>god wills it to launch on 4/20
>He is telling us we live in a clown time line
>rods from god must be pursued for the memes
>B-52 confirmed for Mars
Prop loading in progress. Official stream take 2, going live soon.
Hopefully a show to enjoy this time around. Debate military implications of $50/kg to LEO (ultimate AspirationalElonTarget™ $10/kg, probably never). Regret this didn't happen 50 years ago when things wouldn't be all computerized and unfun.
multistream for those who want to see something before spacex goes live:
>https://multistream.co/p/EkPzIhIQYSv/_Starship_and_Super_Heavy_Starship_and_Super_Heavy_Integrated_Test_Flight
possibility of irritating commentary on some streams
-00h:33m:00s to go till launch
The computerised part lets you watch it online in high def easily moron.
Technology is fun, you're just so dumb and poor you can't recognise the wonders of high technology, it's all just blackbox to you.
Oh for sure, I fricking love that. Purely from a /k/ perspective though any space warfare at this point will have essentially zero human element, it'll all be drone smart munitions and AI decided lasers etc. There was a brief window the in the 70s/80s, maybe early 90s, where in principle we could have had a major space presence via evolutions of Apollo and concepts like sea dragon, but didn't yet have the computer tech to negate major need for human involvement if there was any combat.
Still cool as frick and that it's NOT government is its own special awesome, but it'll be a different kind of military implication than the old school scifi stuff which we'll never see IRL.
....for now.....
rolling for explosions
I mean, the main director is basically NASA and most of the engineers are from NASA.
But yeah having external funding and using social media to help fund it is pretty neat. It means it won't get bogged down in socialistic policy project killing funding stalls.
They tried with ecological concern stalling but it hasn't worked.
>I mean, the main director is basically NASA and most of the engineers are from NASA.
Uh, no? But whatever.
>But yeah having external funding and using social media to help fund it is pretty neat.
lol wut. Funding is all self-funding from F9 profits, private rich people (obviously including Elon), and funds mostly, I know since I have some. You're correct that government BS is minimized but not because of social media shittery.
>They tried with ecological concern stalling but it hasn't worked.
Government actually is pretty serious about this and moved it along well. For better and for worse the same environmental reviews apply to everything in America, which of course is part of the issue we have with building things in some cases, but not like they were singled out.
Look up Gwynne Shotwell
Yes, public funding.
They weren't they took an absurd amount of time for literal non issues like wildlife viewing platforms lmao.
>Look up Gwynne Shotwell
>Chrysler Corporation
>Aerospace Corporation
>Microsm Inc
>SpaceX (2002 onward)
Uh, have you?
>public funding
Sure if you consider literally every single private company in America to have "public funding" then yeah.
>They weren't they took an absurd amount of time for literal non issues like wildlife viewing platforms lmao.
based moron kid
Look her up a bit more anon. Specifically her ties to NASA.
Private funding, but public through launches.
Yeah shut the frick up, literally nothing mattered in the end and we've had to wait over a year because of it.
Everyone in US space has "ties" to NASA in some roundabout way you fricking homosexual.
>Private funding, but public through launches.
Most of their launches are private commercial.
SpaceX stream live with cool montage of all the shit getting this far. Explosions and amazing visuals galore.
To be clear when they say "hard landing" what they mean for SH is a simulated landing, where it goes through all the motions of a landing, but out over the ocean. If it worked really well then they could consider trying the real deal next time. More likely something goes wrong and that means it won't frickup launch infrastructure. They want to do a pretty perfect simulanding before risking tower and such.
really fricking cool aspect of the stainless steel is being able to see the prop loading directly from the frost line
pontoon starships setting up anti-ship missile launchers all over the south china sea when?
T-00:6m:00
Rolling for explosion on launch
>Satan dub 6's at 6mins to go
RIP
SATAN YOU FRICKER
Official thread
T-MINUS 5 MINUTES
4 mins ahhhhh
2mins
Drone operator having fun. PROP CLOSE OUT, FULLY LOADED 10 MILLION LBS PROPELLENT, go baby go!
1minute
UPSKIRT WIGGLE T-60 SECONDS
FLIGHT TERM ARMED
catastrophic failure pls
well they have 15min hold capability so guess they get to test some of that
>t. russia
You got your wish
it made it past maxQ, stage separation having issues is a comparatively minor problem. For the first launch it went well
Eh depends on what the deal with those engines that were out from the start is.
now i feel powerful, what should i wish for next?
immediate nuclear strike on Tel'aviv, Moscow and Beijing
Clock hold fugg
SCRUB
sounds like maybe they can continue. being able to hold is a pretty cool capability
oh shit looks like they think they can clear it!
HEREEEE WE GO GOD SPEED
my sides are currently higher in orbit than the spacex rocket will ever go
>my sides are currently higher in orbit than the spacex rocket will ever go
holy seethe!
im not seething i dont care about elon musk but JESUS
from
>FRICK YEAH BOYS WE DID IT
to
>it's gone................
in 5 posts is simply artistic
But they did do it? There's no contradiction there you fricking moron. They met minimum test success condition. Then they met the next two. And then finally it went boom on the 4th or 5th. But it was expected to somewhere along the way short of a miracle of luck, even if they weren't sure exactly where.
FRICK YEAH THEY DID IT AMERICA IS BACK TO SPACE TO STAY
Uhhh why is it spinning guys
Should it be spinning like that?
exploded
>it blew up
WHAT WENT WRONG ELON BROS
Shit it’s over. Time to scrap SpaceX and go back to the space shuttle
>it blew up long after not just clearing the tower but getting through Max-Q
Great success. They'll figure it out and do better next time. Next improved booster and SS already set to go. They'll probably lose SS on reentry a few times also.
I bet you don't even build your castles in swamps just because everyone says they'll sink.
frick kind 2nd cope is this?
Yes yes anon, you're just tuning in for the first time now, you have no idea how real test programs work vs white elephants that cost billions of dollars per launch like that SLS piece of shit.
>t. Copius Maximus
>spacex will never land reuse a rocket
meh. it made liftoff and got to 2nd stage separation altitude.
>It's actually a good thing that our rocket has 60 shitzillion engines that can fail and has to do a triple corkscrew to separate the stages and exploded on its first test flight
SLS made it to the moon first try.
I do think there is some value in both methods.
Throwing shit at the wall works, as does implementing and testing miniatures, and actually being competent and covering as many bases as you can so it works using tried and tested methods.
I would be concerned if they tried landing on the moon honestly, I can forsee Elon losing four refuelling the ships in space for the first time. Also hitting the moon with like 5 rockets before managing a landing and having one tip over.
The debris would be astronomical.quite literally. So they need to transition into a far less risky approach when they actually get into space or I will be very unhappy.
Please don't be moronic anon. SpaceX has never "thrown shit at the wall", it's not "lulz randum" it's testing. It's getting real world data early, not late, in the process. It's making the process itself cheap and mass done enough to make that happen. The old way is how you end up with fricking moronic boondoggles like the Space Shuttle or SLS, where everything is done and THEN you find out whoops, there are issues and they have to bandaided over because it's so hard to change stuff at that point and it's all baked into the design. Remember, BOTH SpaceX and Boeing won contracts for commercial crew. Look at where Crew Dragon ended up vs Starliner. There's a difference with pushing the envelope and figuring things out in testing vs in production. SpaceX has never once played fast and loose with customer payloads, let alone crew. They have done more than anyone to avoid space debris and make even more efforts possible in the future.
Their way objectively is better. F9 proves it.
>SLS made it to the moon first try.
After spending like $50 billion, ignoring that this is supposed to be reused technology already done for the space shuttle. They hope to eventually, maybe, launch a single rocket per year. At even more cost:
>NASA Inspector General Paul Martin said NASA is obscuring costs that it is spending on the Artemis program and that, in aggregate, his office believes NASA will spend $93 billion from 2012 to 2025 on the Artemis program.
And this ignores all the money they trashed on Constellation and so on first in the 00s.
You can't do anything significant with that. It's a repeat of Apollo except far more pointless, since it does absolutely nothing different. Pure jobs program.
>he doesn't recognise the reference
imagine outing yourself like that
hHAHAHAHAHHA
5 engines not running, though I think a few are designed to be off
Rocket was uncontrollable spinning and didn't shut off because of it for stage separation and landing.
Honestly they should have separated even with the spin just to see what would happen.
Was a KSP check yo staging moment.
I think they did start to make an attempt but they probably kept losing engines before termination. Raptor continues to be a b***h.
Man, if only there was a case where someone tried to build a super heavy lift rocket that used 30 small engines in the first stage that you could learn from, or just use that as a reason to rethink the whole design.
>Man, if only there was a case where someone tried to build a super heavy lift rocket that used 30 small engines in the first stage that you could learn from,
There is, F9H. It has worked really well. In one core though no, N1's problems were a whole different kind. SH didn't have any of that pogo oscillation or the like.
>or just use that as a reason to rethink the whole design.
Unlike you they aren't morons who still think in 2023 that reuse is a bad idea.
well it cleared the tower and didn't explode on liftoff so i'd consider that a win for what it was trying to accomplish on it's first flight. looks like something went wrong with stage separation.
Too much spin due to some frickery.
