A new era of space-based spy sats and weapon platforms is about to begin, in just two days. Every single government agency will soon be throwing up 150-ton spoopy payloads. This is a Big Deal.
A new era of space-based spy sats and weapon platforms is about to begin, in just two days.
What tactical advantage does 150t satellite bring?
more mass budget = faster development cycles and better optics for cheap
Space laz0rs
Megawatt grade lasers boosted into geosych orbit beyond easy asat range would be ideal missile defense.
In the long term they could make ICBMs obsolete and force nuclear to use hypersonics staying inside the atmosphere.
>nukes will now have a hard counter
Fricking finally. Great State wars are back baby.
>nukes will now have a hard counter
>Fricking finally. Great State wars are back baby.
holy based
Your beam power will suffer over that big a distance, and the remaining atmosphere below 600km will cause dispersion. It would need to be lower most likely.
Such ranges would require very big laser appertures (diffraction limit). It's theoretically possible but 40000km range lasers doesnt exist yet.
Realistically, what does this enable? Spy sats are already at the physical limits of resolution, I don't think mass is really a limiting factor there. You could throw up shitloads of comms sats for cheap to replenish a damaged network, but that's not really useful for now. ASAT defense platforms maybe?
At the prices they're targeting, point to point military transport would unironically be an option for certain use. VLEO sats become possible because you can cheaply enough do enough fuel to run despite atmospheric drag, interesting for improved side to side, maneuvering (making it hard to know when sats will be overhead), etc. Orbital strikes will be possible, though with obvious escalation issues. Vastly better space stations, real space industry development, permanent lunar bases etc. It's one of those things where it's frankly just hard to actually predict all the stuff it'll mean because the effects compound.
>point to point military transport would unironically be an option for certain use
Unloading would be a fricking nightmare.
>VLEO sats
Sounds interesting
>Orbital strikes will be possible
Still a meme
>Vastly better space stations, real space industry development, permanent lunar bases etc.
This is cool as shit, but still, I don't know how useful it will be to the military. Both the US and Soviets experimented with military stations and decided that satellites work just fine.
>Unloading would be a fricking nightmare.
Depends. If it's intended to ever get used again, then it has to be landing at a base of some kind, and that means there can be cranes and other infra so it's fine. If it's being used expendably then it has flip maneuver capability already, it could easily do a second flip, spend 10-20 tons worth of load capacity on big airbags/cold gas thrusters, and just bellyflop at the very end. Sides blow open, you can just drive shit in and out at that point. It's a bunch of stainless steel with some heat tiles. With a ballistic trajectory and no need to actually go to orbit might be able to do away with the vacuum engines as well. If it was $15m to be able to put a tank and IFVs and pile of stuff anywhere on the planet in 45 minutes, well that's not how the Pentagon would prefer to send things if it could be avoided but I can see them still being interested. I'm assuming here you'd get people in some other way, much easier if they can travel very light, then only are sending hardware so you can get abusive with G-forces.
>Still a meme
Not at $50/kg in LEO it's not. Could be 5-7 years before they refine it enough to hit that, but the fundamental costs here are wild.
>Both the US and Soviets experimented with military stations and decided that satellites work just fine.
They had real different constraints, that's the point.
>anywhere on the planet in 45 minutes
You wouldn't be able to drop them anywhere near a front line, it's a massive target. They'd still need to be moved closer by conventional means. Having to load and unload with massive cranes and shit eats into the time benefit pretty heavily.
As for orbital strike weapons, I don't think they really offer anything that conventional ballistic and cruise missiles can't accomplish just as well or better. Likewise, I don't know what you'd accomplish by stationing military personnel in orbit that sats don't already do. It just seems like a solution looking for a problem to me, at least in terms of it's value to the military.
>Having to load and unload with massive cranes
I explained how that wouldn't be necessary anon, unless it was at a base, and in that case the cranes are already set and it could still be unloaded very fast.
And I don't see why you'd think "front line" vs 50 miles in the rear or who knows where.
Your explanation was a hypothetical that would require huge design changes, for now it's just a big rocket and has to be loaded as such.
>50 miles in the rear
Anywhere in BVR missile range is a no go, I bet an R-37 could smoke a Starship on it's way down with little issue. Once it lands it's a sitting duck unless it came with air defense systems, especially if crews and infantry need to be brought in separately.
>Your explanation was a hypothetical that would require huge design changes
Duh? We're talking future roles when the thing has yet to even reach space let alone orbit (I think it's actually not orbiting this time) let alone land. But huge design changes are baked into this anon, it's a flexible design, cheap, and subject to rapid iteration anyway. Like, SpaceX has literally committed to majorly different versions already. The Lunar landing version is never coming back to Earth, needs custom thrusters for the moon landing (Raptor is too powerful), no fins, and will be refueled by tanker Starships which will also be a different version. It's a different paradigm, it's hard to overstate what going to stainless steel alone did. It's so easy to work with, we know it so well, and it means they aren't tied into fixed special molds like with carbon fiber or exotics.
>for now it's just a big rocket and has to be loaded as such.
For now it's not doing any ground stuff at all lol. Check back in 5 years though.
>Anywhere in BVR missile range is a no go, I bet an R-37 could smoke a Starship on it's way down with little issue
Why wouldn't it be equipped with APS? Or send up two, one of which releases 150 tons of decoy/barrage to come down in front of the second one. Or the 150 tons could be a dedicated reentry capsule and a "mere" 50 tons of cargo, another 100 tons for the vehicle, SS itself doesn't come down at all which also means full reuse and max cheapness. Solid retro rockets and airbags.
You can find objections to anything but at the end of the day it's a huge amount of mass to work with. And the US has deployed forces plenty of times to non-peer targets. Is there nothing SOC could do with specops in the middle of Africa on some antiterrorist mission being able to call in heavy weapons and vehicles all of a sudden? I'm not saying what will work and what won't, but the capability is there.
For what it's worth, I also think point-to-point orbital transportation will continue to be a meme no matter how successful Starship is, but it will be a meme that gets explored just because it's cool, and honestly at some level I believe every once in a while militaries will waste billions of dollars just because something is cool; look how long A-10s or battleships hung around
The "front line" argument is a touchy one because frankly if you're dealing with any OPFOR that could successfully intercept a Starship, you're likely dealing with WW3 and have more important matters to attend to than shuffling, say, a single platoon and four Bradleys to a randomly selected location on another continent.
It's just a solution searching for a problem because the United States maintains so many bases in places like Bahrain or Sicily or Guam in the belief that if someone is being an butthole, a C-130 full of special forces can be there within 45 minutes, basically anywhere on earth that someone's likely to be an butthole. That's much easier than keeping all of the GI Joes in a secret silo under Mount Rushmore to be deployed anywhere on earth by rocket within 45 minutes.
Contemplating that is actually another one of those things that demonstrates how unfair even accurate criticism of the US military can be; compare the debacle in Benghazi where the US response was both slow and late to, say, the ongoing Chinese policy in Uganda where the official PLA military response to Chinese citizens being killed or taken hostage is "lol too bad, good luck chang, not my problem"
>battleships
battleships were a paradigm shift for naval warfare and they were short lived compared to something like an attack submarine or a carrier
Battleships were doomed by 1930 yet persisted until 1990 because, and let's face it but not cast blame since it's totally understandable, they made somebody's dick hard
To be clear, I'm not claiming this will be some big paradigm shifting thing, but extremely powerful new capabilities often find new uses eventually even if they aren't foreseen.
