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

>> No.16229292

especially especially if you set off from NRHO instead of LEO

>> No.16229294

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

>> No.16229295

do not do this it makes mustard gas

>> No.16229296

the cost looks a lot worse due to inflation.

>> No.16229298
File: 67 KB, 632x506, Nuclear Powered Interplanetary Towage Space Ship Design 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229299

youre baiting and also gay.

>> No.16229300

>single use paint
What an innovation

>> No.16229304

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

>> No.16229307

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

>> No.16229308
File: 128 KB, 565x558, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229310

it needs to land though dickhead

>> No.16229312

Radiation is the biggest scam in history.

>> No.16229314

you need what, 700 m/s for that?

>> No.16229315

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

>> No.16229317

It can, are you retarded?

>> No.16229320

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

>> No.16229321
File: 204 KB, 960x960, shattered diamond.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229322

measures wind speed

>> No.16229323

>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

>> No.16229325
File: 459 KB, 1161x1200, 5700da8427401aada54da7d2d6fb8b3f.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229326

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

>> No.16229327

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

>> No.16229328


>> No.16229329

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

>> No.16229330
File: 164 KB, 640x480, Falcon_1_Flight_5_rises_over_Omelek_Island.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229332
File: 200 KB, 1246x707, 4txdhx9p7k0a1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16229334

That interstage would crunch in on itself from the sheer thrust

>> No.16229335


>> No.16229337

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

>> No.16229338

what the fuck is that?!

>> No.16229339

probable frogposter

>> No.16229340

It's basic physics buddy boy

>> No.16229341

some kind of broccoli

>> No.16229343

Hey afros are cute

>> No.16229347

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

>> No.16229351

>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

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

>> No.16229356


>> No.16229358

its not that easy in space. please understand.

>> No.16229359

Who cares? They can chill out for eight months.

>> No.16229360

>Standard transfer
Uh oh, stinky!

>> No.16229361

your dad, my pussy, NOW.

>> No.16229365

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.

>> No.16229369
File: 284 KB, 1280x848, news-111622m-lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> 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.

>> No.16229375

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

>> No.16229376

yeah because they're trying to steal their technology

>> No.16229377

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

>> No.16229378

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

>> No.16229381

cool but I don't see the business case
small sat meme
same as vast but based that they want to launch on starship

>> No.16229382

when musk says its a strech goal to reach uranus is he trolling?

>> No.16229385

Its a stretched goal, aka long term stuff.

>> No.16229386

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

>> No.16229387

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.

>> No.16229388

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

>> No.16229389

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

>> No.16229391
File: 676 KB, 1179x1437, IMG_4256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Speaking of
>Vast signs with The Exploration Company for second Haven space station cargo services

>> No.16229393

>The Exploration Company
>SpaceX: Space Exploration company

>> No.16229392

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

>> No.16229397

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.

>> No.16229403
File: 188 KB, 1048x888, Screenshot 2024-06-11 at 18-44-28 Home _ X.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Well, Musk?

>> No.16229404

>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

>> No.16229410

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

>> No.16229411
File: 34 KB, 439x464, 51n45B3XkDL._AC_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229413

Would an annular aerospike be better or worse?

>> No.16229417
File: 1.46 MB, 1154x571, cutiesexo.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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


>> No.16229418
File: 66 KB, 1210x1096, 1555104978575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> 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

>> No.16229422

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

>> No.16229426
File: 36 KB, 324x669, starship v4.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229427

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

>> No.16229428

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.

>> No.16229429
File: 134 KB, 1070x1233, 1620765757034.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Propellant is stored in the balls.

>> No.16229432

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

>> No.16229436
File: 152 KB, 1128x1564, 1555106728388.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229438

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?

>> No.16229439

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

>> No.16229440

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.

>> No.16229441

NTA but
>You sacrifice modularity
What do you even mean by this, can you provide an example?
>increasing cost of maintenance
>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

>> No.16229442

Turn on part-clipping in editor to achieve this

>> No.16229443
File: 17 KB, 474x477, OIP.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229446

Just make it 40 engines and take the differential thrustpill

>> No.16229448

I'll praise them when they accomplish something notable

>> No.16229449

So no engine bells? except the outer engines?

