Starship

Weaponize this

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    put cold launch missiles on it, done

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Added portholes so you can shoot at other spaceships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      can't put holes in the heat shield, anon
      the top of the vehicle is free however, so you're only going to get 200 degrees of coverage max or so

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >can't put holes in the heat shield, anon
        You can if you're not a coward
        (Also they had this debate when deciding where to put landing gear on the Space Shuttle. Turns out you actually can as long as the doors are shut for reentry

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      outstanding!

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Can the Starship be easily converted to a super heavy ICBM?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Starship would be terrible for the job since it uses cryogenic propellants that must be fuelled immediately before launch and is way too big for a silo but yes, converting it to a (crappy) ICBM would be quite straightforward.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    That's basically an ICBM without a warhead.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Advanced Orion 2.0. 400 meter dish diameters. NRO will be sniffing out what your AirPods are transmitting.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Someone's got the right idea

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        hell, NRO will be sniffing out your NFC ID tap to enter locked buildings at work lmao

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not sure I can, it's a failure so far. Wanted to make a snarky comment about it exploding, but I honstly can't.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s already a 100+ ton launch vehicle for 1/200th the cost of sls, and 20x the possible yearly launch cadence

      Are we really going to have this debate again after the last thread?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        How is it? It started spinning in orbit, you can't launch anything in that so far.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          That was after possible orbital insertion and after possible payload deployment.
          Starship has proven its worth as expendable launch vehicle to low orbit.
          Whatever happened to all the b***hing about ‘30 engines will never work, Musk is a moron’?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Whatever happened to all the b***hing about ‘30 engines will never work, Musk is a moron’?
            They're still doing that in the other thread, also comparing it to N1 still lol. Though they seem to have shutup about their hilarious denial that F9 is already the most successful reliable rocket in history. They're desperate though anon please understand, they just keep losing in the face of reality so ever tinier more mobile goalposts are the only thing they have left.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What is with this emotional argument these days where if something fails that's it. It just time to throw in the towel. Your grandfather would be disappointed in you

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            they hate the guy who owns the company and thus hate the machine and the crew building it

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Cool pic but wouldn't it be pretty dark in Jupiter's atmosphere

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Somewhat. Suns rays are much weaker there yet even at Saturn you still get decently well lit pics judging by what Cassini sent back. What is falste though is that on jupiter would not have a blue tint in the upper atmosphere.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                those pictures are long exposure pics. saturn wouldnt actually be that bright that close unfortunately.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          yeah that's definitely an issue that can't be fixed. no way spacex can do that.

          are you fricking moronic?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No shit, that's why its still in testing anon and they're not putting people on the damn thing. Sure its only a year ago since it annihilated its own launchpad.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          if you think about it purely as a delivery vehicle, it did its job admirably and got into basically orbit. The part that failed was the reusable part. But it's already better than any other heavy lift rocket as far as cost goes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, but SLS is so expensive because it works. Starship is cheap because it doesn't work.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          and falcon 9 is cheap because it doesn't wo- wait

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          With Thursday's test Starship has demonstrated what you consider 'works' for SLS, at a fraction of the cost.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            SLS is done. It sent a payload to the moon and performed flawlessly. Memeship disintegrated it own first stage and spun wildly on a ballistic trajectory before smashing into the ocean. It's years of from doing anything.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >Memeship disintegrated it own first stage
              sls doesnt even attempt to land it tho?
              >spun wildly on a ballistic trajectory before smashing into the ocean
              after completing essentially orbital insertion for a potential payload

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >It's years of from doing anything.
              esl brownoid

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Starship didn't land. Neither did the booster. What about sls. How is that retired old space shuttle engined piece of shit doing? It soft land good.
          It cost 2 billion per sls shot. That fricking capsule has cost 17 billion to develop im not making it up. Frick Boeing. Frick ula. Frick Republicans. I want my tank porn and rocket ships. Fricking Republicans suck so much dick I don't want to give the israelites 15 billion. What is their problem lately. They elected a fricking drag queen. Any man in full body makeup and fakehair in a fricking costume is a drag queen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >SLS
            Successfully deployed its payload on its first try
            >Starship
            #28 just blew up after completing a test flight with no payload

            I'm not saying SpaceX is doing it wrong, I'm just saying $2 billion is what it costs to get it right the first time.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              SLS didn't try to do anything new though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Neither has Starship, by that measure.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                If nothing else it has flight proven the Raptor engine and they did demonstrate their refueling maneuver.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                raptor was proven out in flight 2, even.
                It had more successful burn time after flight 2 than F1s across all Saturn Vs.

                155 second burn on S-IC
                65 engines for all SVs x 155 sec

                10k seconds

                raptor has surpassed that lmao

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm talking about the entire vehicle development to date, not just one flight.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                In that case, SLS proved its own engines and boosters.
                >B-but those are the exact same ones from the 60s even though none of the parts are the same and probably most of them don't even interchange
                Cope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >even though none of the parts are the same
                The engines were literally reused space shuttle engines, like, from an actual space shuttle, not new ones (though they are making new ones for future ships for hundreds of millions of dollars). You could make your utter ignorance at least a tiny bit less obvious anon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay, which space shuttle did they come out of?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                E2059 and E2047. Atlantis

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it was supposed to fail

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >it's a failure so far
      you doomers keep getting btfod every launch. Of which there have been only three and it already went into space. What is your next goalpost going to be?