Like something that just occurred to me: why are we even being human centric here? Like me too. Why think in terms of vehicles and troop stuff? What about a landing system that has a powerful Starlink uplink and comms and fuel cell and is otherwise packed with drones? Mobile drone base, send it a few in and they can deploy hundreds/thousands of drones in a huge cloud and do whatever their AI has been told to do. This isn't the 1990s.
>It's just a solution searching for a problem because the United States maintains so many bases in places like Bahrain or Sicily or Guam in the belief that if someone is being an butthole, a C-130 full of special forces can be there within 45 minutes, basically anywhere on earth that someone's likely to be an butthole. That's much easier than keeping all of the GI Joes in a secret silo under Mount Rushmore to be deployed anywhere on earth by rocket within 45 minutes.
Again I wasn't suggesting that it'd be used for troops at all. I was suggesting it might be used to reinforce troops who had reached a position by other means already. But see above, we may not even be thinking about this right at all.
I think the real utility would be replacing satellites mid conflict. Imagine trying to shoot down satellites and the US literally launches a new batch every day.
Sure that's an obvious gimme, more exotic stuff will come later. But still an important one, and can't be countered without an equivalent system either. Like I said above, can't have kessler syndrome in VLEO at all, too much drag. Only the US using Starship will be able to do serious VLEO constellations, which means it will become the only country with a space network that's essentially invulnerable, can be replaced faster than destroyed and the destruction never compounds because everything starts dropping out of orbit right away.
How about deploying anti-ship, anti-air, and cruise missile platforms directly onto tiny islands into the south china sea? China expects to face off against a US Navy and Air Force deploying from specific places, but not sets of VLS tubes deploying from the fricking sky onto glorified sandbars right up their bases' and ports' asses.
>the only country with a space network that's essentially invulnerable
Lasers say pew pew to your LEO orbit constellations. Though with Starship it's possible to have armored bricks as satellites at this orbit. But anyway big penalities to numbers and cost.
>bullets make grunts obsolete ;^)
Lasers can definitely threaten satellites, but that's why any major space force would use lots of satellites so they can persist under fire long enough for space-based counterbattery lasers to SEAD ground based lasers and then finish the job with hypersonic missiles.
>Lasers say pew pew to your LEO orbit constellations
Nah. Anti-orbital lasers would need to be big, power hungry, and capital intensive large hardware, and by definition they're huge obvious emitters that are impossible to conceal. They point at themselves whenever used. Which in turn makes them huge targets to shoot back at, and more painful to lose than any given VLEO comm sat. You could in principle make a thousand SM3s or something and distribute them all over a country and they'd be completely inconspicuous until fired, and one missile being fired doesn't tell anyone anything about where the others are. Lasers in the tens to hundreds of megawatt class and the hardware needed to make them work at hundreds of km and track targets with a relative velocity of 7+km/s are a lot more cumbersome, and they need big fat power too.
Unless you're imagining someone trying to take out the US comm network (continuously, because it'll be getting replenished hundreds of sats per Starship launch) and the US just... sits there and takes it? Doesn't bother to shoot back at all? Doubt.jpg. And as you say adding some ablative, just the exact same mass manufactured thermal tiles that Starship itself will be using in bulk, would be relatively trivial as well at $50/kg.
Don't forget as well that VLEO sats don't physically pass over everywhere on Earth. So even an imaginary huge anti-sat laser network in a single country that never gets cloudy will only be able to take out a percentage that goes over them, which will mean the rest still works. Lasers need LOS, and the steeper the angle the more atmosphere they have to punch through.
https://en.topwar.ru/167342-sekrety-kompleksa-peresvet-kak-ustroen-rossijskij-lazernyj-mech.html
Why not a constellation of ground based lasers, then? The angular velocity of their targets would be small enough I don't think the electronics to track would be expensive. Is there physics that makes 1,000 1kW lasers need far more power to burn through atmosphere than 1 1MW laser?
>Is there physics that makes 1,000 1kW lasers need far more power to burn through atmosphere than 1 1MW laser?
Well, yeah? Atmospheric interference is pretty fixed, it doesn't scale up with power. If you divide your power by 1000 every single beam experiences its own, completely independent column of atmosphere to burn through, so yeah you're dealing with 1000x the interference. Focusing all of them on the same spot is going to be pretty damn hard hundreds of km away as well, and if you don't you've cut down the energy any ablative protection has to deal with massively by politely spreading it out all over. You'll also be duplicating a bunch of stuff that'd be more efficient combined.
Ultimately if someone else is on top of the gravity well, they're shooting down and you're shooting up, they've just got a lot of physics in their favor. Won't be instant domination but it's going to be another major shift.
Is "burning through atmosphere" a real thing, though? I just made that up because it sounded plausible
Yes, the atmosphere is just gases. When the K-T event happened it set the atmosphere on fire. Similarly a minor concern of the Trinity test was that it could set the atmosphere on fire.
Water scatters light and the atmosphere has a decent amount of water vapor so over appreciable distances you'll get extra scatter from the water, like how on a humid day the distance gets hazy, so if you want to use a laser to put a given amount of energy on target you need to make it bigger the further the target is to make up for scattering
Dust too. Though
>so if you want to use a laser to put a given amount of energy on target you need to make it bigger the further the target is to make up for scattering
in this particular case that's not so limiting, because you're aiming up. Once you punch through the first 15-20 miles you're getting into more and more rarified air and then into soft vacuum, at that point collimation aside it doesn't make as much difference whether you're aiming at 300 miles or 3000 miles so long as you can still focus. Atmosphere column is essentially the same for a single beam either way. If you split that into 1000 beams though it's 1000 beams and the sync'd tracking would be a b***h for a fast small target. Nobody is talking about doing anti-missile or anti ballistic defense that way, just megawatt class beams.
That’s already in the works publicly
But how. Theoretically, if satellites are being taken out by the dozens/hundreds in wartime, the debris from those wrecked satellites is going to interfere with a new satellite being put in its place.
Only if you're moving at high speed relative to the debris. Otherwise it's like merging into traffic.
Right, but I'm talking about the destruction of hundreds of satellites at varying degrees of orbit. Kessler syndrome is a very real and potential danger that could prevent humanity from leaving Earth for dozens if not hundreds of years depending on the severity, and I could absolutely see China resorting to such a thing in the event of an all-out war as the US is extremely reliant on satellites as our main source of data.
It would not bar humanity from ever going to space, but it might reduce satellite lifetimes if a lot of shit is up there at once. The risk would decrease within a few months to years as long as we’re talking LEO. Now, if people start throwing ASATs at GEO… that’s a different story. But, ASATs aren’t as easy to use at GEO because the target has more time to maneuver and react.
have it partially deorbit over a battlefield, releasing tens of thousands of networked loitering munitions, and then reorbit itself
drone base you can place anywhere temporarily. Fly in, drop payload, fly back to orbit. I'm sure this will be possible a starship generation or two from now
The spaceship parts of avatar 2 were the only reason I recommended it to a friend lmao.
>have it partially deorbit over a battlefield, releasing tens of thousands of networked loitering munitions, and then reorbit itself
Impossible so don't be moronic. It could definitely come down, slow down, dump drones and then be expended, but anytime SS comes down anywhere that isn't a controlled landing at a base it's expended. Anons are being silly, even if you don't know what delta-v is you should be able to think for a second and realize that if it needs to be fully fueled and have a huge first stage to get to orbit in the first place, it will need that each time to get to orbit.
that's why I said it might be possible in future generations of the rocket dumbass
>that's why I said it might be possible in future generations of the rocket dumbass
No it won't be possible moron, unless "in future generations" you're imagining a nuclear torch drive (spoiler: landing or taking off with such a thing would reasonably be considered an act of war itself). But even the most ideal possible chemical rocket would only barely have enough ISP/thrust/delta-v to SSTO out of Earth's gravity well at all with any sort of real cargo. Nothing can do what you describe, lrn2 rocket equation. It's not a matter of refining Starship.