They mentioned the whole thing had to flip to stage seperate, which seems odd to me.
yeah i was surprised by that too....like shouldn't ullage rockets be used for that rather than trying to suplex the 2nd stage off lmao
They were doing a bunch of stuff for this test (and previous tests) they wouldn't do for a real flight. The booster was already obsolete actually, it's the next one that has the refined electric/torch igniter and other improvements. They didn't have much prop on second stage either to cut dry mass and give themselves more margin for as much success as possible despite other issues (like 4 engines not working), not like they were sending it to orbit anyway. When they were doing the landing tests as well last year, they went way, way more aggressive then the real deal would be. In general they've kind been "let's push it as hard as we can, see what fails, then dial back a bit if required" since SS allows a hardware rich testing.
This one though proved out the core: they can run massive numbers of engines fine, it actually has some serious safety margin in terms of engine out capability, clears tower, structure survives Max-Q no problem. At this point it's more them figuring out details and how much raw mass they can work with. More aggressive risky stuff might let them launch more cargo if it works, if it doesn't they can dial that back and spend mass. Good place to be.
>This one though proved out the core: they can run massive numbers of engines fine
Except 5+ engines were out from the very start.
7.
it still managed to go up to stage separation with all of those out, I think that's a good sign
Nah, losing that many engines that early means you lose a shit ton of TWR early launch, where the gravity is highest, and thus you won't get the payload to orbit.
The seperation was likely now in significantly heavier atmosphere than they expected, and thus they probably didn't have the expected turn rate needed due to atmospheric forces.
>Except 5+ engines were out from the very start.
Anon they ran 29 engines, and despite 6 outages they still made it through Max Q and all the way to stage separation. 23 engines at once working like that on an orbital class heavy rocket is by far the most of any single core in history. It shows there are no significant issues in plumbing/vibrations etc, just refinement. This is a "lots of great data, specific clear problems to refine, then see how the solutions work" not "go back to drawing board".
Everyone was comparing this to N1 leading up. And yeah, nothing like N1's failures.
>nothing like N1's failures.
Yeah, it didn't kill hundreds of skilled technicians and scientists. It's nothing like the N1 failure.
>Yeah, it didn't kill hundreds of skilled technicians and scientists. It's nothing like the N1 failure.
lol what? Since when did N1 kill anyone?
nice thirdie cope and seethe lmao
I don't have to be a thirdie to get mad at all the cope I've had to read in the last year about how the "replaced raptors were totally just being checked".
This is a serious issue for space X.
I will wait for their next launch but it if happens again even with the electric style ignition at that point it's all over.
He's conflating the Nedelin disaster with the N1 failure
Which is technically untrue, but perhaps narratively fair to recall that Russia did on one glorious day manage to kill 30x as many aerospace experts as every other country on earth combined for the entire 20th and 21st centurys
Thanks anon, was wondering wtf he was on about. That was a test of their very first ICBM right? And it used some hilariously horrifying fuel too, red fuming nitric acid if I'm thinking of the one mentioned in Ignition!. Like holy frick is that shit horrifying.
Nah, their first ICBM was the LOx-fueled R-7 while this one was their first functional ICBM R-16 that used storable fuel like hydrazine, which is the reason it was so catastrophic.
wait until you learn more interesting realities about the chingchongs mighty long dong program. Imagine those boosters falling onto your roof and those orange clowds of pure death seeping engulfing you stuck under the wreckage
pig western lies and propaganda. that was celebratory smoke for parade honoring great leap forward of progress for all chinese people.
Don't you go upsetting the feelings of the Chinese people anon
All it shows are raptors are shit, and they're unreliable. The cope about them "replacing them after static fires" "so they could check for variances" turned out to be just as cope as expected.
Sounds like weapons grade copium to me
They failed to land the F9 a bunch of times before it worked too, I don't think this is copium. Very much expected that something would go wrong with this.
Oh for sure I don't think this was a catastrophic failure, but people portraying it as successful until MECO/stage sep are also coping hard. The huge amount of engines out mean that even if stage sep had worked the second stage would've been nowhere near where it needed to be to make orbit if it had been a real launch. Whatever caused all those engines to cut out could be a major issue like the N1's vibrational issues that ended up killing that rocket
>but people portraying it as successful until MECO/stage sep are also coping hard
No, they aren't. The "it's a success so long as it clears the tower by 1000'" thing was 100% serious anon. Losing the ground infra would have been really sucky, that'd set the program back by 4-6 months at least. After that, failing to make it to Max-Q, let alone through it, would have pointed to much more serious core structural issues, also very bad given this is a novel construction however well humanity knows stainless steel.
Like, would it have been nice if everything went perfectly and both SH and SS came down in the ocean right where they were planned to? Sure. But this was an unironically really successful test. A lot of people just can't get out of the neo-Old Space mindset where hardware is expensive and explosions were always bad (I say "neo" because if we REALLY go back to the beginnings government rocket programs, and jet programs for that matter, had plenty of hard failures and risk taking).
If they wanted a "success after they cleared the launch tower" they would have just stapled a weight payload on the top and not actual starship.
>If they wanted a "success after they cleared the launch tower" they would have just stapled a weight payload on the top and not actual starship.
Are your moronic? That wouldn't have had the right aerodynamics or loads at all, no tested full prop load, and would have cost more. Again, you're in the mindset that we're looking at lots of money here. SS is cheap. They could certainly hope for the most just like they have all along, but been happy to get to any number of points with it all being gravy after that. That's how real hardware rich test programs work in everything. If you're just ensuring everything is perfect right off the bat you're missing the entire fricking point.
>SS is cheap.
we don't actually know that
>we don't actually know that
Yes we do. That's how they're able to just pump them out and afford to toss them at will, like they literally have been. Stainless steel is super cheap, this is nothing like carbon fiber. The raptors are mass produced and they just massive cut complexity and simplified them, and SS only has 6 total. Even the fuel is cheap, LOX and methane in fricking texas is nada, whereas RP1 is actually pretty pricey.
SH is where most of the raw cost in this stack is, so that's the one they're going to want to get recovering before they can make a profit on it. A future theoretical SS that is human rated would undoubtedly be much much more expensive, but that'd only come after years and hundreds of cargo launches.
I know right? Some of it I think is people only tuning in for the first time. Some of it is just people from other countries hoping against hope that THIS time somehow SpaceX dies, without realizing they've setup their entire structure to rapidly iterate and be fine with calculated but aggressive failures.
It's just bizarre that this is an argument because Falcon 1 blew up three times and then worked
Falcon 9 Booster blew up seven times and then worked
Starship blew up four times and then worked (okay, the fifth attempt was a fiery but mostly peaceful landing, huge success)
We're now on Starship Booster explosion number 1 (one) numero uno, how the frick do people have so little memory or view of pattern and procedure to think this is a crisis?
I'm not saying it's a crisis anon, I just think calling it an unqualified success because it cleared the tower and made it through max q is copium. The test went better than it could've but 20% of the engines failing at launch is a concern. I don't know how you can take issue with that.
Alright Elon you can stop coping.
>someone argues competently
>bully them for putting effort into something
>Starship blew up four times and then worked
?
I'll concede your overall point, but this is off. You can't say it's 'worked' if it hasn't done its job yet.
After the 2021 tests Spacex seems confident that the ship itself is ironed out, although obviously getting it to orbit is a whole other can of worms
>I'll concede your overall point, but this is off. You can't say it's 'worked' if it hasn't done its job yet.
nta but SS worked as far as 100% of their atmospheric testing program goals, and everything it could have possibly been asked to do (can't test reentry obviously without actually going to orbital velocities/heights and doing it). It ran, it flew, it performed the most challenging and difficult parts of its flight envelope, and then pulled off an extremely aggressive landing on target. It definitely worked, that's why they moved on after but not before. It did enough they could feel real confidence that they wouldn't be wasting their time, and that it could get to space if not return. Remember, SH recovered + SS expended would actually be GudEnuf to get going with for payloads like Starlink.
Obviously that didn't deal with the final last component of full recovery, but as a test project it did everything.
>SS worked as far as 100% of their atmospheric testing program goals
>1 engine failed to relight on SN15
>reflight program cancelled
>supersonic flight program cancelled
ok anon
Yes. They're knocking out every major milestone, small problems can be solved later.
>small problems
"small" problems
so you really just don't know how any of this works do you
do "spaceflight enthusiasts" really
You posted the exact same thing about Falcon 9 just 15 years ago lol.
you people have one argument ever and it's making things up that people never said about falcon 9
i'm half convinced half of the people talking about rockets online are just eric berger meatpuppets at this point because of just how much everyone repeats the same trite shit
no they certainly did say the exact shit they're saying now, and then everyone promptly held their fricking tongue once it turned out falcon 9 first stage re-use was going to work.
just as you will when starship becomes fully operational, then you'll just pretend you never said any of the dumb shit you said here and move the goalpost again.
It's a hilarious bit of cope on their part really, transparently they haven't really thought it through. Like, so they're saying that actually ULA and Arianespace and so on all knew all along that landing and reuse would work and be wildly successful and Falcon 9 would become the most reliable economic rocket ever and eat their lunch, and then somehow they decided not to bother to do anything about it themselves or compete because... uh...? I mean even if there wasn't ample written records from the time period and we didn't live through it and remember just fine, it still just means they're fricking morons. Their claim is literally that they knew SpaceX was 100% correct all along, but then they just coasted along and ignored it anyway? And this proves they're smart?
Stop being a little b***h. SN15 is not current Starship. We know Starship can land. We know it can withstand max Q. They have accomplished their goals so far.
>We know it can take off. We know it can land. They have accomplished their goals so far.