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    1) Capture enemy leader
    2) Lock him inside the spaceship
    3) Launch him into the sun

    For bonus you can record and broadcast the entire thing on TV to demoralize.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Starship can't reach the sun, anon

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        it probably can, actually
        not directly, ofc, but with a couple gravity assists, sure.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          what's the dV to Jupiter again? you'd need to refuel in orbit, boost out to Jupiter, and then get a gravity assist that'll drop you directly into the fricking sun, which sounds insane but I haven't run the numbers

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >what's the dV to Jupiter again?
            not that much, actually

            given how fricking huge its gravity is, if you can get an apoapsis above the asteroid belt, you're basically there

            and given how many satellites it has, its fairly easy to capture too. again, via gravity assist galore.
            or, alternatively, you can literally use the planet itself to aerobrake. technically speaking, it has an atmosphere 😀

            the problem is it'd take a LONG time to do all of this, we're probably talking 5+ years one way, at least
            possibly another 2-3 just for the capture if you do it with grav assists around its moons

            if you wanna look into all of this shit in greater depth, i suggest watching some ksp rp-1 playthroughs (ksp modded to user real life parts and the real solar system)

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              shut the frick up moron I know all that shit, if you don't have numbers frick off

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >and then get a gravity assist that'll drop you directly into the fricking sun, which sounds insane but I haven't run the numbers
            realistically you'd probably do a grav assist of the earth itself (aka escape earth grav, go once or twice around the sun, meet the earth again)
            then 1 or 2 around venus, and you're there
            iirc that's how the most recent sun probe did it.
            going out to jupiter would take forever

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Parker Solar Probe never actually touched the sun though

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                no, but you could do it with a similar flight plan for sure
                once you're out of earths grav well and have your first flyby more or less dialed in, the delta v required to finetune your flybys for grav assists is minimal

                the hard part is escaping eath grav.
                and also the fact that all of this grav assist frickery is fine for probes than can spend a decade out there, but for human flight you're always gonna want a direct route, which makes delta v requirements much larger.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the Jupiter gravity assist is faster anyway due to the quantity of flybys required for the earth venus tango

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                IIRC Mars low ΔV is ~3.2km/s from LEO and minimal transit time is ~4.5km/s from LEO.
                I really want to see us get serious about manned interplanetary but it's going to be orders of magnitude harder than the moon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I could have but that wouldn't make the probe very useful and they need the fuel reserve to keep the heat shield pointed at the sun.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If you can make it to 250 km orbit around Earth, you're halfway to Jupiter:

            9256÷(9256+2440+679+93+2085+280+388+923+379+3+297+1099) = 0.516460216

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I always found this map a touch easier for me to get but same thing.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              thank you for the chart, to answer my original question the answer is 8,666 m/s of dV
              this is prohibitively expensive, a fully fueled Starship in LEO with no payload will only barely be able to reach this

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Ah, but anon, that's why they have refueling capability.
                Launch 2 starships, #2 is full of extra fuel to refuel #1 in orbit -> #1 is fully topped up and once again has ~ 10k dV to burn
                Besides, once you're in orbit you can start building *bigger* spaceships in-situ

                And once we strip-mine the moon we can build nuclear engines directly in space - without getting the ecoloonies' panties in a twist just because we want to launch reactors into orbit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Charts are without gravity assist anon, they just give raw dV. And while they indicate where aerobreaking is possible that's not included either but again can significantly reduce dV. They're a guide for the raw dV values not what you need on a rocket or we'd never have gotten probes anywhere on the stuff we had decades ago.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this
                particularly around jupiter and saturn, capture can always be free
                either via grav assists from their numerous satellites
                or heat shield and aerobreaking
                or both

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                we're not fricking aerobraking here we're trying to drop senators into the fricking sun

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                i dunno anon
                i admire your enthusiasm and whatnot
                but it seems easier to just use a volcano
                or an industrial strength oven
                the latter option in particular would be ideal for historical and cultural reasons, if you follow my drift. especially if you choose the location of said oven intelligently.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                stupid fricking frogposter frick off, of course it's easier to use a volcano or an oven or just smash them into the moon, but I was trying to debunk the very idea of sending them into the sun

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                what part of "gravity assist" are you having trouble with here anon?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You actually don't. It can easily escape orbit. The reason they want it to refuel it is to get to mars faster. Turns a year long journey into a 3 month one.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              wrong, Starship only gets 20 tons to GTO and zero to earth escape without refueling

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It can easily escape orbit. You don't know what you are talking about. Sure the amount of stuff it can take also goes down, but it can escape orbit. Even a super heavy booster can escape orbit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you are very stupid and very wrong

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Doesn't know how to sling shot off the moon.
                ngmi

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Gravity assist off the moon does not get you significant gains in C3
                I was about to say that Starship has zero payload to the moon but that's false, Dear Moon is planned to go to the moon without refueling. Anyway it won't help, you can't get out to FRICKING JUPITER that way.

                have you forgotten that musk yeeted a tesla to mars orbit?
                (yes, i know, not an actual mars flyby, but the solar apoapsis was mars-tier)

                I don't think you understand just how much of an effort it takes to get out to Jupiter or down to the Sun

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I don't think you understand just how much of an effort it takes to get out to Jupiter or down to the Sun
                i can read a delta v map just fine, thank you very much
                can YOU?
                per some quick googling, an empty starship that has been refueled in orbit has around 9k dV
                that's enough to do a TJI and to capture with the help of grav assists of the moons

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                quit moving the goalposts, that guy was talking about without refueling