But again, that's fine, because even expended SS is inexpensive enough and will be made in enough bulk that it could still be considered for important situations. There isn't any need to worry about saving it, it can be treated as disposable. Alternatively 150 tons (or more, because that definitely is something that could increase, the original envisioned MTS was much larger and wild as it is to say it Starship is about the SMALLEST design they could reasonably do) by itself could represent an even cheaper dedicated lander that still had 50-100 tons of cargo capacity. Now not even a vehicle is getting expended. And your idea of air deployment of drones could make that further cheap because it wouldn't need to worry about surviving a landing at all, just slowing down to maybe a few hundred mph, which would save more weight for drones instead.
A drive's usefulness as a weapon is directly proportional to its usefulness as a drive.
I believe that Musk would do a proof of concept demonstration/exercise with the DoD because lmao infinite money, but I don't think they'll pick it up for real. If they do, it won't be Starship but some later development.
He wasn't getting enough money from Ukraine, DoD has much deeper pockets. All there is to it.
skylab weighs 170 tons
this ship can haul 150
Basically this will allow us to start constructing space stations and putting very heavy satellites into orbit
We won the space race however we have a homosexual idiot government who will never take advantage of it.
>skylab weighs 170 tons
Skylab was 76.5 tons my man, not 170.
>Basically this will allow us to start constructing space stations
I dount it, it would be much cheaper and much more efficient to turn the whole Starship into a space station. You shoot it up and it simply stays there, and you can make it as big as you want by coupling the ships together.
that's stupid. starship is cheap because it is reusable. leaving it in orbit negates that benefit. it would be like moving across the country, and then living in the airplane when you get there instead of buying a house.
It is cheap even if you dont reuse it. By far the cheapest rocket per kg launched into LEO there is. And it can be even cheaper if you launch it without control fins and heat shield. Also nobody forces you to launch a brand new one, you can use one that is about to be retired anyway. That way it would be almost free. Staying in space is almost certainly far less stressful for the ship than doing a reentry and landing.
This. Kinda like the old plan of using expended shuttle fuel tanks as habitats. That was the plan iirc before challenger fricked it all up
If you stripped down Starships to have just barely enough thrust to get to orbit and no reentry gear, they would make decent launch-in-one-piece stations
You can fit cannons to them
For what purposes?
Landing one next to the Kremlin and giving the scurvy dogs a full broadside! They won't see that one coming!
>rocket land in Red Square
>Doors in the side slowly open
>150 tons of horse manure spills out
>Ambassador delivers note to Russian President
>"Clean it up, Ivan"
shooting aliens
Killing chinks and vatnigs. Verification not required.
Brilliant Pebbles type SDI goes from being semi-feasible to very feasible.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles
In other words pull out the book of the dead and find General MacArthur's tomb, because nuclear first strikes are back on the menu.
JFC so we actually could Desert Storm Russia in the near future
At the same time, don't buy real estate in New York, Washington, Boston, Seattle, LA, or San Diego. ICBM interception doesn't do shit for cruise missiles.
>New York, Washington, Boston, Seattle, LA, or San Diego
>cruise missiles
If only we could get so lucky.
Hey, what about the cool historic buildings?
maybe the russians will use neutron bombs. that aside if we're putting 50mw lasers in orbit on manuverable Starship hulls surely ABM defense gets a bit more effective.
>Spy sats are already at the physical limits of resolution
Lmao, no
As you add more satellites and bigger apertures you can see better resolution more frequently. Eventually there could be enough satellites that you’d have centimeter sized pixels of earth continuously. That means stealth would be obsolete. Camouflage would be obsolete. Hiding anything would be basically impossible because the satellites could track every individual soldier or asset.
>You could throw up shitloads of comms sats for cheap to replenish a damaged network, but that's not really useful for now
starlink is literally built with starship in mind...without it the project might be fricked
Sure, but we were talking about the utility it would provide the military. They don't need to launch a cluster of hundreds of comms satellites... for now.
They do though anon: they need Starlink, or "need" it in the same way they need any advancement. Obviously they can do without, they did without all sorts of stuff they have now. But low latency and massive bandwidth is an enormous jump over what they've got, it's physically impossible for any other existing sat comm system to come close. It was expected to be incredibly hard to jam or even locate, and that's proven true too. And it opens up new possibilities for remote control and such. So it'll probably become a pretty important thing, even though they will undoubtedly retain fallback comms as well.
but they are...spacex literally just launched some for them the other day
>A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket lifted off April 2 at 10:29 a.m. Eastern from Launch Complex 4 East at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California, carrying 10 military satellites...
>The mission to low Earth orbit is the first launch of a new military communications and missile tracking constellation built by the Space Development Agency (SDA), a U.S. Space Force organization...
>SDA plans to build a network of hundreds of interconnected satellites, an approach it calls a “proliferated architecture” relying on low-cost satellites in large numbers to deliver critical services.
https://spacenews.com/spacex-launches-10-satellites-for-u-s-space-development-agency/
In case anyone hasn't been paying attention, SpaceX received final government license launch approval (good for 5 years) earlier today and are now go. It's a first test launch, so could certainly be scrubbed due to unexpected weather (though looking good right now) or issues during the wet dress rehearsal. Minimum goal is to clear the tower by a thousand feet or so before exploding, but of course we all hope that at least the booster works. Everything about this is a test situation, it will do a pretend landing where it comes down over the ocean and goes through the whole landing sequence as if it was at the pad, then drops into the ocean. If SS works and survives reentry (extreme stretch goals) it come down in the Pacific. Reason for this is to try to ensure that no very valuable ground infrastructure is hurt. If it works well though they may try landing next time. Once SH is going up and coming down, even if SS is expended, commercial cargos (and obviously their own much more capable Starlink v2 full size) can start going up and their runway extends massively. Moon mission will also be go.
Make the time for it if you can. It'll be the dawn of a new era and a hell of a show. And the /k/ implications are indeed enormous.
Elon Musk has a better space program than every Yuropoorean nation. He could literally drop rockets from space on Yuropoors and there is nothing their military could do about it.
I think about this fact a lot
Did someone say era?
>chinks try to hit a reentering starship with their longdong missiles
>completely useless because starship has devoted 75 tons of it's launch mass on ERA
what do they do now?
>inb4 starship's tank walls are not thick enough to withstand ERA explosions
then use composite armor idc
It's a nothingburger. It's not happening. Nothing ever happens.
homie the rocket is the biggest ever launched
Man is this also going to make the Russians and Chinese seethe even harder.
it would take them 5 minutes to steal it based on that chink/indian crew elon put together
>it would take them 5 minutes to steal it based on that chink/indian crew elon put together
lol no
the seething has already begun. delicious.
Like what do you believe is going to happen, mutt? Please do tell us, I could use a hefty chuckle at your expense.
Also explain why if we wanted to go to space with more shit, we didn't just send more rockets? Nothing is going to change.
It's an interesting tactic because he's inviting someone to make a point (which he'll immediately dismiss) when the prudent thing is to just call him a jerkoff
Jerkoff
>nothing is going to change
It is a cheap, fully-reusable spacecraft, which will one day be capable of refueling in space and on Martian soil.
Remember how much Falcon 9 blew people's minds? Imagine another rocket like that, with that capability, to launch multiple times a week, year-round, able to autonomously land itself on a tiny target, with people onboard. Now take all these capabilities Falcon9 has as an orbital rocket, and imagine if it instead of being just an orbital rocket it was an INTERPLANETARY rocket.