Is "rocket blows up 5 times in a row" really a viable development process?
It turns out it is when you slap together a new rocket out of barn metal every month and in all seriousness Boeing and Lockheed had just been fricking with us to grift money for 60 years with all of their "high precision expertise"
>SpaceX is the PSA of rocket companies
>Is "rocket blows up 5 times in a row" really a viable development process?
Yes? 7 times even. F9 is the most economic and reliable rocket in history now, most consecutive ever successful launches by a wide margin. They also more than doubled the payload from v1 to the final current version, which is fricking wild in rocketry by itself.
>build and launch 7 cheap shitty rockets for the price of thoroughly testing 1 expensive rocket
>get 7 times the real world data
>can now build 7 cheap but not shitty rockets for every 1 your thorough competitors build
>>can now build 7 cheap but not shitty rockets for every 1 your thorough competitors build
>getting an entire 1 rocket launch per 7 cheap ones
God American tax payers wish.
>SLS estimated cost per launch:
>$2-4 billion
>per launch
>https://astronomy.com/news/2022/09/by-the-numbers-the-space-launch-system-nasas-next-moon-rocket
More than the entire Starship R&D program with all testing, for a single launch. Like 12x-25x an F9H. Can only do a single launch every couple years, unless moar moneys please, then maybe they could do one per 12-18 months. This is what some people still want America to focus on and then whine about SpaceX.
SLS is actually doing high technology testing for significantly more difficult and unproven goals though, since most of the cost of said testing is not in mass manufacture but testing and upgrading with state of the art stuff, it's not the same thing since they're doing so much more than slapping tubes and engines together.
Ok wait so this was actually pretty good sarcasm, you got me anon. Leaving original reaction below:
>SLS is actually doing high technology testing for significantly more difficult and unproven goals though
Good one. It's literally the 100% polar opposite: SLS entire design argument was NOT doing anything innovative, difficult, or unproven. The whole theoretical point of it was to just reuse the Space Shuttle engines and boosters to speed up development and let it get into space by like 2016 or something! It's accomplishing nothing new at all. Vs Starship having actual mass production, the first ever flying production full flow staged combustion engine, etc.
>upgrading with state of the art stuff, it's not the same thing since they're doing so much more than slapping tubes and engines together.
waiitt a second...
it is literally impossible to get through the titanium craniums of muskivite drones and deliver a realistic perspective or understanding on any matters related to the aerospace industry. dont bother trying.
>moron has to mention elon musk when nobody else has
>everyone else is obsessed with elon musk
here's a response because i'm not even going to humor this with my own response
Wait are you saying it wasn't sarcasm and you were actually serious about SLS? Oh ahahahaha then you really are some seething ULA or ATK or Below Orbit gay aren't you? Embarrassing.
man, is your reading comprehension that bad or was my post that incomprehensible?
(you)2 in my post was meant as as a response to
who had to make the discussion about elon musk rather than fricking spaceflight.
>man, is your reading comprehension that bad or was my post that incomprehensible?
Your post was that incomprehensible then sorry anon. I wrote
not the other, and it had nothing to do with Musk, it was just because I thought the SLS thing was a joke since it's the opposite of reality and I was acknowledging it actually got me. But if it wasn't a joke than just have a nice day. You responded to two separate anons.
i did respond to two people, i responded to
because he was being moronic, and because i was too lazy to formulate my own response to his post, i used
as a response. i was really only referring
to
did we clear everything up? i really don't understand how you keep misinterpreting a style of of post that has been used a million times before where someone replies to a poster referring them to a response someone else has already made.
I may just need more coffee. I haven't worked nights in a long time once I built up enough seniority but at 1am a primary NAS shat itself which somehow fricked up a VM and I got an emergency call, but I wanted to watch the flight too. Sorry anon. Maybe the bastards will finally fund the HA I told them they needed 2.5 years ago.
it's fine sleep deprived autism-anon, patience happens to be my greatest virtue, hope you get enough sleep next time. i just fricking called in sick to watch this launch LMAO.
That was me and it was a joke anon.
You're arguing with someone else though.
S2GOT
Cost of various raw materials
vs
Cost of time/man hour wasted on decades long project that builds 1 perfect system but costs 100x more
Yes. The Space Race had worse disasters.
It's really incredible how Musky has managed to propagate a culture where your extremely expensive rocket blowing up and heavily damaging the launch pad along with it is considered a "success" because "well now we know what not to do!!!! xDxDxDxD".
YWN have a space program
The reason that SpaceX's "blow shit up and learn from it" testing philosophy works is precisely because their prototype rockets aren't "extremely expensive," at least not compared to NASA's multi-billion dollar SLS boondoggle which legitimately can't afford to fail.
Stop making me feel bad for the money pit.
To be fair nasa builds million dollar boondoggles for the jobs in the districts of the people that vote on their budget.
The levels of politics and bureaucracy that SpaceX doesn’t have to deal with are just insane.
Actually it’s not surprising that ESA is so far behind having to deal with the same issues like NASA except in 27 countries at the same time that aren’t even able to agree where they should meet up for talks
I started the thread, am pumped about Starship, and can't wait to see SLS dead at last. But I have to say, NASA, it's leadership, and yes even Boeing ironically, deserve real credit for Commercial Cargo/Crew. That very, very much was NOT an inevitability. Could easily have gone differently, and if it had then I don't think SpaceX would be in the same position now. Taxpayers absolutely won big too, we've saved a ton of money and got amazing service out of it, but it was still a brave step to push in the face of a skeptical Congress, and fed money and expertise at just the right time to really rev things up. US now has a healthy and growing market of competitive private players, with space moving firmly away, probably forever, from cost-plus bullshit into fixed contracts like normal stuff. Most of the startups now aren't going to make it through the inevitable pruning, but a few will, and players like Rocket Labs are already doing small launch successfully and now working hard towards quality medium lift (and ones that learn from F9). The USG executive in general has been doing a decent and improving job of shepherding this along, across 3 different presidents.
As much as anything the rest of the world is missing its that, a willingness to invest in developing an actual market of private companies. The US did not somehow get Congress to just naturally give up on the SLS pork program. But it'll get obsoleted naturally, the political pressure will build organically, because a vibrant private sector was nurtured and grew and has shown what's possible. EU will never get close if they don't do the same and work towards getting government out of launch beyond being a customer and regulator.
SLS will die because it has neither suits nor a tower. It's going to be 2025 and the tower still won't be done, and there will be congressional hearings into why that is, and the efficacy of switching over to Starship from SLS.
>SLS will die because it has neither suits nor a tower
Eh, I personally think it'll be the growing power of a whole new lobbying segment. Starship will usher in a lot of space development that was previously impossible, and that will create jobs in new states, and then THAT will result in new places to shovel money and new competition for it. It's not that Congress will stop pork job spending, but rather new younger reps will say "why should we spend $50b on SLS vs $50b on massive new starbases and spysats (that coincidentally have a bunch of manufacturing in MY district)" and it'll be a political fight that SLS backers (many of the most powerful of whom are old and gone or leaving soon) will lose.
Fear of rising China will also be a big kick in the ass, it's one of the very few bipartisan issues. SLS just doesn't have any real practical ROI, and won't do anything new a shiny. Building a true moon base using Starship, orbital staging point, and so on not only is new shiny but also would give the US concrete land claims on the moon and strategic advantages vs Chinese. Blah blah blah OST nobody actually thinks that piece of paper will be worth shit once actual permanent offworld colonies exist.
The pork will go to other companies. It already is (see that company that the Space Force gave over a billion dollars to that no one's heard of before because some moron got suckered by buzzwords). It'll never go to SpaceX because the only GOP Senators who care about space are the ones who see it as JOBS, but Elon doesn't work that way. And it'll never go to SpaceX through Blue states because they hate him due to his anti-union stances. Why do you think it is that NASA has done their utmost to pretend HLS doesn't exist, and Biden seemingly doesn't know the word "Tesla". Ballast has been increasingly forced to talk about SpaceX because he can't ignore that they're the sole provider of space access, and people are starting to ask why he's acting like they're non-existent. Berger straight-up called him out on it.
>The pork will go to other companies
That's what I'm saying, but that's not necessarily a problem. Pork helps grease good things too. My biggest peeve with SLS is that it's SUCH a fricking waste, huge amounts of money that gets pissed right into the ocean. I can totally accept government pork going to blue sky research on nuclear engines or building huge moon bases or space stations, like actual infrastructure stuff. Someone directs that into their district with 30% profit margins? I mean, you could say that's not ideal, but at least at the end of the day something of hard lasting value is produced. Basically I'm fine with higher quality pork helping to kill truly rancid pork.
>SpaceX
SpaceX doesn't need pork anon don't be moronic. They can and will win contracts for all this on their own merits. The huge space station and moon bases and such can only go on Starship. SpaceX will do fine on that, same as other big contractors with unique capabilities. They've earned it. The point here is that political pressures will change due to their success, new players will see new opportunities and lobby accordingly, and THAT is what will truly kill the old stuff.
Only thumb on the scale will be that DOD will continue to fund second/third providers, but I think that's ok. It's healthy for SpaceX too not to become a true monopoly. If RL or Relativity or whomever slot in against them that'll be good.
as a euro this is absolutely true, sadly i don't think the fricking morons here will ever get their heads out of their ass, my only hope is that rocket factory augsburg succeeds and becomes the same example here that spacex did in the states.