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                have you forgotten that musk yeeted a tesla to mars orbit?
                (yes, i know, not an actual mars flyby, but the solar apoapsis was mars-tier)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Starship can escape earths orbit and get to the moon but not come back. It would just have to be filled with fuel only. If it had an actual full load only load and no extra fuel, it would take 12-18 launches to get a fully loaded starship to the moon deposit the load and come back and land.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                are you a bot or an ESL

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                NASA themselves have said that Starship will need 16+ launches to put HLS on the moon. And that's assuming SpaceX keeps a perfect launch cadence and there are little to no delays on the launchpad.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                bot, got it
                shut the frick up until you can stay on topic

                Unless just pure fuel in the ship it has to be refueled. my guess is Elon will start loading up 200 starlink sats at a time now while testing. They will have a special starship that will be probably like 70-75 full and be needed reloaded once for the moon shot.

                the Moon's surface is much farther away than Earth Escape in terms of dV, it will absolutely need to be fully refueled and will only be going back to NRHO, not to LEO

                [...]
                We're working with very outdated information as far as Starship's capacity to GTO is concerned. The 100 ton iteration offered in 2020 is well short of the quoted 150 tons we're seeing claimed now. Ignoring gravity assists, the additional Delta-V budget needed to escape LEO from a geostationary transfer orbit is ~1100 meters per second. The Delta-V needed to get to Geostationary Orbit from GTO is1800 meters per second. Someone better at the math than me would be needed to find the numbers for what Starship should be able to do with a 150 ton payload capacity.

                it's going to be zero payload, and the math requires knowing the wet mass and dry mass of Starship

                Believe me or not. You Black folk are always obsessed with proof.

                [...]
                Refueling starship sufficiently to boost something into a higher orbit, then let it come back and be reusable hasn't been proven out and will be moronicly difficult. SpaceX will blow up several more starships before that little kink is worked out (and imo is the biggest risk to SLS being successful). Methane has really nasty freezing problems which are going to get massively worse when trying to transfer fuel in orbit.

                >blow up several more Starships
                of course, I predict they'll have it worked out before the end of next year
                >Methane has freezing problems
                what the frick are you even talking about

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >bot, got it
                >He can't argue the point.
                lmao

                >If Memeship somehow has a market and somehow
                Starship's fundamental market is internal. Everything else is a bonus. The cost of entry for Everything Else is being lower priced and cheaper than Falcon.

                Nothing flies from American airspace and from American launch pads unless they follow what the FAA sets out.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The whole point of starship was to put man on the moon. I'm pretty sure it's not a one way trip. Not yet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Unless just pure fuel in the ship it has to be refueled. my guess is Elon will start loading up 200 starlink sats at a time now while testing. They will have a special starship that will be probably like 70-75 full and be needed reloaded once for the moon shot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The 12-18 launches is to get enough fuel to the Gateway's terrible NHRO orbit, which was necessitated by the use of the (massively overweight) Orion capsule for manned travel to the Gateway. Get rid of Orion and use a more traditional LLO, and the number of tanker launches required should go down.

                Note also that Starship is capable of putting more mass into LEO than Saturn V. There's a problem with NASA's plans, but it isn't Starship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >(massively overweight) Orion capsule
                Yea, it sure is overweight compared to all those other deep space capsules like

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                anon I'm going to let you in on a secret here: the Orion capsule isn't overweight, the issue is that the service module is underweight
                but we buy them from the Europeans as part of some frickfrick game and they refuse to change the design without being paid more and thus: Orion can't get it up

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Starship can escape earths orbit and get to the moon but not come back. It would just have to be filled with fuel only. If it had an actual full load only load and no extra fuel, it would take 12-18 launches to get a fully loaded starship to the moon deposit the load and come back and land.

                We're working with very outdated information as far as Starship's capacity to GTO is concerned. The 100 ton iteration offered in 2020 is well short of the quoted 150 tons we're seeing claimed now. Ignoring gravity assists, the additional Delta-V budget needed to escape LEO from a geostationary transfer orbit is ~1100 meters per second. The Delta-V needed to get to Geostationary Orbit from GTO is1800 meters per second. Someone better at the math than me would be needed to find the numbers for what Starship should be able to do with a 150 ton payload capacity.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Alright you know there is the starship and super heavy booster
                Different star ships, same booster
                The Saturn 5 had 1.5 million pounds of thrust
                The super heavy booster has 18 millionisj

                Get it? It's that fricking massive

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Minuteman III
    >Throw weight: 1,100 lbs.
    >SpaceX Starship
    >Throw weight: 331,000 lbs.
    Four words: strategic nuclear cluster bombs.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >4 words
      one gigaton thermonuclear warhead

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        holy shit it actually checks out

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Being fueled by cryogenic liquid propellants, it's not terribly useful as a weapon delivery system. Plus it needs a lot of infrastructure at the landing site in order to re-use it. You can't just land it anywhere to drop off troops or supplies. Not to mention how visible and vulnerable it would be to enemy air defenses.

    However, if the reusability really works and the launch costs are as cheap as planned, you could use it to build a megaconstellation of anti-ballistic missile satellites akin to Brilliant Pebbles.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brilliant_Pebbles

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Being fueled by cryogenic liquid propellants, it's not terribly useful as a weapon delivery system.
      ...unless it's a first strike.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Being fueled by cryogenic liquid propellants, it's not terribly useful as a weapon delivery system
      i don't follow
      what's the connection?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ICBMs typically use solid fuel rockets, they are shelf stable for a long time and can be fired on a moments notice. With liquid fuel rockets it takes time to fuel the rocket and the startup sequence is more complex. Cryogenic liquids even more so, as you need a big refrigeration system to keep the propellant cold until the button is pressed.