That's Starship. The world is going to change
And 50 years to build it with competitive successful launch rates.
Chinks have plans for the F35 and for pretty much all the best microchip tech in the world through spyshit, it's just that they are too moronic and corrupt to copy it up to the level of Quality that the West makes it.
Chinks cant copy Merlin of raptor engines, the most important parts of the succes of spaceX
Since this is being developed by a private company is it even exclusive to the US? Given how Elon acts I have a hard time believing he'd really be opposed to launching shit for China as well, especially since Tesla and China already have special agreements in place to do business.
It's exclusive to the US based on US export laws.
Fair point, I know how military procurement works but I don't really know shit about private space industry and how it works.
If you want government contracts, you play by government rules. SpaceX might be allowed to launch shit for China, but China isn't getting its hands on the rocket tech and SpaceX isn't launching anything the USA doesn't want it to launch unless they want to get long-dicked by the US gov.
Imagine crane breaking. They better have rope ladder on board.
homie it's the Moon; they ain't falling that hard
it's a long jump back up there
that could happen. there are several companies that are supposed to be looking at orbital cleanup solutions
>there are several companies that are supposed to be looking at orbital cleanup solutions
I just don't know if that would be possible during wartime. Not to mention how dangerous it would be to be launching rockets into an orbit littered with the debris from hundreds of destroyed satellites. It would just be so disappointing if humanity's journey to the stars was delayed for another hundred years because the chinks got mad at the US's space presence and decided to frick us all.
Just use lasers lmao
And how long do you think that would take to destroy the majority of debris that's the size of a tiny screw, that despite its size, can still put a hole through a spaceship because of its speed? Not to mention how I'm sure there's a way a computer could calculate the exact number and specific number of satellites to destroy to start a chain reaction of the debris from destroyed satellites colliding with other satellites, creating more debris, etc etc.
But is that something you could realistically see a country doing, regardless of how important it was to clear up space? There is such a stigma of nuclear weapons that even using them for a useful purpose would likely still be frowned upon and/or the sheer red tape of getting such a project going would take decades.
kessler syndrome isn't a real thing and satellites fall out of the sky pretty fast if you don't maintain them.
>how long do you think that would take to destroy the majority of debris that's the size of a tiny screw
One small casaba blast will clear a cone over 10km deep and 16km wide at the base of anything made of aluminum that's 5mm thick or equivalent. The surviving debris will experience a huge velocity change, lowering and de-circularizing their orbits.
>is that something you could realistically see a country doing
If it's that or no access to space, it's an easy choice in wartime.
If it got that bad, you'd start popping casaba howitzers in orbit over Point Nemo in the Pacific to ablate and deorbit debris en masse. You could create safe launch corridors at a few set inclinations pretty quickly this way.
>casaba howitzers
>Nuclear shaped charge
The story of how they were created is pretty funny too.
Back in the Cold War, US scientists had just finished designing a new space propulsion system that vaporized heavy metals with shaped nuclear blasts when someone said "Hey, made sure the spread is wide enough to cover the ablative pusher plate, otherwise it would punch right through those...twelve feet...of...steel......oh shit."
And that's why Project Orion is still classified.
alternatively "Hey, if we just tried to push a plate with no ship attached to it, how fast could we make its debris go?"
.05 c or thereabouts
>pic very much related
orion is such a hardcore design. Definitely have to try out with solar system industrialization. Once soiboys and other veganas get used to the distances involved blowing random nooks up in some far corner for testing purposes is a big nothingburger barely visible only with the best telescopes
there's two cranes in the proposed design
You could probably pull yourself up one of the metal wires in a spacesuit in 1/10 gravity anon.
The F-22 and the Columbia class were developed by a private companies
ITAR prevents the sale or disclosure of US based ballistic/guided missile technology to foreigners. Even a completely benign civilian orbital rocket is at its most basic still a functional ICBM, with things like turbomachine and engine material science and guidance software especially being universally useful in the development of advanced and precise LRBMs and ICBMs.
If SpaceX were to say sell information or designs for rockets to say China, they might not technically be selling China weapon, but the technological advances needed to build a Falcon rocket can be directly and seamlessly applied to building an ICBM that could not only hit say Washington, but basically anywhere else within +/- so and so many degrees inclination of it's launch site as well.
>If we wanted to put big shit in space we could have done so with multiple rockets.
You mean we could do another ISS which is to this day the most expensive object ever created.
>But we didn't
We did you stupid frick.
ISS took 30 fricking mission to build.
>because there's no reason to beyond Elon The homosexual's ego.
yeah, no reason beyond habitat building that will enable us to transfer to space age
>transfer to space age
Hahahaha. No. You're here forever.
I am, but my imaginary kids don't have to be.
ISS provides a great example point. In terms of pure mass it's about 450 tons. So the entirety of ISS would represent just 3 Starship launches. But that actually undersells it, because Starship isn't just about mass it's about volume. ISS module diameter is 14' because that's what could fit in the bay. But Starship has a fairing diameter of 30', and can be up to 72' long. Since mass needs to be in the skin mostly it's quite favorable to scaling to have things get bigger. The same 450 tons could yield far more usable habitat interior space.
Don't forget, if you're lazy, you can just use a Starship itself as the space station. It has the same interior space as the ISS.
I expect a ton of space programs to just do that because it's easier than building something in orbit.
Oh for sure, and could link a few of those together. And there are those who want to do inflatable habs and all sorts of stuff. It's going to take awhile for everyone to even figure out wtf to do with this kind of capability. If I was a billionaire I'd be looking into my own private space house.
Once R&D costs are amortized it's projected that a Starship LEO launch will cost about $2 million, which is fricking incredible when you understand that right now it costs 30 times as much to launch a spacecraft 1/10th as big.
That price tag is just manageable enough that it will make space tourism utterly insufferable - Ivy League universities will send Masters research classes there, some Kardashian will throw a frickin' birthday party there and probably record a sex tape while she's at it, it'll replace climbing Everest as the midlife crisis for every dentist, lawyer and software engineer with adventurous inclinations
I like the Everest comparison a lot, actually; that no one on earth, no matter his mastery of mountaineering, had ever climbed it and lived to tell the tale until the year of our lord 1953, yet now there's a fricking seasonal selfie rush for bored upper-middle class hobbyists
Yeah and it's turned it into a trash covered mess too unfortunately. Hopefully regulators keep up, but in that at least the mass bonus, cheapness and cadence of Starship should tie in naturally in good ways, you can put stuff in low orbit and have that be fine, which means everything will naturally decay and no debris issue even in accidents. Starship would make it possible to have something even lower than ISS with continuous ion drive boost and just get refueled reasonably regularly and that'd be perfectly "affordable" by today's standards.
orbital McDonald's is much closer than you'd expect.
Hell, when I was working at a major bank they made a big deal about having an ATM in Antarctica, can easily imagine a fricking offworld Wells Fargo branch happening in the next decade
O'Neal cylinders, here we come.
>current pop. is 7.8 billion
IT'S HAPPENING!
PSYCHIC SPACE TWINKS AND ENDLESS SUPER ROBOTWAR HERE WE COME!