>as a euro this is absolutely true, sadly i don't think the fricking morons here will ever get their heads out of their ass, my only hope is that rocket factory augsburg succeeds and becomes the same example here that spacex did in the states.
Yeah it's too bad. I mean shit, in principle this shouldn't be an issue for the EU, you've got 500m people and tons of cash too. It's a culture problem. You need disruption but it's hard to get it. SpaceX/Rocket Lab/Relativity might eventually help you too in a roundabout way, in that if a big space industry sector develops, I think for sure that there will be european companies that also make far more use of it, do their own space stations etc, using American launch. But once they do and that industry develops, THEN there will be a very obvious market for a native private EU launch too in principle. So might take an extra decade or two but you'd get there eventually.
But while I'm unironically patriotic and some Euro stuff annoys me, I also unironically don't think the US should be the only counter to China in space. It'd be good if you guys had a solid domestic private space industry too. I'd rather the US and Nordics be arguing over some moon mine than US vs bugmen.
hard agree, i'm of one mind on both this and defense. you know it's nice and all that we can essentially coast on american defense industry and spending same as we do on the launch sector, but apart from some level of national pride, there's a practical reason we shouldn't be relying on you for either of these, it'd be better if we had those capabilities of our own. because if the US somehow fricks up or relations sour (not extremely likely but you get the point) the european union will be in deep shit trying to rush to get our own large expeditionary military, navy, proper ballistic missile defense and domestic launch capacity.
>because if the US somehow fricks up or relations sour
It's not even just that, it's that if you did more it'd genuinely help keep that from happening. Like, even the US can get stretched thin. It'd be good for both the US and the EU that, if shit should really go down in SEA, the US could focus on it 100%. We're better position geographically. But if Russia than attacked again we'd have to fight a two front war, and though sure in WW2 we made it in the end it was fricking hard, and there is no guarantee we could do it again. Nobody in history has liked to have to split their forces/attention. And that itself is a source of strain, like, you don't need
>our own large expeditionary military, navy
even, merely being able to tend to your own backyard would be a good start. Like if America was full on engaged vs China and THEN Russia had invaded Ukraine, would Europe have been able to ensure that it all went the same way? That doesn't take being able to operate on the other side of the world like America can, merely a country right on your own borders.
EU is also still a proponent on balance of a rules based order, not just pure chaotic might makes right with zero even lip service to freedom. It's definitely helpful when US and EU can present a common front when it really matters, and it'd be even better if the EU had serious hard power to back that up. That could help avoid it ever needing to be used in the first place. And particularly in space, it wouldn't only be the US dictating stuff. Ah well.
yep, sadly there's a cultural problem here really making it a drag to start getting a stronger military that can hold this flank of the earth down should things go down. what a lot of americans don't understand is how strong the anti-war/pacifist mindset became here after 2 massive world wars killing millions, then the cold war after that. a lot of dumbshits here literally pride themselves on being "not as violent" as the US, and there was this giant sense of optimism after the cold war ended that everyone could just be happy go lucky and give hugs and kisses in this big wide world of us if we just exchanges culture and created co-dependance through-trade, and while this worked IN the european union it obviously didn't fricking work on vatBlack folk and other third-worlders, THAT is the part that our populus still doesn't fricking understand, though i have seen a shift in recent years and i think we will soon finally be coming to an end of that naive era.
I mean in fairness yes, it's hard. I mean, shit, there's still a big isolationist streak in the US too, and it took the two WWs then CW to drag us out as well, after WW1 we just went right back to our shores. It can't be said that Europe hasn't done a pretty decent job of building itself up into a damn nice place by global standards. And there really was a pretty stable situation for a long time, and a lot of scars to heal.
Just that the times started changing after 2000. It's always hard to avoid fighting the last war and change long hammered home principles and culture. Some of it though may just come through literal dying of old gens, for all younger gens get criticized they're often more willing and able to react to new circumstances. No recollection of WW or even CW, and now we've got a new generation growing up with an invasion of Europe happening on their doorstep. Maybe that'll help longer term.
you hit the nail on the head actually, i'm pretty young (not too young to post here though lmao) and the vast majority of the younger population wants us to respond in force yesterday, it's the boomers constantly looking for a peaceful solution because they refuse to see that times have changed, though there are some notable exceptions to that, especially boomers who were in the military during the cold war.
there's a big schism in my country, and likely other european countries, where a large part of the population wants things to change on this and other things, but the political majority are still old people and we're basically stuck waiting another 5 or 10 years for them to die off so we can finally have a say.
>it's the boomers constantly looking for a peaceful solution because they refuse to see that times have changed
Don't ignore the perverse incentives though either. Lots of boomers made very good money off the way things were, and just want a comfy lazy retirement to enjoy/look forward to at this point. See no evil hear no evil as far as rocking the boat. It's comforting to blame it on "provocation" and imagine that "everything can go back to normal" and that nothing REALLY needs any risk or sacrifice. Motivated reasoning is something all humans can fall prey to. I mean shit, I'm sure our day will come 40 years from now if humanity still exists.
>there's a big schism in my country, and likely other european countries, where a large part of the population wants things to change on this and other things, but the political majority are still old people and we're basically stuck waiting another 5 or 10 years for them to die off so we can finally have a say.
Not like US isn't subject to a certain amount of gerontocracy too. I really hope that BOTH Republicans and Democrats work to challenge Trump OR Biden getting nominated again. This at least should be a nonpartisan issue: THEY ARE TOO FRICKING OLD. Congress as well, some are so old they can't do their basic jobs anymore. Time to pass the baton jesus.
i think the fear is that a younger political representatives will instantly start working on moronic non-issues like LGBT and other virtue signalling bullshit instead of stuff that actually matters, and that is partly my fear too, but i think that's a risk we have to take because shit is not getting better with fossils beyond their time still making decisions.
for instance there's a relatively new political party here that's very encouraging of new nuclear reactors being built to fix the energy crisis, but they also have an entire page on LGBT representation.
It's not right wing boomers, but lefty boomers that were pro commie.
There's also a large schism of people born around 1970s that were alienated by "the lies told by the government" that are just anti-US commies too.
Later than that most millenials tend to be critical of the US but not hate it, and hate Russia more due to all it's frickery. Zoomers are also a mixed bag but they like the gays so Russia bad.
Being clear, there are "right wingers" that are basically just commies but "Race realist". These are considered right wing because now right wing apparently just means racist.
But they're also commies.
>and there is no guarantee we could do it again
Right now? We wouldn't. We won WW2 for the rest of the West (and Russia) because of our ability to bury the other side in steel. We both built and moved more hardware than had ever been done before or since by several magnitudes.
We've gradually broken that system up and sold it over seas since the 60's.
luckily the SEA theathre generally requires a completely different force then figthing for europe does, sure its not nice to use up stockpiles of munitions or vehicles but most of a war against china would be the navy and airforce doing most of the fighting, i doubt an invasion of china proper would ever be considered in such a scenario unless nukes are already flying
>how the frick do people have so little memory or view of pattern and procedure to think this is a crisis?
80% of the population is absolutely useless or worse. They immediately give up upon encountering the first setback or difficulty. Whenever there's an emergency they will just stand there and look at it... Doing absolutely nothing (until they get bored, sleepy, or hungry and wander off again). In fact, they will boo and jeer at anyone attempting to do something, saying it can't be done, laughing at all failed attempts... Until that person eventually does do it, at which point they immediately switch to "It's about damned time. What took you so long? That was easy, I could have done that."
Global Thermonuclear Warfare can't happen soon enough.
Says Mr. Strelok Useful
welcome to the base model human monkey. One leg out towards something better while the other leg firmly still planted in the monkey kingdom. Self guided evolution and augmentations cant come soon enough. Weed out the degenerate trash before they can even make their first multi cell splice
Is that tower rusting already what.
Sounds like poor person cope.
This is a cope post in itself. You could not afford this.
people that know nothing about spacex think spacex is now going to go bankrupt and never launch again instead of just launching their next starship launch in a few months/half a year lmao.
No. I'm just concerned about reliability of said engines. I have no doubt starship will be able to do it's flip and seperation, but I do have legitimate concerns that it will end up landing in SEA after failing to reach orbit, and the reliability needed to do
It's not a project killer in that it's likely they will manage to get into orbit, but I am concerned that the tonnage they claim will no longer be reasonable, and thus will make things like starship to the moon unfeasible.
I just think you're celebrating a bit early. You have no idea what caused those engines to fail. It could be something minor that's fixed next test, it could be a massive core issue that kills the project. 20% of the engines failing at launch is not an insignificant issue you can handwave away.
>I just think you're celebrating a bit early. You have no idea what caused those engines to fail.
We have every idea that whatever it was didn't cause 23 other engines to fail though anon or prevent the vehicle from getting to meco. It didn't cause things to break and explode and catch fire early. Computer shut 'em down. That's just not what a catastrophic failure looks like.
>It could be something minor that's fixed next test, it could be a massive core issue that kills the project.
I'm going go right out and say no, it couldn't be, not from this. We also know they have tons of margin to work with in raptor since they've been steadily boosting chamber pressure and so on.
>20% of the engines failing at launch is not an insignificant issue you can handwave away.
In an aggressive rapid iteration test flight? Yes anon, yes it is. Or are you going to tell me that 2/3 of engines failing and a rocket smashing into the ground repeatedly isn't an issue that you can "hardware away" either? You know, like they did in their initial SS test sequence?