>> No.16229451

>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.

>> No.16229452

The opposite

>> No.16229453

Wouldnt mind doing a Mars breeding experiment with her

>> No.16229457

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

>> No.16229461

opposite of what

>> No.16229463

SUSIE hands typed this

>> No.16229467

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.

>> No.16229472

Jerad Fogle

>> No.16229474

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.

>> No.16229475
File: 1.04 MB, 1159x809, muskmars.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

10 more years?

>> No.16229478

felon husk. completely unironically.

>> No.16229481

frog x cirno

>> No.16229483

>10 more years
he literally said so

>> No.16229499
File: 119 KB, 1000x1000, GP1KYeDaAAA-Wv7.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> No.16229500
File: 24 KB, 564x155, 83298428039742.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229504

source my vague screenshot no context

>> No.16229506

block III ship has 6 rvacs

>> No.16229508

hi there. was the moon landing an hoax?

>> No.16229512

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

>> No.16229513

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

>> No.16229516

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

>> No.16229519
File: 387 KB, 1919x1079, GP1UPkKaAAAogDw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> 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?

>> No.16229526
File: 108 KB, 712x875, Pierre Mion Spaceships.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229527


>> No.16229531

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

>> No.16229533

Impossible to late

>> No.16229534

NTP isn't particularly fast

>> No.16229536
File: 551 KB, 3840x2160, GP1bvkLaEAAOvJl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> No.16229537

>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

>> No.16229538

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

>> No.16229539

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

>> 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

>> No.16229543

>it wont be because i said so
Show math

>> No.16229546

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


>> No.16229549
File: 105 KB, 1066x807, rocketdyne M1 engine.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

air-breathing superheavy when?

>> No.16229554

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

>> No.16229555

blind hope cope

>> No.16229561

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

>> No.16229563

any serious colonist would consider applying for one of these missions

>> No.16229567 [DELETED] 
File: 164 KB, 1024x629, download (4).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

shes mean to frogs :(

>> No.16229570
File: 50 KB, 486x754, rocketdyne M1 engine 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16229571

>IT Support Specialist L1: $26.98-$32.97/hour

>> No.16229574

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

>> No.16229579

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

>> No.16229581

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

>> 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

>> No.16229607

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

>> No.16229609
File: 1.64 MB, 1280x720, landing_an.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

SN15 Starship + IFT 4 booster

>> No.16229618

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

>> No.16229624

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

>> No.16229625

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

>> No.16229629

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

>> No.16229642

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
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

>> No.16229644

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

>> No.16229646

>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)

>> No.16229648

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

>> No.16229649

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

>> No.16229654

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

>> No.16229666

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

>> No.16229668

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

>> No.16229670

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

>> No.16229672

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

>> No.16229681

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

>> No.16229686

in space no one can hear you jak

>> No.16229691 [DELETED] 
File: 23 KB, 402x696, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229698 [DELETED] 
File: 9 KB, 393x226, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229701

Wrong general, it would seem

>> No.16229703


>> No.16229709
File: 174 KB, 480x456, xdownloader Dr3xkHPiz.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16229711

It's hard to understate how true this is

>> No.16229715

Hope it ruds on the pad.

>> No.16229717

based loadout. fight the ayys.

>> No.16229718

>this is literally happening
wtf memes are real?

>> No.16229723
File: 2.10 MB, 2732x4096, GP1njVqasAAqJLf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229727
File: 3.86 MB, 1080x1920, xdownloader AGkILPOQR.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229743
File: 131 KB, 908x742, 123421342342134.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16229751

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

>> No.16229752

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

>> No.16229755

there's a high chance

>> No.16229756

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

>> No.16229757

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

>> No.16229758

are u gonna pretend we wont

>> No.16229759

some absolute kino live reentries.

>> No.16229760

ift2, ift3, ift4

>> No.16229761

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

>> No.16229762

Are you really going to pretend headlines are reality?