>"Mechs are hard countered by ATGMs!" -seething thirdies that have to build man-portable weapons instead of vehicles
>We can now put 150 tons up at a time
>Reentry vehicles need to have a lot of mass to survive
>Any vehicle we put in space would need to be dangerous both in space and on the ground if we want to drop it from orbit
>Thirdies will now have to watch as America builds 11 space mech carriers to deliver a mechanized strike force anywhere in the world at any time and it'll be complete before any of them even graduate from needing ramps
>Between the youth's meme obsession and the rise of twitter shitpost diplomacy, there is a nonzero chance that we'll have a president drop a space colony on Australia for the lulz within 100 years
MANPAM are a thing in Gundam, and they're actually pretty successful.
If you need a landing pad then you might as well ship them in on the boats you used to ferry construction materials for the landpad. The problem with frontline deployment is that you're talking about a really fancy strategic transport, and you're always better not having those in danger in the first place. You're better off using it to quickly resupply a secure staging area than trying to get it near the front.
>If you need a landing pad
You don't need a landing pad, I just can't find the right webm. Starship variants are being built for lunar deployment which is about as unprepared a landing field as you can get. There will be a mass penalty for landing gear like that, but that might not matter depending on the payload and the fact that you're only flying on a suborbital trajectory.
True, but that is for lunar gravity. More importantly though and something nobody has addressed: Once it's landed, how do you get it out of the theater?
You don't, you build charges into the engines and avionics and scuttle them. All an opposing force would get their hands on are scraps of superalloy fragments, which aren't all that useful because they only tell you what got mixed into the alloy and not how it was produced and treated to achieve its operating properties.
>All an opposing force would get their hands on are scraps of superalloy fragments
Actually that's what makes it better, it's not superalloy, it's stainless steel. Sure they customized it a bit but everyone knows how to do that unironically, stainless steel is probably the best studied stuff on the planet.
I meant fragments of the engines
Lunar gravity is .15g. It makes those unimproved landing sites feasible. Pull that shit in 1g and you're done.
The best thing would be to encase a payload in a durable TPS, give it rudimentary steering via grid fins and just yeet it with the booster. No return needed.
>find calm stretch of sea
>drop VLS raft onto it
>fire missiles
>???
>profit
Tiny scattered islands over a distance of thousands of miles" isn't fricking "front line" anon, particularly since trajectory is pretty arbitrary. Almost nobody, including the US, would be able to reliably take out arbitrarily timed reentry vehicles coming in somewhere over the Pacific while the ships themselves were actively engaged in combat. Sufficient Aegis vessels and SM3s would have the theoretical range of coverage, but it's still a hard problem. And amusing a Starship launch could be significantly cheaper than an interceptor missile lol.
Just as with regular ballistic defense the physics here tends to favor the one sending stuff down vs the one try to shoot up. It's easy and cheap to throw out a ton of decoys along with the actual payload.
That said
I don't think even if we're being optimistic that this is a capability that'd be ready in time. If a fight doesn't happen by 2030 China's window probably will have closed.
At least we can finally get rid of Australia.
This is how it was BEFORE Starship (with just the Falcon 9 workhorse totally usurping Soyuz), and now the US is looking to multiply its annual payload seven to tenfold.
It's an objective, massive advantage that would take decades to surmount, so you're going to see a lot of seething and posthoc rationalization shitting on it. You can see that Russia had that very strong early start, and Russia had some success while the Space Shuttle debacle was floundering, and China is making its first real moves (and utterly usurping the venerable Russian space program that's quickly going extinct)
But they've just been absolutely left in the fricking dust by America, and the exponential curve HASN'T started yet
Jesus Christ, we really are on the verge of something great.
Always have been. It’s called “America”
Unironically this. America will bring life and civilization to the universe. Brings a tear to my eye.
P.S. there's a massive, obvious and annoying counternarrative for the shills to latch onto - we're going back to the moon just 18 months from now, for the first time since 1972, so naturally a Black person and a woman are shoehorned in this time. And because Starship is so much cheaper and more efficient than the ancient beautiful Nazi mega-rocket was, after that landing there will be an expedition every year indefinitely, with construction of a permanently inhabited Antarctic-style research facility beginning in 2029
It's the kind of flex the NAFO homosexual types would love, but it's still a flex.
Everyone in your picrel has a good jawline.
Astronauts are chads, it's a job requirement.
>ancient beautiful Nazi mega-rocket was,
most infuriating part is that literally hitler design was cheaper then the shuttle dud
>a fricking leaf
I guess he's here for diversity quota of dog frickers or Canada is the actual leader of the free world in the shadows
They build the... the... Canadaarm. I fricking hate it so much it's unreal. That's why they get a seat the table with NASA.
I think they built that treadmill too iirc
valuable contributions
Treadmill is useless now that we know doing strength training is far and away more useful. Not sure if they built that deadlift machine tho.
This undersells it as well, because a lot of the "payloads" there were tiny. China likes to claim lots of payloads but then check the MASS totals vs the US.
We are on the verge of greatness, we're THIS close.
Would be a shame if something happened to Musk or ongoing USA's loss of civil belonging for half of population...
It's a fun race against time really.
I find the most plausible thing about The Expanse the idea that five minutes after the planet becomes inhabited, Martians are going to start hating Earth for being full of lazy aimless Black folk
Kim Stanley Robinson really needs his ass kicked for his "Mars must take in 5% of its population per annum in Earth refugees" idea though
Yeah, I hope we get out of it with something that is beneficial to humanity as a whole.
You gays should see what things were like in the 20th century
ding ding ding. Someone wrote a new book re-examining the math on the High Frontier plan using Starship recently. tl;dr is it's actually cheaper to build colonies in LEO or MEO initially to take advantage of Earth's industrial base, then boost them to their final orbits.
Blue Origin is the most disappointing space company because by all means with that billion dollar endowment and Silicon Valley mentality, they should be the Coca-Cola or the Sega or the Vegeta to SpaceX, but they just aren't
At least Rocketlab puts in some effort, and while I think they got too wrapped up in memetech Relativity seems promising.
The US is about to be in the first-mover position for space colonization with no competitors even remotely close to being able to replicate the feat. If at least one can be established that becomes self-sustaining and have a growing population, it will permanently shape not just human civilization but the entire human species going forward.
>Blue Origin
They still don't have an LEO capable rocket right? Just a glorified sounding rocket for rich people to ride on?
I like the concept but I do hope they don't do the whole huge open air space part of those cylinders, there is no need for such a large vulnerable cylinder to hold gases at all, it should be a small ceiling 3m tall at the highest, with most of the extra air compressed into many smaller storage tanks protected against leaks by being within a secondary lower pressure environment that pumps any microfracture leaks back in.
but Elon is an enlightened centrist who thinks letting ukrainians use starlink on the front lines could lead to WWIII
why would he allow the military to launch weaponized payloads into orbit
Falcon Heavy launches classified US military payloads right now
And it's a big reason Elon gets a lot of leeway to be as much of a shitposting prick as he wants, because reality, rubber to the road, he does a job for $90 million that ten years ago Boeing/Lockheed was doing for $440 million
Just wait till USSF-52
He won't have a fricking say because he doesn't actually run that shit. He's just out there for stock prices. He talks rich people out of money.
>but Elon is an enlightened centrist who thinks letting ukrainians use starlink on the front lines could lead to WWIII
The US military awarding SpaceX contracts is far different from Ukraine attaching Starlink terminals to drones to use them as weapons in violation of US export laws.
is it even possible to shoot down a high-orbit satellite?
Low-orbit satellites are one thing, but a satellite 20k+ miles from earth?
The only limit is delta-v, and you don't need a lot of destructive power to take out a satellite.