Sounds like the issue is trying to assign a binary success/fail to a multi-issue test.
>Sounds like the issue is trying to assign a binary success/fail to a multi-issue test.
It's more like most people just don't understand testing, partly because very few companies show it off (and in fairness for most products testing is boring). Particularly for bigger projects most companies like to keep all testing under wraps as much as possible and only present the shiny final product to the public. Tons of the public in the west has become insanely risk averse as well, to the extent of actually increasing risk because they can't tolerate anything that even appears risky, even if it's actually part of making it safer in the end.
See the same thing in weapons systems all the time as well. Remember all the people saying the F-35 was clearly doomed and should be cancelled? Or nearly every other big weapon procurement in human history before that. All of them had tons of issues in both development and that had to get ironed out in use. Kind of goes with the territory of pushing the limits. Practically nobody really remembers the Before Times (like before 1990s) anymore though.
>We have every idea that whatever it was didn't cause 23 other engines to fail though anon or prevent the vehicle from getting to meco. It didn't cause things to break and explode and catch fire early. Computer shut 'em down. That's just not what a catastrophic failure looks like.
also if you watch the feed again you'll see they actually got some of those off engines restarted again. whatever the issue was literally didn't prevent starting some right back up, inflight.
>Whatever caused all those engines to cut out could be a major issue like the N1's vibrational issues that ended up killing that rocket
go look up the 4 n1 failures. they looked nothing like this. like n1 launch #1, the pogo oscillations started ripping apart engine components at like 6 seconds, internal fire kicked off at like 25 seconds, whole thing was toast and computer going crazy by a minute. this rocket would not have made it to meco/separation if it had anything like that.
UOOOOOOOOHHHHHHH
>spends 4 billion dollars on a remake of Koyaanisqatsi
What did he mean by this?
I noticed the graphic had the starship flip 180 when it wasn't, I'm assuming it's based on acceleration telemetry and not actually onboard sensors.
Guess we will have to wait to drop tungsten rods over Russia.
>turns 360 degrees and leaves
First thing I noticed was the high tilt on the initial launch, likely caused by compensation of the failed engines. Pic rel.
The whole thing had so many spurious spurts sideways during the plume and was not accelerating like I expected it felt off, and they it started yawing and I was concerns but the speaker said it was flipping on purpose so I was like uh ok then, and then it flipped over past 180 and we knew it was all over.
All these engine failures after literally years of testing is telling me we won't get to the moon on starship.
lol this was that desperate cope graph but one of those two moronic frick competitors who still haven't launched anything to compete with f9 wasn't it
>spaceport that does not exist
oh no
>launch vehicle still being design
>no flights
oh no
Real concerns are apparently cope now. You seem overly attached to spaceX for some reason.
Yeah we’ll get to the moon on Artemis
Nah, better to use falcon.
KINO shot.
but yeah, you could see at launch some debir flying all over and took out some of the engines.
still made it up, not sure why it started to wobble and not separate. i would like to have seen it separate anyway
They flipped it for stage seperation, and ended up not having the yaw to stop the spin, possibly due to all the dead engines, and them shutting down a lot of the working ones for seperation. So it kept spinning due to said lack of yaw.
Flipping rockets was always difficult in atmosphere in my KSP launches, so I can kinda see how they'd struggle, but at the same time they're also paid to do it and I'm just a game enthusiast that uses realism mods.
So uh
the only way to get to space are expensive, purpose-built rockets, huh?
it was just a test launch, the rocket was never meant to survive. Shame it didn't manage to get to the mock landing, but spaceX didn't lose anything they didn't expect to
Every SpaceX project fails repeatedly until it succeeds - that's part of their business model to build shit fast and cheap and work out kinks on the fly.
To give a very concrete example, Falcon 9 booster retrieval failed seven consecutive times before it worked once, and after it worked once it worked over 99% of the time, and every single time it works SpaceX and its customers save $30 million, which is singlehandedly what has pushed the venerable Russian Soyuz out of business.
>which is singlehandedly what has pushed the venerable Russian Soyuz out of business.
you sure its not something else
Yes, I am. Hell, considering the influence Rogozin (used to) have in the Russian government it might even be a cart and horse origin of Russia's current homierdry.
>estimated
Not him, but Musk's "estimations" have been all over the place. We've been "one year away to full self-driving" for almost a decade.
Read the asterisk again, they estimated the inflation
Falcon 9/Dragon regularly visits the ISS now, carrying crews and cargos, with impeccable safety compared to the Shittle and at bargain prices compared to the Soyuz
>Read the asterisk again, they estimated the inflation
No, it's all estimations, and had to adjust for inflation on the estimations for the historical spacecrafts.
I refuse to call these people astronauts. They are just passengers and tourists these days.
>I refuse to call these people astronauts. They are just passengers and tourists these days.
As long as you're consistent and don't call any of the Space Shuttle people astronauts either.
You mean the Mission SpecialistTM Sponsored by Home DepotTM isn't a chad 60s test pilot? oh my
It only happened thanks to strict control from NASA and FAA, Dragon 1 could launch people in early 2010s but that would be much more dangerous ride.
soyuz literally can't compete with f9 lmao. it had a fantastic run but it's dead.
Yes, Soyuz was in a bad spot before the Slavic Slapfight Throwdown (Watch now on Pay-per-View or live updates on Twitter) was really just another nail in the coffin. For the simple reason that Western investment had no reason to prioritize Soyuz anymore.
Space X is too big to fail now and Crew Dragon could do the same job, cheaper while ending dependency on Roscosmos for launch slots and feeding into Western economies, not to mention the Strategic uncertainty of basing all your crewed spaceflight activity on a political firebrand like Russia (which, turns out, was pretty justified).
>Space X is too big to fail now and Crew Dragon could do the same job, cheaper while ending dependency on Roscosmos for launch slots and feeding into Western economies, not to mention the Strategic uncertainty of basing all your crewed spaceflight activity on a political firebrand like Russia (which, turns out, was pretty justified).
Boeing will probably manage to get their starliner one working in the end as well, so that'd be two domestic options. And plenty of much hungrier startups are iterating along well and have fundamentally better cultures and progress, which I think is a bigger predictor of success at this point than history. Rocket Lab or Relativity or someone will succeed in an F9 competitor if nothing else. Far better than Russia, and not just geopolitics but seriously look how badly everything is rotting and that's accelerating now. They've been having major incidents at ISS. At some point they're going to have more serious frickups on launch.
>Does this and the N1 prove that lots of small engines are worse idea than a few huge engines for a heavy lift rocket?
No? F9 is the most reliable vehicle ever anon. By a lot. 9x small engines. If anything this test proved that lots of small engines is a great idea, look how many it could deal with going out or not going at liftoff.
Further, it's a hard requirement for landing. I'd argue Saturn, STS, and SLS prove that a few huge engines are a bad idea, because they cost so fricking much money that they never could do much. We can't make space economic and get humanity out there without reuse. That means having lots of small engines.
>the only way to get to space are expensive, purpose-built rockets, huh?
Yes? Magic isn't real anon. Also this is a cheap rocket not an expensive one.
Not sure if that's true in this, think they were at where they wanted, because SS not only had no payload but greatly reduced prop, and they could also just decide to risk losing it on return if they wanted too. Lots of variables at their disposal in this test.
There's the Saenger (hypersonic plane + spaceplane). Where you will use a hypersonic plane to launch payload/spaceplanes into space: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saenger_(spacecraft)
The Hypersonic plane Itself can pay Itself as a hypersonic airliner when not delivering payloads into space. This is what the Chinese "Tengyun" project is trying to do
Planes are moronic and expensive for launch. This is actually something that really cracks me up about people who don't know rockets, everyone thinks rockets are more complex and expensive than high performance aircraft. Aircraft seem "normal" and "straightforward" because they've been around a long time and all the stuff that goes on under the hood is near completely hidden.
>The Hypersonic plane Itself can pay Itself as a hypersonic airliner when not delivering payloads into space
Well, good luck.
Unironically, scramjets are much simpler than your usual turbojet engines since there's no moving parts.
Yeah but you can't "take off like a conventional aircraft" with them anon, and they're expensive in terms of fuel consumption and build reqs. Fancy fuel too. You need hybrid turbojets, or rockets to actually get up to speed, but if you're using big fricking solids to get up to speed that destroys the value outside of military too. All of this is tons of dead weight that destroys dry mass fraction, and you have to spend tons of time in atmosphere, there are hard limits on how much speed you can do there. Staging is a much more complex and risky business as well, and on and on.
Space planes are one of those things that repeatedly has captured imaginations (including mine) and seems great at first glance and then you dig into the numbers and it's shit outside of extremely narrow niche. Very very little time and energy of a rocket is spent low, the goal is to punch into upper atmosphere near vacuum asap and then most of the flight is gaining horizontal speed.
Methane and LOX are damn near free. Starship is mostly a big tube of stainless steel packed with fuel, even the fanciest ultra high grades are generally like $2500-3000/ton (you can steel rebar for $600/ton). Its engines are cheap and only need to run for, whatever it is, 5-10 minutes per flight or something like that. As strange as it seems it really is the economic approach.
Some of the really fancy steel stiff can be 15k a ton. I know I used to frick around with inconel.
The problem with a lot of the high grade stuff is not the acquisition of the steel, but the processes required into shaping harder steels and Titanium tend to be far more difficult. Extremely so if you're using state of the art stuff.
>Some of the really fancy steel stiff can be 15k a ton. I know I used to frick around with inconel.