        You CAN use liquid fuel rockets as ICBMs, but it would be impractical for anything but a first strike, as

        >Being fueled by cryogenic liquid propellants, it's not terribly useful as a weapon delivery system.
        ...unless it's a first strike.

        said.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >With liquid fuel rockets it takes time to fuel the rocket and the startup sequence is more complex
          This was only a problem for first generation liquid fuel rockets that needed cryogenic liquid oxygen that could only be pumped in right before launch.

          Later hypergolic missiles like the Titan 2 used storable non-cryogenic propellants so the tanks could be fueled and ready for launch indefinitely. It takes about 60 seconds for a Titan 2 to launch after the order is given, the same for the solid fuel Minuteman 3.

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    snatching chinese orbital junks in one orbit

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Just use it to colonize space. No singular anti-terrestrial capability can win a nation that would have oermanent, self-sustained space colony.

    Even if you scorch their continent, they can keep throwing astroids at you for decades. Nuke entire earth and they continue and can come back to repopulate and claim entirety of it when radiation drops.

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    what can you do with 150 ton in orbit?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      * Put a new ISS-equivalent in orbit in 3 launches
      * Since last one took 40 launches, make it 13 times bigger, for like 1/10th of the cost.
      * fly it to the moon
      * mine it for water, use that to add shielding and turn it into a massive gas station
      * strip-mine the rest of the moon to build giant spaceships (really, there's no air or gravity to limit constructions in space, they don't have to be aerodynamic or geostable at all. Giant 1 mile wide cube or sphere? sky's the (lower) limit)
      * fly giant ship to the asteroid belt (BELTA LOWDA) and Mars, strip-mine those as well. Can't ruin the environment if there is no environment
      * congrats, you now have more resources and energy than you know what do do with. Build an o'neil cylinder and go explore. Be sure to drop some asteroids on russia on your way out.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >be sure to drop some asteroids on russia on your way

        "I was just a mobik when the stars fell, blyat. And I remember how they built a huge S-400000 to shoot them down...."

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >what can you do with 150 ton in orbit?
      As well as new stuff, you can do old stuff exponentially cheaper. It's hard to overstate this, an enormous amount of space equipment cost comes non-linearly from lack of mass/launch cost. When things are tight, you need to use exotic hard to work with materials. You can't just throw shielding mass at stuff, so have to use fancier rad hardened everything. Complex folding arrangements to fit. All of which drives up cost, which encourages one-offs, which destroys economies of scale, which drives up costs more, which encourages making one single thing that will last as long as possible and never get any lessons learned for new versions, which also drives up more costs, all of which tends to feed into development delays, which leads to more cost, and feeds back on itself. The you end up with things like the JWST.

      All that goes into reverse when you've got ginormous, cheap, rapidly available mass to work with, and orbital refueling. You can just start using fricking steel for structural stuff, which is actually an awesome material. Use high end modern electronics, radiation? Just embed them in a ton of steel/lead. It's fine if something only lasts a few years, just make more. Which means each one will get cheaper, and can directly apply real world lessons from the previous ones. JWST had a launch mass of around 6.5 tons. Imagine instead back then they had 100 tons to work with. The hyper fancy sun shield and so on that was at such risk of tearing, now you can just spend the entire mass of the entire fricking current satellite just on that and still only be 13% into your budget. Everything can be thicker and more durable, now you don't have to worry about vibrations and so on as much. Way more onboard coolant and fuel to throw at challenges. And on and on.

      It'll take many years for the industry to catch up with it, but it'll be a seismic shift not to have to obsess about every gram.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Also, you already can see a lesser direct example: Starlink. The sats are cheap and disposable. Which means SpaceX can iterate rapidly, taking full advantage of advancing technology. They didn't ship with intersat laser links, and now that powers key capabilities. The antennas and everything else keeps improving. Lots of them cheap means they can be run low, which dramatically improves latency, coverage density, and also means they're debris proof because they fly low enough that even in the case of failure they'll naturally deorbit themselves due to atmospheric drag fairly quickly. Win/win/win, but wouldn't be possible without cheaper, high cadence launch. Starship will boost that further, and let lots of innovative new players try out stuff for way less money.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      A space station made of Starships

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      anything you want

      https://i.imgur.com/fdVQ1sW.jpg

      Tiddies. The most effective weapon known to man.

      very true

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nothing really. we're actually launching much less big stuff into orbit nowadays and memeship's performance outside LEO is fricking horrendous.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >memeship's performance outside LEO is fricking horrendous.
        orbital refueling would make it able to put 150 tons of anything anywhere in the solar system pretty much, how is that bad perfomance?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >150 tons of anything
          Meh. Mining companies make millions of tons of ore per year. You need to be able to move some billion ton asteroids to have a real thing going on. The way to do that is to attach solar sails to them and slowly pull them in.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            The asteroids would be hand picked for metals that we don't have here, like lithium.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            the point of mining in space, whether on the moon or mars or the asteroid belt or whatever, is to not have to send tons of materials up earth's gravity well

            look at the delta v map in

            https://i.imgur.com/ZouYhZ9.png

            I always found this map a touch easier for me to get but same thing.

            it costs 9.4k dV to send something to LEO
            but only 1.7k to send something up to low munar orbit. and since the moon doesn't have an atmo, you can do the first leg of it using a rail gun/mass driver using nothing more than electricity.

            so, if you have some basic resource extraction & manufacturing in place on the moon, suddenly you can assemble some incredibly big ships very cheaply

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Build orbital shipyards that can be used to construct much larger ships.