>only limit
I suspect at some point along side the proliferation of ASAT weapons, military satellites will include counter-measures and maybe active defense system such as lasers, rockets or even mines especially as it become cheaper to send bigger satellites due to cheaper launchers and less need to be as efficient with the limited weight/volume. Warfare isn't that stade yet, but I feel you can easily make it impossible to destroy a satellite in high orbit without fricking up the whole orbit with debris due to need a whole volley and/or decoys which might still be attractive to a nation that couldn't compete in space anyway.
The distance doesn't make any real difference anon, besides needing a higher energy boost but if the only weight is a missile lots of stuff could supply that. If you can get a sat up there you can get a missile up there.
>Chinamen are making direct copy
Even soviets didnt copy Shuttle entirely.
The "just copy it lol" thing is overrated; the milestones of the Chinese space program thus far have been a Sputnik (1957) clone they launched in 1970, a Soyuz (1967) clone they launched in 2003, a Salyut (1971) clone they launched in 2011, and last year they put the finishing touches on a clone of Mir (1986)
They're only implessive in the sense that there's no fourth country on earth that has its own manned space program, although next year India will enter the exclusive club when Gaganyaan makes its manned orbit
>Gaganyaan
imagine the smell
Manned space programs are overrated in the first place. With AI and robotic becoming better, there is nothing apart from dick waving that's better with sending a man instead of a machine for now at least.
>Even soviets didnt copy Shuttle entirely
This is true. The Buran was very different internally than the shuttle, but it's energia launch rocket was more impressive.
do you think Musk could be forced out of any operational role in SpaceX? he's becoming a liability, and our national defense can't be contingent on his current mood swings
The scale and importance of Starship is still greatly underestimated. I made a rough calculation of Starship upmass using some basic assumptions
>1 new rocket [superheavy+starship] is added to the fleet per month.
>Each rocket can get 150 tonnes to LEO per launch
>Each rocket will fly once per day
After 3 flights, you've launched 450 tonnes, which is more than the 420 tonne ISS [which took more than 40 flights to assemble!]
After 6 months, Starships have sent mass up equal to a US supercarrier [100,000 tonnes]
Before 4 years, Starships have sent more than the total US Navy tonnage [4,635,628 tonnes]
The scale and economies of Starship are so ridiculous that even the science fiction will seem hilariously quaint.
The Nostromo (from Alien, set in the year 2122) only masses 63,000 tonnes, so Starships could launch the equivalent mass just a few months into operations.
The Donnager (a Martian battleship in The Expanse, set around the year 2350) is only 250,000 tonnes, so the equivalent mass could be launched by Starships in under a year.
now do the calculation assuming Starship takes off from Mars lol
That’s actually not much because the current us defense budget is about 800bn/year. Spending a few more hundred billion to get millions of tonnes of infrastructure in orbit would give the US a decisive head start in claiming the solar system
We need bigger starship, get to the 100m diameter. Everything or nothing.
at musk's very liberal estimate of costs, at 2 million per, that's 70 billion in launch costs over 4 years. using a more conservative estimate of 10 million per, that's 352 billion.
how much is the total value of the rocket launch industry today?
closest analogue i can think of (if it works as advertised) is building liberty class cargo ships during WW2 and the war altering effects it had.
This is same but in regards to legit industrializing space. Kind of a bummer though they could not get the hand welding down to mass construct starship hulls in old ship dockyards as first fantasized in the beginning. Nothing drives the point more home to normies seeing them getting shitted out like welfare babies from the ghetto
If anyone is curious on more specifics here's the Starship User's Guide v1:
>https://www.spacex.com/media/starship_users_guide_v1.pdf
subject to change of course, but the idea is to help give possible customers an idea of potential payload options.
while I like the apollo tier advancement the program offers it first needs to actually complete a full orbit cycle as well as find a way to be able to launch more then two stacks per year since FAA boomers are used to Senate Launch System style incredibly fast paced rush hours workloads
its happening
Soon, it can be built (in orbit)
What if it SPLODES? How much would it set back development and NASA plans for Artemis?
Its meant to explode when it hits ocean, the goal is to manufacture new one every week. Problem would be if they continuously keep malfunctioning like N1.
it's not part of artemis until December 2025 (assuming nasa doesn't set themselves back) and even then half of its features don't need to work. it doesn't need to be able to reenter earth atmosphere and the booster doesn't need to be reusable.
so... probably not at all
Let me explain to you some details of Starship HLS contract
1) Before delivering Starship HLS for Artemis 3, SpaceX has to perform UNMANNED landing test of its Starship HLS system on the Moon.
2) Starship HLS cannot get to the Moon without refueling. And it needs fuel from atleast 4 Starship Tankers for it to have enough fuel that it could reach the Moon.
3) But there is this thing called BOIL OFF of methane, so you can't have Starship HLS be waiting for Starship Tankers in orbit. No, you need to accumulate fuel in a separate Starship variant called Starship Fuel Depot.
4) So only to get their Unmanned Landing demonstration of Starship HLS to the Moon and perform that preview landing - SpaceX need to launch Starship Depot into orbit and have 4 Starship Tankers dock with it. For high Starship Tanker cadency launches they need to have reuse ready for all tankers, of both tankers themselves and superheavy stages. Without high cadency of Tanker launches they would be fueling depot veeeery veeeery slowly.
5) This all should happen before 2025.
So far we haven't seen Starship HLS lander, we haven't seen Starship Tanker, we haven't seen Starship Depot. None of it got to orbit. And those things are essential for getting unmanned Starship HLS demonstration mission to the Moon and then to get Starship HLS for Artemis 3.
>3) But there is this thing called BOIL OFF of methane, so you can't have Starship HLS be waiting for Starship Tankers in orbit
Yes you can.
Put cryogenic liquefier in Starship and cool and luquify evaporated cryogenic fuel back to tanks so it can be stored indefinitely. BTW it's must have part of Starhip mission to Mars as it need to store fuel fir months during it's Mars trip.
You need enormous radiator panels for any cooling, and those things are not very ... conducive for reuse, because they are VERY big and when you want to get back into the atmosphere, you have to deal with them somehow. And by deal i mean - dispose of them. Look at the big radiator panels on ISS.
Same is true about solar panels - which is why you don't see Elon Musk show solar panels on CIG of his reusable Starships anymore, he doesn't know where to fit them so they would be expanding from and retracting into. Those issues Musk simply ignores, maybe thinking that gravitational equations of leaving the Earth gravity well are most important at this stage of development, but at some point he would have to adress those questions too and then he would have to cut about two thirds of promised potential of Starship with all those sci-fi Mars trip fantasies included. Because as you said - yes, fuel would be boiling off even during the trip to Mars. But Musk wouldn't be talking about things like that to not discourage his fanatical fans who only think about engines as if its the only thing that matters in space travel.
>hurr tons of actual rocket scientists and the best more successful rocket engineers in existence haven't thought of these obvious, obvious problems my internet moron ass did in 5 minutes
Fricking moron. It's not even worth explaining to you how fricking stupid this is, you could just go read about it.
>>hurr tons of actual rocket scientists and the best more successful rocket engineers in existence haven't thought of these obvious, obvious problems my internet moron ass did in 5 minutes
They thought about it, but preffered not to tell investors and dumb cattle like you who work as free advertisers and social media influencers. You advertising SpaceX products for free, even without knowing full information about the products that they falsely advertise.
lmao at your seething tears as all your cope gets disproven by actual flight :^)
I am betting on SPLOSION.
Few of the Raptor engines will fail after 10-40 seconds of flight and the whole stack will begin to lean on the side, and at that point they will press the button and detonate this whole contraption, without it reaching orbit. It will basically be repeat of N1 launch of Soviet fiasco. Probably going to rain debrees over huge area.
How many dollars are you betting, and on which site?