I mean, sure, and technically there is even rarer stuff like pre-nuclear age shit for certain instruments that they used to get by "mining" it out of sunken shipwrecks from WW2 or earlier and stuff like that. But SpaceX started with just pretty standard stainless, literally they hired a water tower company to help make Hopper, and while they've made tweaks they still want to be pumping the things out, and are. They have 3 more boosters made already. I don't think super hard is what they're after here either.
At any rate though it's still a fundamentally pretty straight forward steel construction, and not using that much of it, even if it was at the $15k/ton. Total empty mass for Starship is only around 300 tons, which is then loaded with 4600 tons of prop. At $15k/ton that'd still only be $4.5m in raw material. Obviously some of that mass is stuff like engines, which is where most of the true cost is, and I forget if there is any more exotic alloys or fiber or whatever used in ullage tanks or the like. But even the ultra fanciest steels are pleasant to work with vs Ti or lithium-aluminum alloys or other typical stuff that has been used for rockets in the past.
They're hardly pleasant to work with some can be a nightmare but I get your point
As for the preindustrial steel, for the record it's no longer a larger cost factor anon, we can mine it, transport it, and make it within a clean room after purging the local atmosphere within the ore, this we don't really get contaminants as a huge issue anymore, if you get it using the right methods and sources.
It's no longer a finite resource, though it is more expensive due to the added processes.
Soon we'll have zero-G metallurgy anyway, near-perfect crystals made from Moon iron.
Pax Americana Aeterna
>They're hardly pleasant to work with some can be a nightmare but I get your point
Right, I mean, this is all relative speaking. By "pleasant" I more have in mind not just working, but even competition in who you can go to, what sort of talent you can find that knows how to work with it and tweak it, global supply and choke points (iron is everywhere on the planet, for some other stuff you can find yourself more at risk particularly for national security related fields), etc. Steel is just something that is really adaptable and we have a shitload of knowledge about. And tweaks and customization can involve economics not just performance, finding stuff that's easier to work with.
If we look super long term, I guess there is a colony tie-in as well, iron will be plenty easy to find on Mars too, nor is there any shortage of hydrogen or carbon so long as they have enough power. While there will be deposits of whatever other metals, if they ultimately want to build stuff on Mars getting good at steel is a reasonable choice.
>As for the preindustrial steel, for the record it's no longer a larger cost factor anon, we can mine it, transport it, and make it within a clean room after purging the local atmosphere within the ore, this we don't really get contaminants as a huge issue anymore, if you get it using the right methods and sources.
Oh I know, sorry if I wasn't clear I was referring to the past tense there and using it just as an example of one that would intuitively be a "special alloy" since it's "primitive". And anyway with the above ground test ban a lot of that is all naturally fading away again regardless.
geez guys they were just testing if this comic was correct or not
people who have a grudge on elon musk will attack this while defending the F35 which had numerous issues during development and just like starship made up for it in mass manufactured iteration.
Does this and the N1 prove that lots of small engines are worse idea than a few huge engines for a heavy lift rocket?
N=1 so far for starship. the engines stopped probably because of debris from the launch pad. with a diverter/trench, it will be fine. Look at the rest of the booster's flight! no real issues. worked alright with engines out.
Imagine if this was a Chinese or Russian rocket.
Why cant the US just admit that it EXPLODED instead of using those euphemism?
That's old meme Musk used for Falcon 9 tests.
It's a joke, brainlet. The chinks would have denied it even if it landed on a school/town and killed hundreds.
he's been humorous anon, chinks and russians don't know how to make jokes
because they have no sense of humor and are perpetually angry with malicious intent. Makes your noggin joggin when you realize how similar they are to the home grown far left extremists like wokenauts, doesn't it?
because homosexual redditors are obsessed with the brand and the brand's identity has just become "be insufferable at all times".
spacex is a fricking blight.
Redditards hate SpaceX and Musk now because he took their blue check marks away
I mean, it didn't explode uncontrollably, they chose to self detonate it due to uncontrollable flight. There's not a lot of difference but it should be clarified.
There is this thing known as irony that is used for these things called jokes anon. SpaceX is a company well known for using jokes when they have a rocket failure as it is part of their brand. You can tell this is a joke rather than a coverup because the footage has not been covered up and is available for the world to see. Additionally, SpaceX has joked about their rocket failures before but ultimately ended up fixing their mistakes and perfecting the process to the point where they have some of the cheapest and most reusable spacelift capabilities on the market.
Hope this helps!
most reliable too. 198/198. I mean there are other X/X rockets but none with that many under their belt.
You guys aren't so ignorant of rocketry that you don't know this has been a term forever right? That it was literally about guns in the Navy at the beginning? You don't really think it's new do you? You do own guns right?
>It was first a saying used by military personnel as the phrase "Rapid Unintentional Disassembly", for a phrase when a gun broke apart if you misused it. This was used by a book for Navy Personel in 1970, so I suspect it was in use for a while before then. This seems to have evolved from that phrase somewhat over the years. Here's an article from 1991 edition of Cruising World using this term. The earliest I can find it in rocketry specifically was the book entitled "Rocket Religion", copyright 2002, again with the same phrasing.
yes you autistic Black person. I'm also familiar enough to know that literally everything musk, and his spokespeople, say are flat fricking lies.
>that time a carbon fiber tank exploded and musk blamed a strut but gave it a funny name then it turned out spaceX had just recently bought the contractor building their fiber wrapped cryo bottles AND FIRED EVERYONE and acted SHOCKED that their replacement scab-staff built defective trash
go back immediately
>I'm also familiar enough to know that literally everything musk, and his spokespeople, say are flat fricking lies.
Yeah according to your incredible /misc/, Russian and Chinese news sources huh?
>F9 is the most successful reliable cheapest rocket in human history
Pure 100% fact. Cope and seethe forever lmao.
probably a salty ex-ATK employee or something that was fired when OmegA got shitcanned lmao. You see them in every thread.
>Yeah according to your incredible /misc/, Russian and Chinese news sources huh?
read a press release and maybe a few books sometime
>>F9 is the most successful reliable cheapest rocket in human history
>Pure 100% fact. Cope and seethe forever lmao.
not when correctly adjusted, but when a company is built to hide their activities thanks to government interference it becomes pretty hard to determine what anything they do really costs.
and claims that they're somehow less expensive than anything else just inevitably comes back to
>the companies that keep timesheets report higher costs
>the companies that have had to adhere to the FAR report higher costs
>clearly the problem is the timesheets and the FAR, so lets get rid of them!
but I'm probably talking to a teenage or manchild neverworked. ask your parents what a timesheet is if any of the above flew over your head.
This sort of gnosticism is irrefutable, if all statistics are meaningless because all statistics are fake then why even discuss anything? I mean, you can't even really prove the Allies won WW2, people just say it but for all you know the Axis btfo everybody and then it just got papered over afterwards.
Falcon 9 is the most expensive and deadliest failed rocket in history, check out Intel Thunderf00t Z on youtube for many important facts that Muskrats try to bury
>not when correctly adjusted
lmao now you're resorting to magical "correct adjustments"? Their record is fully public man. So are their commercial pricing.
>but when a company is built to hide their activities
They're the most open rocket company in human history. Want to know exact details of F9, and F9 pricing? You can just go their fricking website:
>https://www.spacex.com/media/falcon-users-guide-2021-09.pdf
>https://www.spacex.com/media/Capabilities&Services.pdf
Deal with it.
>You guys aren't so ignorant of rocketry that you don't know this has been a term forever right?
My dear, dumb Black person nobody, I've sent hardware to the moon, what have you done?
Not heem but did you do the Hohmann transfer? One year at Uni I had to take a bunch of Astronomy classes for gen credit. I was partying with goth women and snorting dog tramadol all night when I remembered I had to do an online moon landing quiz before morning and successfully landed my craft numerous times high as giraffe pussy.
Because trannies.
China has real men and women as engineers, while the West, SpaceX included, has trannies.
Trannies are allergic to harsh truth and consider this a part of their daily dose of micro-aggressions that make them rope themselves.
Please be understanding.
>drops hypergolics on another village again and tries to cover it up
implessive
It'll be much funnier to see China job to SpaceX in the future if you keep posting this
>trannies trannies trannies
/misc/ has become a parody of itself
it's really sad, it's permeated every board. anons will be having a discussion and then it gets derailed by off-topic transgender discussion.
OBSESSED
...???????? you're the one that is trying to derail the thread.
>literally mentally cannot stop revealing himself by instantly bringing up trannies, j00s, or black wiener 24/7
>y-you g-guys are th-the ones ob-obsessed ;_;
"Actually the Chinese have a far superior and more implessive spaceflight industry" is just a cope so far detached from reality that it's baffling, it's up there with "Of course T-55s will easily defeat Leopard 2s in the field" or "nice optics loser, real soldiers use iron sights only"
>"Actually the Chinese have a far superior and more implessive spaceflight industry" is just a cope so far detached from reality that it's baffling, it's up there with "Of course T-55s will easily defeat Leopard 2s in the field" or "nice optics loser, real soldiers use iron sights only"
Hilariously your graph UNDERstates it if anything. "Number of payloads" ranks a 250kg cube sat and a 20 ton LEO big bird or deep space/HEO injection the exact same. All of SpaceX's launches are medium or heavy lift.