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    its a first gen cargo rocket. Meant to rapidly deliver mass tonnage for cheap into LEO. Tonnage you can configure into whatever thing you want to go wherever you want in whatever setup you want.

    If you cant think of any military application for that then I bet you think its only purpose are for the moon and mars marketing stunts

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I wish we could be doing shit like your image already instead of preparing for some more stupid pointless wars that wont change anything.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        wars are actually the great stimulator that pushes shit like your pic related forward. It opens the unlimited wallet as well as directs the biggest brains to the task if the threat of the competitor is perceived to be big enough. Last big transformation was WW2 and it went from barely getting out of the biplane era and ended with jets, rockets and the power of the atom.

        In space case a huge boon would be if chyna would actually be a competent adversary and push fast into space to claim clay on different worlds. Or build mega sat networks consisting of small and cheap interceptors neutering ICBM spam. US in fear of being outgunned in space would have all the motivation in the world to stop lawfaring outfits like spaceX because they dont politically like the owner and give them its full support

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          China is actually a competent adversary when it comes to space but the perception is lacking, so I am hoping that they do something drastic and send men to Luna, so that Americans wake the frick up already and do their signature "degeneration for decades and then a complete overmatch in few years" thing they love to do so often.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Humanity's competition with itself is what drives it forward. Staying alive does change things. Staying alive means that in the future, space isn't colonized exclusively by the fans of the opposing football team.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Weaponize this
    you don't have to, it already explodes on its own.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Make Edward Teller's Sundial and put it on top.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What would happen if you drop 10 gigatons of freedom on Moscow?

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Tiddies. The most effective weapon known to man.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Add nukes
    Rods of god
    Orbital shock troops
    Drop a thousand sentry guns or mines
    Or leaflet drop about israelites and their tricks.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Post the re-entry webm.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      This?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        At first I thought this was a troll. Then I realised the screen was rotating to keep the earth as a fixed point of reference.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        so the RCS dieded?
        if the fricken thing was spinning on the way in, no wonder it disintegrated

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I recommend watching whole flight (it's 20 minutes) to glean more info. A big tell is that when they were testing the payload door, there was still air inside. It hadn't depressurised fully. This seemingly caused the door to only open a crack before all the air rushing out held it in place against the rails. I believe this is what caused the spinning.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I believe this is what caused the spinning.
            ye, ok, but RCS should have been able to stabilize it afterwards
            if the thing was in a spin going in, that means no rcs
            and ofc the wings wouldn't start working until much lower in atmo, so presumably the thing just melted from exposing the non-shielded side and/or engines to the plasma

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              There was obviously no gas left to stabilise the vehicle. That's why you don't see any thrusters firing during the spin. They spent all of it trying to fight the spin from the payload door depressurisation and then tried to use the wings as a last ditch effort to stabilise the craft before temperatures became critical.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't think so, the door should be leeward as it's opposite the heat shield and should be facing up long before any aerodynamic forces are generated.
            I think the RCS failed to hault the rotation that started at SECO and it continued until breakup.
            It could have need either the RCS fricking up or the SECO shutdown / gimballing that produced too much rotation for the RCS to ever counter.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >SECO
              What that?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Second engine cut off, the second stage sutdown.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              I read somewhere that it is possible the thrusters were clogged with ice. supposedly they are using the primary fuel for RCS instead of using separate fuel, I haven't confirmed this

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        It’s a test vehicle going through an iterative design cycle. This thing was literally a water tower in a field a few years ago. It doesn’t face any insurmountable obstacles in its planned development. How many falcon 9s first stages did spacex lose before they got booster recovery down pat?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          funnily enough the hand welders who scrapped together the very first full sized starship hull were water tower welders

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They have built with engines already. They are modifying if with welding fast. The entire ship is around 40-50 million now with the steel and fast.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              most welding has been serialized into robotics for superheavy and starship as its the same project done over and over again. Ideal for robots. That is why you see hand welders for things like very first starship prototype or unique structures like individual singular water towers. Its faster and cheaper to do it by hand then get the machines in there and teach them how to do the work

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >How many falcon 9s first stages did spacex lose before they got booster recovery down pat?
          Assuming this isn't a rhetorical question, 16 iirc. Took them 16 tries. Now it does hundreds in a row.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          elob grumsk bad

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Felonius Huskrat will PAY for his crimes

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        the fact this was streamed live in HD via Elon's own satellite constellation is fricking insane holy shit

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://twitter.com/Pockn_CG/status/1769057806022492396

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      nice cgi

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      imagine the smell

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >first there was ass to ass fuel transfer
      >now there is ass first reinsertion
      she has got a big booty and she aint afraid to use it

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >send it to 44.419°N 38.205°E
    >take the trajectory that will result in it having as much fuel as possible when it gets there
    >make formal apology to Russia for the loss of vehicle control and pay the littering fine
    >aim the next one at 55.751° N, 37.618° E