>It will basically be repeat of N1 launch of Soviet fiasco
Uh huh. You do realize that they're already regularly launching a rocket with 27 engines right?
i am betting a virtual anus, its not mine, but the one i won in a thread on the other board from Anon.
>You do realize that they're already regularly launching a rocket with 27 engines right?
With much more reliable, simple and well tested Merlin engines, yes. And they haven't even done full 33 engine static fire of Raptors on Superheavy. When they tried to do static fire last them, they:
>"Team turned off 1 engine just before start & 1 stopped itself, so 31 engines fired overall.
And that is in the ideal conditions, shortest possible, without the load of Starship on top, without Max Q, without full tanks.
A static fire is far from ideal conditions. You have vibration from being held by the launch mount and splashback from the exhaust plumes on the ground for the entire duration of the engines firing instead of a short moment before liftoff. That changes the equation quite a bit.
Yeah, and guess what else we going to see on the launch - a black rain of disconnecting heat tiles falling off like leaves from the tree, but from the Starship. Because they never done proper static fire or vibration test of this shit. Hope none of those hit or destroy anything actually usefull.
Also - that static fire of 31 Raptors in February was around 50% of throttle, so it wasn't at maximum thrust. So not indicative of how things will go during the actual launch, which is why i am very leaning to SPLOSION.
And all the gays who now are optimists and believers, after the splosion are going to say "We never expected everything to be perfect, we always KNEW it was going to end like this". But for some reason you can't admit it now, before it actually happens.
>With much more reliable, simple and well tested Merlin engines, yes
So? It's a test and new, of course Merlin is "more reliable" because it's been used longer. But the issues of harmonics and plumbing and such are the same regardless of engine itself anon. This is nothing like the N1.
>And they haven't even done full 33 engine static fire of Raptors on Superheavy
Yes they did. Two didn't work. It's funny how you then ignore and don't mention
>"31 of 33 engines would have provided enough thrust to reach orbit"
Wonder why you left that part out? Hmm.
>Wonder why you left that part out? Hmm.
Because 2 not working engines can affect the trajectory of the vehicle and depending on their mode of failure, can influence the cascade effect of other engines, that might be affected by mechanical or fire hazard or simply might try to overcorrect for the loss of 2 other engines.
>Because 2 not working engines can affect the trajectory of the vehicle
No it can't. They have multiple gimbled raptors, the amount of control authority there is ludicrous, way more than they ever will need. It's inherent in building something that has to do various burns in order to land and even out right hover, of course they need massive redundant control authority. The large engine numbers are needed for landing too. So they get better engine out capability as a freebie from there. For something that was pushing the limits of full cargo or higher energy trajectory it could mean losing the SH sure, but for lighter missions (and test flight is low mass on purpose) they've got lots of margin to work with.
>trust the experts
I mean, I agree with your point but that is not the winning argument you think it is.
>Starship Tanker/Depot
We have, it's S26
its not. S26 is just a barrel, but actual depot will have to have solar panels, radiators, pumps, docking node, thrusters...all kinds of shit
>What if it SPLODES?
If it does so at least a few hundred to a thousand feet above the tower then it won't matter much. If it took out the tower and ground infra that'd be painful and set things back 3-5 months.
>How much would it set back development and NASA plans for Artemis?
None. These aren't classic white elephant rolls royce hand polished things, they're designed for mass manufacture. They already have the next, improved SH booster and new vehicles ready to go. So anything that doesn't hurt the ground is data for them and they can keep right at it.
That said, they've done a LOT of testing getting to this point. Serious testing, with actual hardware flying, repeatedly. More than any rocket system before like this. F9 is the most reliable rocket period, with landing after landing. Odds of them missing something super major aren't non-existent but this isn't some rando gamble either.
I think you probably misinterpreted, think he's saying that landing on the moon and taking off again on unimproved surfaces works due to low gravity, but on Earth it'd be better in that role to just go expended. I agree, beyond that it might be better yet to have it dump a dedicated lander in space and sacrifice some cargo to have the SS be reused.
It basically boils down to what is more economic and meets the mission goal though. They may well try both.
I'm not dumb enough to believe the government released a video of the them faking space with a man obviously in the video. Guaranteed that shit was edited within the past few years.
It's a shot from a camera inside the shuttle out a window into the payload bay, the reflection is of one of the crew inside the cabin.
shouldn't you be on /x/?
Its called low frame rate camera from the 60s, made to survive harsh space conditions, it was actually recording ON FILM, not digitally but on the motherfricking tape, but zoomers from 2023 expect those retro cameras to have fps like in modern video games.
Have you done any research on the specific camera they used on this mission, or you don't even know how to do research, you probably don't even know the name of this specific space mission and instead you just going to switch to some other topic you never research father than saving some facebook boomer tier meme or webm.
hey, boring subhuman, no switching topics - untill you do research on this WEBM
and find out information about this mission and camera they used on this EVA.
Finally, a farewell to conflict. All the useful humans will be living happily in space colonies while Earthers will squabble for eternity.
boring subhuman never able to do any research and just can gishgallop poorly researched or never researched collection of boomer webms that work only to convince 70 IQ trash subhumans like himself
typical. always switching topics and gishgalloping with moving goalposts of new topics
never met a /x/-subhuman who didn't do that
So, what camera were they using? NASA publishes all their documents with PDF. Easy to find. Go on, they published schematics, timetables, specs. Do research on this and bring it to this thread without being a subhuman Black person who just switches topic to something else, that he saw in mongoloid moron Flat Earther video.
>I admit i was wrong, you won, and i had to resort to just making up shit that you said because i couldn't actually do any research
Oh, you admit that you are a mongoloid human excrement. How amusing.
>I couldn't find any info because i have IQ of an insect, so i just wanted to spam webms from my folder, because i have no actual arguments
Maybe you should just have a nice day, if you have nothing else to do.
gonna need a red circle on this one. what exactly am I supposed to be seeing?
burned pixels on camera matrix, that this low IQ subhuman cattle mascarading as human being, mistakes for "fake stars" thinking he is smarter than all of us, even though it can't entertain even the simpliest explanation
If you focus on any part of that webm, those two outlines don't actually look anything alike
What the frick is that even supposed to be showing
oh wow! look at that, it doesn't match at all.
you can't be this moronic in real life right?
He can. Look at the videos of actual flat earthers on this channel. Most of them are Black folk and a lot of them are literal psychos. Look at those videos and remember their faces devoid of intellect, and know that if you argue with flat earther online - its probably some ugly subhuman bearded creature with dirty hair in a smelly appartment full of trash and shit
aw sweet, schizo thread!
Nah, it was pretty cool until the one dude showed up. At least he's mostly posting cool videos of space shit.
Well, yeah. A good thread that attracts schizos is still a schizo thread.
if those 2 things are the same in your eyes, you have to get checked by a professional.
>look, this camera pixelated 2 tiny points of light the same way! This is proof that space isn't real!
I love you people. Creative to an absurd degree. /tg/ wishes they could come up with stuff this good.
tape? you have to tell me what I'm supposed to see in these things
Nothing is real everything is fake everything and everyone is out to get me and me only I am the main character of this consciousness
>countless millions spent on spacesuit design
>still have to fumble around like a big baby with zero fine motor control
Pressurized powered exosuits when?
Wanna know the worst part? The gloves have a tendency to delaminate your fingers. Usually it's just bending the nail, but sometimes it'll rip the whole nail off.
>he's trying to socially shame me on an anonymous Mongolian throat-singing forum! This is FURTHER proof that space doesn't exist!
I love it. Keep going!
What's this one supposed to prove?