>> No.16229763

you poor souls. I envy your naivety

>> No.16229764

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

>> No.16229765
File: 35 KB, 1113x541, lLncOCioBY.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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/

>> No.16229766



>> No.16229768

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

>> No.16229770

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

>> No.16229775

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

>> No.16229779

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

>> No.16229780

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.

>> No.16229781

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

>> No.16229784

"There are 33 lights"

>> No.16229787

gul elon tortures captain philip mason

>> No.16229789

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

>> No.16229792

a man who is upside down

>> No.16229794
File: 175 KB, 250x429, tmp_c5ec2e97-7824-45ba-acb0-9c1225be540e.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>You will live to see Kino you can hardly imagine

>> No.16229795

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

>> No.16229797

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

>> No.16229798
File: 42 KB, 750x540, gyro captain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Learn to speak snake

>> No.16229800

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

>> No.16229802

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.

>> No.16229804

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

>> No.16229806
File: 90 KB, 1024x1024, starship fleet2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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.

>> No.16229807

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

>> No.16229810

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

>> No.16229813


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.

>> No.16229816

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

>> No.16229818

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

>> No.16229819

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.

>> No.16229820

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

>> No.16229823

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.

>> No.16229826

those people are trolling and/or tourists

>> No.16229830

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

>> 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.

>> No.16229842

pulling up a random /sfg/ with some future predictions from july 2020:
>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.

>> No.16229857

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

>> No.16229864

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

>> No.16229881

There was a 2 year delay due to EIS

>> No.16229890

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

>> No.16229891

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

>> No.16229895

Pointless to add that into predictions, its unkowable

>> No.16229900

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

>> No.16229916

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

>> No.16229919

Yes. Those predictions should be mandates too.

>> No.16229920

not that wild

>> 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?
of course things could happen but then you just adjust the timelines for these unforseen things

>> No.16229931
File: 139 KB, 1172x1021, 011092.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16229940

Total Muskrat Domination

>> No.16229945

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

>> No.16229947
File: 54 KB, 1113x1026, 011093.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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.

>> No.16229961

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?

>> No.16229970

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

>> No.16229976

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

>> No.16229978


>> No.16229982
File: 949 KB, 720x960, 1717468912663916.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16229986

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

>> No.16229991

Starship HLS doesn't need heat tiles

>> No.16229995

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

>> No.16229998

Are they going to make ten expendable tankers?

>> No.16229999

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.

>> No.16230000

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

>> No.16230004

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

>> No.16230005

well yes.

>> No.16230008
















>> No.16230015

>you should build the wrong thing instead of the right thing
>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

>> No.16230016
File: 166 KB, 1200x1200, RDT_20240611_1937468655179388251102676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16230022

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

>> No.16230024

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.

>> No.16230027

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.

>> No.16230034

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

>> No.16230037

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

>> 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.

>> No.16230056

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

>> No.16230058
File: 472 KB, 2480x1868, 1718186588670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16230064

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

>> No.16230065

Header tanks as soda can is clever.

>> No.16230067
File: 220 KB, 1200x900, 1674782273999067.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> 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?

>> No.16230070

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

>> No.16230072


>> No.16230076

Booster Raptor = braaaptor

>> No.16230082

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

>> No.16230094
File: 2.89 MB, 1280x720, 1718188288.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>Liquid => Combustion => Gas

>> No.16230112

new Artemis lunar spacesuit just dropped


>> No.16230118

https://archive ph/QQxPE

WSJ with the deets about Elon fucking female SpaceX employees

>> No.16230119


>> No.16230121
File: 122 KB, 1106x692, GP3cbTpX0AAifRV.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


WTF Starlink confirmed for UFO tech?

>> No.16230124

Fraudulent cancel culture trying to create fake shit.

>> No.16230125

Imagine looking up and seeing this coming directly for you

>> No.16230127

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

>> No.16230136

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

>> No.16230138

>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.”

>> No.16230139

Whats musks favorite anime?

>> No.16230142

>even the woman herself disputes much of the bullshit

>> No.16230143

If I was Elon I would

So much for SpaceX being a meritocracy.

>> No.16230144

the start of the article

>> No.16230147

Mass production series

>> No.16230150

probably some harem groomer show

>> No.16230152

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

>> 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.