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >all these dudes with horrendous grammar and syntax acting like they know anything about rocket equations
    Pffft, yeah right. You're not fooling anyone.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >install KSP RP-1
      >learn a lot of real rocketry
      >fall in love with amazing real world engines like the RL10 and RD-180
      Give it a go anon, it's not that hard.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    let’s be honest now. The main military purpose will be recruitment advertisement billboards in space. Gotta get those numbers up.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The day I see a billboard zoom overhead in LEO is the day I commit to being a supervillain and building a doomsday weapon to blow up this gay ass earth.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I just want to know if it's going to be Google or Coke that drives you to do it, not when.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          I bet the first one is gonna be some startup with more funding than sense. After that it's open season.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        i feel like that would be amazing. like something out of Blade Runner.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Frick you, don't obstruct my view of space. Even those floating billboards at the beach are crossing a line.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I agree the moment someone does it all other reasonable countries should use it for testing anti sat weapons

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      anon stop giving advertisers ideas
      but if they becoms real, can we all agree to put a space billboard ad for /k/?

      https://i.imgur.com/f94Hjkm.jpg

      Weaponize this

      i would use it for logistics anywhere. i'd put a burger king innit

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    6,750,000 lazy dog warhead, airburst.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    You can tell whether someone is a real person or an NPC by whether they get excited by Starship

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The near-term focus of the P2PD program is to establish the foundational capability areas through operational integration and fielding of Point-to-Point Delivery (P2PD) services, specifically the development and integration of prototype air drop delivery systems

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >weaponizing space
    literally a war crime

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      only if you are on the losing side

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It only bans deploying nuclear weapons in space.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    china already has plans

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      hahahahaha, its like they are always 10 years behind the US. Amazing.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      These all look to have payloads measured in tens of tons. Looks like they're hopping on the reusability train, but super heavy lift is still a ways off.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Fair play to them, I hope they do well if only because it will make the media start to fear-monger about a "launch capability gap" and then make the NPC's of the country accept the government allocating more funding to space.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Your moms dildo. The one moronic homosexuals like you borrow.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >weaponized spacecraft
    can't do that yet, we haven't gotten to the war in the Arctic.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Stuff satellites in it.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OH NOOOO SLS SRBS HAVE 4 SEGMENTS AND SHITTLE HAD 6
    IT'S A WHOEL NEW ROGGET

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Other than the engines, its essentially a brand new rocket. None of the original shuttle tooling has been used. It's not an external tank with engines on the bottom, that was the Jupiter proposal.

      RS-25s and SRBs were used because they are significantly cheaper than designing a new engine and reconfiguring Kennedy to handle liquid boosters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous
      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >RS-25s and SRBs were used because they are significantly cheaper than designing a new engine
        No, they aren't, as SpaceX has literally repeatedly demonstrated. NASA is paying over $150 million PER FRICKING ENGINE for the RS-25s. Meanwhile Raptors are already below $1m each. Solids are fricking trash for non-military rockets too.

        This shit was used because of powerful Congress members wanting jobs to stay in their states/districts. That's it. Same reason SRBs were manufactured in fricking Utah, and thus had to be in all those stupid segments, which is ultimately why seals and o-rings were needed leading to the Challenger loss.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          this book opened my eyes to the Mormon connection to Challenger

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Comparing the most efficient liquid rocket engines ever designed to a tiny kersone burner designed specifically (by NASA) to be as cheap as possible.
          Oh good, you're a moron. Please explain to me how designing a brand new high performance liquid man rated engine is cheaper than using an already established and proven design. SpaceX's woes with the Raptor and multiple revisions proves that. The fact that you decry solids despite them being amazing for rocket launches just shows you to be a blind fanboy.

          Surprise surprise, people in government want to benefit their own districts. The horror. Challenger loss was mainly because of a rushed schedule and cold temperatures btw.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Oh good, you're a moron.
            >Please explain to me how designing a brand new high performance liquid man rated engine is cheaper than using an already established and proven design
            Please explain how it isn't when SpaceX has just clearly demonstrated it is.
            >SpaceX's woes with the Raptor and multiple revisions proves that.
            No, SpaceX's massive success with the Raptor, ability to rapidly iterate it, and to do entire hardware stack tests for less money then a SINGLE engine for the Senate Launch System proves that.
            >government inefficiency is... LE GOOD
            Go back.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              It isn't man rated and it isn't flight proven considering Starship hasn't even achieved orbit. Go back.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It isn't man rated
                Doesn't matter, that's a total meme.
                >considering Starship hasn't even achieved orbit
                lol seething moron. Starship could have burned for a few more seconds at a slightly different inclination and been in orbit no problem. It followed their flight plan exactly, which was specifically to stay on a suborbital trajectory for safety purposes. But pretending following the suborbital flight plan filed with the FAA perfectly with all engines running perfectly somehow means it couldn't have gone to orbit is just pathetic.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Doesn't matter, that's a total meme.
                Yea bro, just ride the vibrations to space. Absolute state of SpaceX shills.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >solid rockets
                >no vibrations
                Pick one and only one leddit meme spouter.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >He thinks liquid engines can't vibrate you to death.
                Holy shit lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks solids don't all vibrate like mad, inherently
                >he thinks every single other man rocket except shuttle and shuttleLS being all liquid including Mercury/Redstone/AtlasD/Apollo/Soyuz/Falcon 9 is some sort of fluke
                >he thinks "man rated" isn't just "whatever NASA wants"
                lel
                luving
                every
                lkek

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he thinks "man rated" isn't just "whatever NASA wants"
                Even if that was true, and there is a massive conspiracy against le SpaceX and only Musk knows the truth that man rating rocket engines is actually a meme, Memeship doesn't launch unless it follows NASA standards so cope.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Even if that was true,
                It is. Which historically still mattered because NASA was the sole major customer for launching people, but it'll matter less and less as commercial ramps up.