>hopeful, young eyes looking at the screen during the last LM5 launch, praying to Marx and Mao to bless her nation's space programm from their dialectical heavens.
vs.
picrel
t. ULABlack person
In October 2022, China completed the Tiangong modular space station, making themselves peers with Russia in 1986
Other implessive Chinese spaceflight achievements include their Zhurong rover of 2021, a peer to America's 1979 Viking program, and their lunar rover of 2013, which retraced the brave steps of the Soviet's 1970 Lunokhod
You do notice that all these achievements have been all within the last 10 years do you?
They are at the same speed as the US/USSR during the space race, while we are not.
its easier to catch up to someone who already cleared a path
1970: China launches its first satellite, bravely blazing the trail set by the Soviet Union in 1957 and the US in 1958
Amusingly, it was actually called Dong Fang Hong 1. I know foreign languages and all but man chinks are such a meme, even the Russian shit like Salyut and Buran rolls off the tongue more easily
It wasn't even a satellite with a function, it was literally just another Sputnik-type satellite to proof they could fire something into orbit and have it there for a few weeks.
Credit where credit's due, Sputnik could only broadcast a bleep. Dong Fang Hong 1 used all 23 years of technological progress to...make it broadcast the Chinese anthem on loop.
>With great effort, tons of money and all the advantages of modern science, we managed to redo shit you did 50 years ago that you still had to figure out from the ground up.
Great...succes...I guess?
>Other implessive Chinese spaceflight achievements include their Zhurong rover of 2021, a peer to America's 1979 Viking program, and their lunar rover of 2013, which retraced the brave steps of the Soviet's 1970 Lunokhod
These werent rovers, just static probes that sat still in one position. Rovers are a comparatively new type of interplantary probe.
when is this from? current plan is deorbit iss in 2031
Put some respect on my man's name!
>chinka
>Real men
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
>those euphemism?
That euphemism is litterally an old school /k/ meme.
No, it isn't. It's from the book Ignition! by John Clark which was published back in '72.
which was a comedy book. elon musk, a moronic redditor, keeps using it in all contexts because it is impossible for him to act professionally
looks like the launch pad is going to need some serious repairs
Cool excavation. I kinda get that they're trying to test main concepts ASAP before going into details. But not adressing obvious things that need to be fixed every time IMHO is kinda short sighted. Or they fully expect a pad explosion... Kinda makes worried they do the same with engines - it's obvious the math doesn't check out, but they just up the pressure and test what they need now. Problem is, you can add exhaust escape tunnel, but can't fix engine physics that don't compute.
On the other hand, going big is the way. Lately there's been a load of small rocket companties and projects and they all seem to fail in all aspects - price, reliability, weight, launch destinations etc. So unless Elon runs out of money one way or other this should produce fruitful results.
>Cool excavation. I kinda get that they're trying to test main concepts ASAP before going into details. But not adressing obvious things that need to be fixed every time IMHO is kinda short sighted.
Again though remember that while they originally hoped to do lots of launches from Boca Chica, while government gave them permission for some it basically said they'd never be allowed to do lots. So they're going to end up doing lots out of good old Cape Canaveral and KSC
>https://gizmodo.com/spacex-upgrading-florida-launch-pad-starship-failure-1849614050
and also ocean sites. That might be affecting how much money they want to sink into BC in the end, which is really crammed as well due to the licensing. Like, they'd love to NOT have so much of their prop farm and such so close, that's not a design decision they simply had no choice given geography and gov. So it'd make sense if they'd really like to complete their full test sequences while investing as little in infra that will not get so much long term use as possible. From those photos seems like they'll have to bump that up a bit farther just to complete testing, but I suspect it still won't be as extensive as what they eventually do in Florida.
>looks like the launch pad is going to need some serious repairs
Yeah, they need to suck it up and do a flame trench, or else a much more powerful water system. Like, they're near the ocean, it's not like it's some impossibility to pump a ton of water there, not even an impossibility for it to be fresh (or fresh-er) water with desal, but I can see why they might have hoped to not need to bother and could save money. Doesn't seem like it though. That'll be another useful lesson, because they want to do most of their launches now in Florida when it's in full production, or eventually on ocean platforms. So they can do their next serious launch platform better. Obviously this will be an advantage of ocean platforms, they can just have the thing aim straight at water and it won't matter. But that's plenty of damage and will need work.
Pad and tower though look fine, so that is proven out now at least. It'd probably take another month or two anyway to fully go over all the data from this launch and incorporate it for their next one, and I think from Boca Chica they're actually limited to a relatively small number of launches per year (a dozen? two dozen? definitely not hundreds though). Maybe they'll try to figure out bandaids and just not want to invest very much into it if it'll never get used too much, but it could require shifting their overall plans.
For frick sake is that so hard to build something s obvious? The damage to pad probably caused failure.
i'd suspect a pad that large and high would be a problem. boca chica is kind of tight on acreage, and basically at sealevel. it's not like they could just make a pit without some significant challenges. making something high up to get the vertical distance needed would have to include a frickhuge ramp because the slope probably has to be 1% or some shit.
Kennedy is in sea too, Musk has to accept and build huge ramp.
Just the fact this thing kept flying after this is impressive in my opinion. The amount of FOD that was launched, most likely taking out 3-5 engines and for the systems to automatically shutdown/correct. Just WOW. I don't believe people are looking at this fact. They only see the failure and not the success, especially when venturing into such a new territory. Sure it's clear now having a flame trench/diffusing grid makes sense. I think someone was over optimistic on just using water... Comparing this to a 1960s soviet N1 launch as well is questionable?
I don't think they were overoptimistic on just using water. They were however very, very overoptimistic on just how much water they actually needed. Likely the result of cost cutting measures for reasons
noted.
>Likely the result of cost cutting measures for reasons
Again though remember that while they originally hoped to do lots of launches from Boca Chica, while government gave them permission for some it basically said they'd never be allowed to do lots. So they're going to end up doing lots out of good old Cape Canaveral and KSC
>https://gizmodo.com/spacex-upgrading-florida-launch-pad-starship-failure-1849614050
and also ocean sites. That might be affecting how much money they want to sink into BC in the end, which is really crammed as well due to the licensing. Like, they'd love to NOT have so much of their prop farm and such so close, that's not a design decision they simply had no choice given geography and gov. So it'd make sense if they'd really like to complete their full test sequences while investing as little in infra that will not get so much long term use as possible. From those photos seems like they'll have to bump that up a bit farther just to complete testing, but I suspect it still won't be as extensive as what they eventually do in Florida. noted.
There are also reasonable other reasons to want to go now. They may have decided there were high odds that no matter what happened, once they had the data from flight 1 they'd need a month or two or three to incorporate it all properly for the next one anyway. So if they had to add major launch improvements on top, well there'd be a window regardless so better to just get the boy off. Another factor is external stuff like hurricane season approaching (and more storms period). Texas tends to experience that with much lower probability than Florida, but shit happens. If it was going to take another 1-3 months to finish a full deluge system that they weren't even sure what they truly needed, that wouldn't be risk free either.
Also, I vaguely recall the beach and public waters get used more in summer, and that part of their launch deal has to take that into account?
So while it seems probably the damage was worse than they dreamed, I think it was a calculated gamble that paid off ok. Now nobody is twiddling their thumbs, all the rocket people have a ton of meat to sink their teeth into and work on, and all the ground people do as well. Everyone is pumped up, has a for-real test done. Maybe +/- a few weeks could have helped but I don't think this was necessarily the wrong call.
Personally I round those into cost cutting measures as well since they factor into expenses in the timetable. Things did work out in the end but they really got lucky FOD only took out as many engines as it did. Rockets are really a dime a dozen for them at this point, but they only have the one pad for now. I am still of the opinion that it was too much risk, but that's probably part of the reason I'm not high level management at a multi-billion dollar aerospace company. I really shouldn't be that surprised at their gamble though. It fits with SpaceX's high risk high reward, fail hard fail fast and iterate methodology. Realistically I know that the flight data is worth more than all their material assets combined, but it's still a hard pill to swallow. Regardless there's no sense in me quibbling further. What's done is done and, given their track record, they'll not make these mistakes again.
>Things did work out in the end but they really got lucky FOD only took out as many engines as it did
I don't think it's a given at all that FOD had anything to do with that anon. The three that were stopped at the start never lit at all, which is far more likely to be an igniter issue. And that was 100% a known challenge, because they're doing the first ever electric torch ignition system which itself is super hard, lighting a rocket is actually a huge challenge all by itself. Previously they used TEB/TEA chem system, but that isn't good for reuse and has a limited number of relights, you have X "shots" and then it's done.
The other ones that went out went out later, and if you replay the stream you'll see they actually got some of those back online before MECO. None of that reads as FOD at all, and indeed it'd be very surprising if FOD were able to go back up through the full power rocket stream and hit the underside of the nozzles anon.
>Rockets are really a dime a dozen for them at this point
No, F9 isn't that cheap, and more importantly it simply can't do what they need anymore. They really, truly need full size V2 Starlink sats up ASAP, and F9 physically is incapable of carrying them (not weight, fairing is too small). And they have the big NASA HLS contract. They need Starship moving along at a steady clip.