That one is just some bog standard flat earthers don't understand how horizons work stuff.
oh no the blanky was not held in a steel cage!! how could it stay on the module with all the strong winds on the moon???
you do realise the thing had to be extra light right?
not nearly as creative. I'm disappointed. Did you already post all your high quality "proof"?
weird how there are no mountains in the background. Surely on a flat earth you'd be able to see Mt Fuji behind those fishing trawlers, right? Unless you're saying Japan doesn't exist either...
>be astronaut
>be on ISS
>your shirt that is made out of stiff plastic to prevent static electricity discharge gets wrinkled outwards because it is few numbers bigger
>some mentally ill subhuman who is waiting just for that moment where the apparently several million people strong industry of space cover-up slips up saves it, clips it, draws an arrow in MSPaint, saves it as a webm and is now actively dismantling this entire industry in a thread about SpaceX on a mongolian native fish breeding technique discussion website
>mfw I lost my job in the space cover-up industry
>it's the same three dozen webms from the last ten years
I see you ever year or so, and you never once have tried to actually "debunk" this video from Skylab, but let's try again, shall we?
obviously CGI to remove the wires and harness
based Kubrick did it all by himself
huh I never realized skylab was so big. I'd only seen pictures from the outside with no sense of scale. I figured it was about ISS module sized inside, maybe a little bigger
It was launched from the Saturn 5, that's why it was so big. It's meters of diameter wider than the ISS as a result. With Starship you'll see a return to stations of this magnitude.
It was built out of an S-IVB, the third stage of the Saturn V. Them b***hes was big.
in 10 to 20 years you'll be able to go to a station like that.
well not you, you're too poor but still.
ayyy a webm I made approximately 500 years ago
When your higher up the horizon gets further away.
Also those boats aren't over the horizon yet. You'd need a much much larger object than a boat to be able to watch it go over at head height.
We just call that "going over the horizon" because "ship going away and disappearing" seems like that's what it would be to your average person standing there. The ship *first* disappears because it gets too small for the eye to see. If you kept that camera on it to would eventually slip over the horizon.
And yet no one has recorded this earth-shaking evidence. Strange.
So what happens when Artemis 2, 3 and 4 launch? Will you hang from the nearest tree or what?
Incorrect, that isn't how gravity simulators function. Further, the orientation and size for this is impossible. Such a plane does not exist at the time when this video was captured.
Here is some more video footage for you to sour over.
Seems pretty easy to test given how powerful cameras have gotten.
No doubt if you did test it and you got the obvious results, you'd just push you head further into the sand and say that the camera is compromised by goverment controlled tech or something.
>why lie to people for so long?
kek, this is my favorite part. It can't be that people are wrong and repeat a oversimplified explanation, it's a grand conspiracy and you alone are galaxy brained enough to see through.
The horizon is further away than you think it is.
My apologies, would "grouse" have been simpler for your ESL brain to decipher?
I want pictures of Japan taken from the coast of California. Please provide this simple evidence and I will concede that the earth is indeed flat.
>spoiler alert: it has always been 10-20 years away
What? No it wasn't?
Launch prices were too high for any kind of tourism or private enterprise, Ariane 5 cost something like 120 million per launch for 17 tons I think, SpaceX will lift 170 tons for less than 10 million in few years.
>literally nothing will happen because its fake
Aha, so where does the tube go?
Why did some random billionaire join in on the lie and spent hundreds of billions?
How do ICBMs work?
How does your phone work?
Also, that Frenchmans helmet filled with drinking water, you mouthbreathing moron.
Why would they expose themselves like that?
>so why did you gays tell us we could see boats disappearing over the horizon for so long?
I want to know who "we gays" are. Are we scientists? Are we the government? Are we middle school science teachers? What maniacal group is behind this ubiquitous subterfuge?
That boat isn't even a kilometer away lmao
Oh I see you gave up
>spoiler alert: it has always been 10-20 years away
no it wasn't.
you need a cheap and reliable heavy lifter to do it. there wasn't one until Starship.
>thread suddenly spammed with schizo crap to slide it
Uh oh, vatniks and changs woke up and they're NERVOUS.
No, not pictures of England from France. I said Japan from Cali. Come on, it's easy. I wanna see Fuji.
>"NO YOU'RE THE ESL!"
You know the drill, hand, power outlet, and passport. Let's get this over with.
Ah yes, the buzzword that just means "white people". What a terrifying collection of enemies.
I deny that that ship is over three miles away from the camera.
No, I mean it should be pretty easy for a flat earther group to get a ship that is rated to sail out to where the horizon supposedly is at sea level, just under three miles, a camera capable of viewing ship sized objects out to 6 miles, and film the ship heading directly away from shore until it passes 4 miles out.
Are you moronic? Richard Garriott went to space as a commercial passenger in 2008.
oh, it is a vatBlack person, ofc
go back to your FSB/IRA asset, subhuman
>go to Lake Minnewanka in Alberta
>point camera at opposite shore roughly four miles away
>lower camera from eye level to shore level
>far shore disappears
>tour boat near the far shore disappears
>trees on the far shore become visibly shorter
But I don't get it, I thought the curve wasn't real? Is the water in Lake Minnewanka convex? But water always finds its level....flatbros whats happening?!?!?!
this is what Dover looks like from a boat 8 miles away.
boulogne sur mer is 30 miles from dover...
whoever took your picture must have the best zoom on the planet
He isn't the only one, moron. Maezawa and Hirano have both been to the ISS as tourists. Then there are the people who were in ISP4.
I accept your concession for being a turdworlder and feel sorry for your lots.
>things don't disappear below the horizon
>but when they do they actually don't
Do you not see what you're doing?
>31 miles from Boulogne to the white cliffs
>it's actually 28 miles from the coast of Boulogne to the cliffs, 31 miles and you've placed the entire city between yourself and the cliffs and the picture is very clearly taken from right on the coast of the channel
>this completely changes the math meaning fifty feet of the cliffs would be visible above the horizon assuming the viewer height is a real number and not just pulled out of a hat like the distance was
Also the break wall in Boulogne doesn't look anything like the one in that picture meaning it likely wasn't taken in Boulogne and I'd bet you a dollar it wasn't taken anywhere on the French coast or anywhere else that the white cliffs of dover would be visible from
shitskins can't cope with western technological successes
>shitskins can't cope with western technological successes
it would appear NAFO jannies can't /k/ope with some webms
based jannies
mental illness needs to be curb stomped at every point
now, vatnik, go leave, be among your mental peers and vatBlack person glowies
>now, vatnik, go leave, be among your mental peers and vatBlack person glowies
beg me
>NAFO boogeyman
yikes!
>yikes!
Not really surprised its a fricking frogposter nofuns homosexual.
this is by far my favorite ban reason
Ironic shitposting is still shitposting.
mfw
lol you're too new to get the reference. Hate to see it.
>Hate to see it.
concern trolling
very cool
Do you just have a list of naughty no-no debate tactics to accuse your opponents with?
May I see it?
>he regards concern trolling as a debate tactic
sad really
reported for ironic shitposting
>Thread shitting at absolute state of russian and chinese space programs and anons discussing glowie shit getting sent to orbit.
>Flatschitzo arrives to shit up the thread.
Curious. Actually it really makes you think.
Only thing im worried is a bunch of space colonist homosexuals declaring independence and dropping colonies on earth and destroying Australia in the process (thats actually a good thing)
That is a very specific event you are afraid/hope of/for, anon.
Very bizarre thread
would you let her give you a piggyback?
man, this image is so old now. i should really draw something fresh for the new launch...
That's the weirdest fricking scuba suit I've ever seen.