                But only desperate spergs think that by the time SpaceX launches people on Starship it'll have been proven out amply with hundreds if not thousands of actual flights. It's obvious they'll follow the same normal F9 pattern: start with their own and high risk cargo, then move to broader commercial/gov cargo, then eventually to humans years down the line. SpaceX already has the best human launcher anyway, they can have Starship deliver cargo and space station components and so on and use Dragon for humans as long as they need to.
                >and there is a massive conspiracy against le SpaceX and only Musk knows the truth that man rating rocket engines is actually a meme,
                No, literally everyone who isn't a coping homosexual does.
                >Memeship doesn't launch unless it follows NASA standards so cope.
                lol no moron. FAA is who controls launch, that's it. NASA has no role beyond advisory or deciding standards for its own stuff. Imagine desperately coping this hard lmao. NASA also doesn't care for the foreseeable future, because they don't have any humans slated to launch on Starship.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                FYI space Force has authority over launches from the eastern & western ranges (CCSFS & Vanderburg), which imo is why SX launches Starship from Boca Chita. Avoids the whole USSF bureaucracy and only has to deal with the FAA (which compatibly knows jack shit about launches, they've mostly offloaded that responsibility to USSF up till this point)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >but it'll matter less and less as commercial ramps up.
                No it wont. There will be no commercial ramp up for at least a few decades. The economy for putting people into space is exceedingly small and Muskship won't change that.
                >No, literally everyone who isn't a coping homosexual does.
                So a SpaceX shill?
                >lol no moron. FAA is who controls launch, that's it.
                If Memeship somehow has a market and somehow has people willing to buy seats, the FAA would most definitely come up with a certification system for certifying human carrying rockets, and who do you think they will go to for help on creating said certifications?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >If Memeship somehow has a market and somehow
                Starship's fundamental market is internal. Everything else is a bonus. The cost of entry for Everything Else is being lower priced and cheaper than Falcon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They will be launching 260,000 I lbs into Leo at 500,000 k cost everyday. That changes everything

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >500k
                lmao no

                It'll also change nothing because there are no payloads that heavy needed in LEO. Starship, if they actually finish it, will be mainly used for HSL and launching Starlink. That's quite literally the only market for it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes. 500,000 per shot. That's the cost of fuel, reset. It's cheaper than the falcon because they'll catch everything, steel is cheaper to work with and the fuel is very cheap plus the phase zero

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                $500k might have been the fuel cost whenever Elon tweeted this years ago

                If SpaceX starts a huge demand for that orbital grade methane the price is gonna go up.

                Also you're entirely ignoring any processing/refurb costs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I included them. You know the starship and the super heavy booster are different. The starship on the top has different types. Some will go to the moon. Some to mars. Some will put satellites up first. There are 8 ready to put starlinks up.already. they are steel. It cost 40 million to make everything. And they can go to orbit.
                Sls cost 1.5 billion a shot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >It cost 40 million to make everything.
                I wish I was this delusional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think you are stupid and I'm trying to be patient

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not the one stupid enough to believe that a skyscraper sized rocket costs $40m lmao.

                Every space agency on Earth just spent a decade betting against reusables after the market thoroughly proved itself and everyone's suddenly very desperate to make up for the capex they just wasted while having no budget to build a reusable.

                [...]
                >I'm not deriding it, but making a single stick launcher like F9 is a hell of a lot less risky (and costly) than the goals they've set for starship. And some of the things they've done just to meet elons timelines are moronic - blowing up the entire pad on tf1 was an easily predictable waste and compromised the rest of the data that mission could have gather.
                The pad destruction on IFT-1 really didn't compromise anything, since the plume pushed the debris away from the launch vehicle. The loss of the vehicle in flight was due to the same cause as the loss of the ship during IFT2: methane leaks out of Raptor's pumps, and without a good gas purge system there's risk of entrainment and fire if an oxidizer is present.

                [...]
                >I was explaining that guy's argument and then explaining why he's an idiot
                Ah, very good. Carry on, then

                >while having no budget to build a reusable.
                Or they realize that they don't have the launch cadence required to make one work. SpaceX fans will never understand the actual economies of reusable rockets lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The cadence discussion isn't really brought up enough, SpaceX has a fleet and can only fly them so often, getting a "slot", so to speak, on one of those flights can't be easy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I'm not the one stupid enough to believe that a skyscraper sized rocket costs $40m lmao.
                No, you're extremely stupid making such appeals to incredulity. A metric ton of steel costs <$1k. Steel is fricking cheap. It's also cheap to work with, once tool cost is amortized. SpaceX has built a factory that can mass produce and pump out rockets and engines, everything is optimized for cost, so they've got that covered. Starship only uses 6 Raptors, which are already <$1m/pop. Meanwhile even Falcon 9 uses fancy alloys and fiber everywhere.