I don't think we're in real disagreement here, I just think the calculated risk wasn't that bad, and if nothing else they've definitely been very deliberately building up to this moment as well as possible. But at any rate yeah, Stage 0/Stage 1 test done successfully with a lot learned. I think their only real true sadness will be not getting to try a Stage 1 landing. Stage 2 was whatever. Recovering SH is also a genuinely critical goal so they'll want to get data on that asap too.
half of /sfg/ has been saying that. Great filter to see how much are oblivious tourists who did not even see the first Falcon launch vs actual regulars
If this is the supposed ITS OVER doomer launch then you better be hyped what this thing can do when they keep pressing forward and removing the defects. I was going full soiface when the thing started doing fricking full spins in air without shitting itself in pieces
>It's ok fellow Musk sisters, well get there by no later than 2030, hopefully! Remember all the other rockets that crashed before they worked? Now we all live in space!
What has Space X ever done for a single person ITT or in /SFG/ besides pay you to shill for them? You people are The Great Filter. We will never get to space because morons keep following the biggest scam artists they can find. No matter how many times you are proven wrong or shown reality you double down into delusion....like a cult.
Say it after me through your b***h tears baby boy: "F9 is the most successful, reliable, and economic rocket in human history."
Then you can seethe and weep for a bit and go to beddy time and feel better tomorrow ok?
how does it feel seeing how pathetically far behind your chink and vatnik idols are compared to actual space industry powerhouse. How does it feel knowing that when you favorite gangster god-king-emperors are stuck planetside US of A will be tapping into the near unlimited base resources offered by the solar system sparking industrialized space. Making the gangster heavens on earth even more minor african resource colonies/sweatshops then they are already?
reminder that Tuvok is now canonically dead
you've probably directly or indirectly benefited from falcon9 provided cheaper access to space already in the last 5 years. starlink is already helping people who can't get shit for high speed internet in rural areas.
you're just a seething Black person, really.
I agree, it's mostly due to lack of funding and vision that basically any other country didn't bother chasing a modern rocket.
SpaceX is not special, though some people within it are, but it is, in that it managed to gain hype to chase a large goal using private funding. Personally people tend to idolise those on the cusp of technological breakthroughs, but the reality is, we were basically just waiting for technology to progress a bit more before we bothered going again.
The gap caused by the local political concerns effectively killing NASA, soviets outbidding the US due to cheap labour and steel, meant basically once the soviet program was killed off due to politics, it was basically a rat race where the first group to make a cheap modern rocket won.
It literally could have been anyone to bring together a group of engineers to do it. Unfortunately we got Elon musky.
>Unfortunately we got Elon musky.
your jimmies are just rustled seeing a proud African-American man succeed
Yeah I do hate Africans.
South Africans specifically have always been mega c**ts, there's just something about being around millions of nogs that makes them hate other human beings.
You're probably right, but anyone who shits on Boeing or ULA is based in my book.
>You're probably right, but anyone who shits on Boeing or ULA is based in my book.
king
>It literally could have been anyone to bring together a group of engineers to do it.
Brainlet. Engineers do engineering shit and tend to fall into trap of perfecting engineering numbers
>muh ISP!
>muh hydrogen!
>muh monolithic machined panels!
Without taking account of financial cost. They don't do business they don't know cost of things. From engineers POV materials come from purchasing d. and personnel from HR. They don't care.
To mate together engineering and costs you need the guy who are not solely engineer or accountant but knows both. Who knows cost of things because who earned every his dollar himself. Aka entrepreneur.
>what this thing can do
nothing you moron
so what is your cope going to be after the first successful orbital launch? You morons kept doomposting about Falcon too and look where that got you KEK
it will do nothing moron
>Just the fact this thing kept flying after this is impressive in my opinion.
you are a fricking moron
Looks like Elon's going straight to raw Mars take-off survivability tests.
I got to watch it launch this morning. Was very based. Not as loud as I thought it would be.
>I got to watch it launch this morning. Was very based
lucky bastard, awesome.
>Not as loud as I thought it would be.
Some level of sound reduction is both critical for equipment and also part of their environmental impact plan. If anything they didn't have enough this time, looks like there are big pipes being build for a much, much more powerful water suppression system. That should also help with their pad.
parts for a deluge system were already as the site, they just wanted to launch as soon as possible and were all WE GAAN mode.
If you can't get it right the first time then you shouldn't even bother at all
SpaceX needs to wake the frick up and stop trying
Wow, real "projection of force" to strike fear in the hearts of our enemies. All those "Rods form god" Are going to drop over Texas instead of Moscow! KEK!
>esl
>launch path didn't ever go over land
>drop over texas
what did the moron mean by this?
I am robert from florida oblast, after the numerous failures of falcon 9 i am demoralized and i am sure it will never become the cheapest, most reliable, and fastest launching rocket system in history. it's over fellow americans.
This launch is the greatest brainlet filter since the first failed droneship landing.
NRO must be working overtime getting some fat-ass optical shit ready for when SS is flying payloads
>NRO must be working overtime getting some fat-ass optical shit ready for when SS is flying payloads
spooky NRO shit+satan trips = it is written
But yeah military clearly was trying to stay calm and hedge their bets for quite awhile, "it might not happen, we can't be sure, those gays at boeing tell us it's definitely impossible", but now are fricking salivating over what they'll be able to do with so much space and mass at such a low cost. Everything is on the table. People have mocked orbital resupply drops the USAF started looking at for example, but really why not study it? Orders of magnitude cost reduction with more mass/vol and cadence too has never happened before like this, everything needs a fresh look to take mass advantage even "stupid" stuff. Like, you can spend 50 fricking tons just on making and armoring a dedicated drop pod, by itself more than anything but the most ultra heavy rockets can do until recently (Delta IV-H was the best in US for awhile and was $450m a pop), and then STILL have 100 tons left over for cargo! And launch it all for maybe <$10m!? That's crazy. Hard to even predict all the military applications.
I suspect a big incentive for the military is the fact that the internal volume of Starship is a bit more than the ISS internal volume. Meaning anyone could just feasibly park a Starship up in space and have their own ISS... including the military, all at a fraction of the price of an ISS. Supply with the X-35b, idk point is the AF/Space Force/NRO/Navy/Marines/Army could all feasibly pool some money for their own giga space command station. Dock 2 starships and you now have twice the volume of the ISS, again for what is probably a fraction of the price. The US can have a Skylab 2.0. ESA can have spacelab 2.0. Japan can have... uh, evangelion 2.0 whatever idk.
>NRO must be working overtime getting some fat-ass optical shit ready for when SS is flying payloads
NRO big birds cost gorillions of dollars each and would be best off going to launchers that don't have a significant chance of dunking them.
That's why the NRO is so interested in, and engaged in cooperation with the MSFC teams doing work on cargo SLS studies. It's a simple solution, it's within the glowies' budget, and it gets a much bigger payload volume, and it has a good outlook to exist because Congress loves SLSchads.
Starship is much more suited to DoD slop like the SDA constellation. (It'll get cucked for the market of big DoD payloads by DST bidding SLS on NSSL Lane 1 anyway)
lol nice make believe. SLS max is a single rocket per year, all of which are already taken. SLS being used for anything else is a fantasy, and even for the NRO spending $4 billion just to launch is utterly moronic. Just like Falcon 9, Starship will end up vastly more reliable simply by virtue of it launching hundreds to thousands of times for every individual SLS launch. It'll get more refined and have the hard launch track record to prove it.
>meme tier cope
why do people repeat these dumb dogma so often online?
Nah, there is nothing more cope and pathetic than simping for fricking SLS, the shitty big pork trash project of the decade. Your entire coping hope rests on somehow SpaceX just magically imploding, not building anything else (despite already having built 3 more boosters and more SS), somehow not improving anything else ever again, somehow not improving launch facilities, which leaves you simultaneously arguing that it's super easy and obvious fix (trench/deluge) and thus they are dumb for not doing it, yet somehow this is also such a hard fix that they won't, like, just do it. Meanwhile, SLS costing billions and billions per rocket? Still having more dev to do, since the test one launched this time didn't even have the actual needed upper? A maximum of a single rocket per year? That's all just hard facts.
You can squirm and handwave all you want, but at the end of the day 100% of your hopes rest on an extremely proven, experienced competitor with the most reliable, highest cadence launch system committing suicide, for... reasons. Not a great place to be!
I think we should have stuck with the Soyuz.
The only way you'll get $10/KG to space is if someone manages to make a runway to space platform like SABRE. Launchpads and the rockets are vastly expensive so don't every expect to see it close to that.
Also there's a reason that the British private Skylon program said frick off when the British military offered them fat stacks of cash to help with their program funds. They were well aware of the implications of having big brother stick his finger in your shitpipe and have you move like a puppet.
>The only way you'll get $10/KG to space is if someone manages to make a runway to space platform like SABRE. Launchpads and the rockets are vastly expensive so don't every expect to see it close to that.
you literally have it backwards. planes are expensive garbage to space.
>redditor uses reddit meme to make fun of non-redditors
you have to go back
Not him, but while it is absolutely a shit meme, it's not a Reddit only meme.
This is just one of the boards that rejects it due to it generally being repulsive to look at (disgust brain chemistry of the average member is higher, higher hatred at pedos etc).
Ugly memes should only ever be temporary, and changed out for other memes so at least they have novelty to balance out their obviously ugly nature
walls of text just to say nothing
everything he touch this Elon he destroy
rich people are hidieous
ok Pablo.Hernandez53215
threads like these remind me that /k/ is filled with morons who make things up on the spot
the stuff that gets posted here is astronomically dumb. i can't believe some of the bullshit
Hypothetically, what's the largest yield single nuclear warhead you could load onto starship? Its expended payload is around 200 metric tons.