>> No.16230160
File: 14 KB, 469x542, elon sls lol.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16230165
File: 123 KB, 842x818, elon preggos.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> 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

>> No.16230167
File: 150 KB, 1500x1000, 5bg23894821.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16230168

I believe all women

>> No.16230172
File: 127 KB, 620x885, 1682370876027659.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Step aside Musk.

>> No.16230174

Fuck off, this juvenile gossip isn't spaceflight.

>> No.16230175

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

>> No.16230177
File: 218 KB, 1500x1000, ElonMuskStaringAtTrump.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

He might still get his $50B?

>> No.16230178
File: 1.21 MB, 1179x2254, IMG_4258.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What the fuck is that

>> No.16230180

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

>> No.16230181

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

>> No.16230182

>elon fucked her too
but of course he did

>> No.16230183
File: 190 KB, 2523x1430, JeffreyEpsteinAlanDershowitzSpeaking.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Imagine showing your rocket factory to THIS guy

>> No.16230184

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

>> No.16230185

it's the magical smiling negro of safety.

>> No.16230186
File: 48 KB, 720x540, bezosReptile.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

We can only speculate.

>> No.16230187

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

>> No.16230189
File: 451 KB, 1920x2880, BezosNewLook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16230190
File: 441 KB, 673x499, reeee.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16230192

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

>> No.16230197

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

>> No.16230213

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.

>> No.16230216

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

>> No.16230221

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.

>> No.16230222


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

>> No.16230224

What the fuck is an /X/?

>> No.16230227

It's Elon's new board on 4chins

>> No.16230229

I never mentioned a specific group, but you did.

>> No.16230233

fuck that got me

>> No.16230236

Maybe he has a bimbo fetish.

>> No.16230239

>putin signed the ILRS agreement into law today
>construction is expected to be completed by 2036

>> No.16230242

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

>> No.16230259

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

>> No.16230264

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

>> No.16230265
File: 36 KB, 943x537, elon sign.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16230267
File: 3.52 MB, 720x614, to think there is people inside that shooting star.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

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

>> No.16230269

How many passengers has Boeing killed over the years?

>> No.16230270

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

>> No.16230274

at least 346

>> No.16230278

But then you've got two astronauts stuck in space

>> No.16230280

lmao thought this was the dragon failure picture.

>> No.16230281

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.

>> No.16230282

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

>> No.16230284

Who will come back on dragon?

>> No.16230289

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.

>> No.16230290

he's just like me!

>> No.16230294

Why can't the dragon be empty?

>> No.16230297

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

>> No.16230307

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.

>> No.16230310

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

>> No.16230314

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

>> No.16230324
File: 146 KB, 1189x842, 011102.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16230326

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.

>> No.16230329

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.

>> No.16230336

Been shitting on Boeing hard this entire thread bros.

>> No.16230338

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.

>> No.16230341

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

>> No.16230342
File: 84 KB, 654x686, 011103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]



>> No.16230344

When are they planning to 10x raptor production

>> No.16230345

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

>> No.16230346

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.

>> No.16230351

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

>> No.16230353

>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.

>> No.16230355

>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.

>> 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

>> No.16230362

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

>> No.16230364

turtles getting mentally scarred by seeing pencilship

>> No.16230369


>> No.16230372

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

>> No.16230383

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.

>> No.16230384

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.

>> No.16230390

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

>> No.16230408

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

>> No.16230410

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.

>> No.16230415

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

>> No.16230423

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?

>> No.16230435





Anyways the towers are already built so they can fuck off

>> No.16230437

fiery but peaceful reentry in the near future

>> No.16230442
File: 128 KB, 1280x720, dfgdfgdf54.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>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

>> No.16230444

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

>> No.16230446

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

>> No.16230452

>is unable to leave because thrusters don't work

>> No.16230471

>“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

>> No.16230476



>> No.16230478
File: 52 KB, 1179x225, IMG_4261.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]



>> No.16230482

>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?

>> No.16230496

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

>> No.16230545
File: 24 KB, 474x355, ontarget.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

we aim to please

>> No.16230551

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

>> No.16230559

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

>> No.16230661

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