                So yeah it's completely believable they'll hit their target of $10m or less for the cheap versions (tankers for example). Super Heavy is always going to be where most of the cost is, 33 engines, far more plumbing, tankage, and raw material. But if they recover that they can afford to expend SS cheap whenever it makes sense.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                raptors are 200k, and that was a few months ago. I'd imagine they're cheaper now.
                Cost for a full stack, just basic starlink slinger configuration, can be 20mil easy.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                labor is expensive, let's double that because it will still clown on everybody

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The fact they even put 250 lbs into orbit for 40 million every month is insane. I think two more launches they'll start trying to catch

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                As this guy said, Starship's an incredibly cheap machine to build for what it is, specifically because it's built almost entirely out of cheap materials with minimal machining and processing before use: the very definition of Design for Manufacturing.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's also built right where it is launched. That's a pretty big chunk of savings too.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Also for other numbers, Starship has a dry mass of 100 tons, and Super Heavy of 200 tons. In contrast SH carries 3400 tons of prop, and SS 1200 tons. "Skyscaper size" means not much for rockets, which have extremely thin walls and are almost entirely propellant in mass at launch, which is also why having lots of engines is critical for reusability. In terms of raw materials though it's <$500k in steel. Somewhere between $30-40m in engines, and dropping. Electronics is a rounding error. Then they'll be probably a few million in misc stuff, and of course finally labor. Entire stack is easily less than $100m though and SS alone can probably get below $40m no problem.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think the ss dry mass is higher at the moment, like 160? but the point still stands.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                I think the ss dry mass is higher at the moment, like 160? but the point still stands.

                we do NOT have numbers for Starship dry mass right now

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >vulcan îs specifically designed for gay government NSSF payload orbits
                imagine backing yourself into that sort of corner. how embarrassing.

                we had that one time the unencrypted crane operator radio transmissions were recorded, back when they did a stack with a normal crane and not the 'zilla. I forget what the value was - and that was a looooong time ago.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                did we get unencrypted crane operator radio transmissions or was it straight up using a telescope to look at the digital display on the load cell, because I remember the latter but not the former

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                both I think

                Outokumpu is the supplier for 304L in 72" coil stock at, I think 3.8mm thickness now, which is priced on inquiry. The price per ton is probably well over $5000.

                SUOMIII

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                They designed a rocket for the market that existed.

                SpaceX designed a rocket for a market they wanted to create (and pretty much use for themselves).

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Musk said final dry mass was 160-200t for SH in that every day astronaut interview last year, they were still tweaking designs at that point but I doubt the final is radically different. It lines up with the reported prop loads and raptor ISP. Everyone can roughly sim out what kind of dry mass percentage it needs to get that 100-150t cargo to LEO.

                I'll admit SS might have changed more and at any rate fundamentally it's probably wrong to just slap one number on it since it'll have a lot of variants, each of which will vary in dry mass somewhat. But again it's still not going to vary THAT much.

                And material costs still won't make much of a difference here, nor tooling once they lock it down. Nothing has ever been intended for mass manufacture quite like this in commercial orbital rocketry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Outokumpu is the supplier for 304L in 72" coil stock at, I think 3.8mm thickness now, which is priced on inquiry. The price per ton is probably well over $5000.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Outokumpu is the supplier for 304L in 72" coil stock at, I think 3.8mm thickness now, which is priced on inquiry. The price per ton is probably well over $5000.
                Well, that just kind of reinforces the point. Sure, increase it by a factor of 5, but even if we go by that (and SpaceX should be able to do somewhat better ordering in their kind of quantities, everything steel is cheaper if you order enough of it), that still only adds up to $1-2m out of the total cost of the rocket. It's just not a limiting factor in their costs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yeah, it definitely costs more for labor than it does for the materials

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                both I think

                [...]
                SUOMIII

                Finland mentioned

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                raptors are 200k, and that was a few months ago. I'd imagine they're cheaper now.
                Cost for a full stack, just basic starlink slinger configuration, can be 20mil easy.

                The fact they even put 250 lbs into orbit for 40 million every month is insane. I think two more launches they'll start trying to catch

                As this guy said, Starship's an incredibly cheap machine to build for what it is, specifically because it's built almost entirely out of cheap materials with minimal machining and processing before use: the very definition of Design for Manufacturing.

                Also for other numbers, Starship has a dry mass of 100 tons, and Super Heavy of 200 tons. In contrast SH carries 3400 tons of prop, and SS 1200 tons. "Skyscaper size" means not much for rockets, which have extremely thin walls and are almost entirely propellant in mass at launch, which is also why having lots of engines is critical for reusability. In terms of raw materials though it's <$500k in steel. Somewhere between $30-40m in engines, and dropping. Electronics is a rounding error. Then they'll be probably a few million in misc stuff, and of course finally labor. Entire stack is easily less than $100m though and SS alone can probably get below $40m no problem.

                Even the fuel is good for cost. In expendable rockets fuel isn't much of a consideration, but when everything else gets cheap it starts to add up. RP1 isn't nothing, but methane in Texas is damn near is. And methalox doesn't coke which is going to make engine refurb cheaper and easier. It's a hell of a system.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                raptors are 200k, and that was a few months ago. I'd imagine they're cheaper now.
                Cost for a full stack, just basic starlink slinger configuration, can be 20mil easy.

                Also for other numbers, Starship has a dry mass of 100 tons, and Super Heavy of 200 tons. In contrast SH carries 3400 tons of prop, and SS 1200 tons. "Skyscaper size" means not much for rockets, which have extremely thin walls and are almost entirely propellant in mass at launch, which is also why having lots of engines is critical for reusability. In terms of raw materials though it's <$500k in steel. Somewhere between $30-40m in engines, and dropping. Electronics is a rounding error. Then they'll be probably a few million in misc stuff, and of course finally labor. Entire stack is easily less than $100m though and SS alone can probably get below $40m no problem.

                homosexuals like you are the reason why people say SpaceX fans are utterly delusional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it can't be that cheap because... it just can't, ok!?!!

                you really aren't doing a good job convincing us of your case mr. boomer angry ula man

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's believing in reusability as a future architecture and then there's deluding yourself so hard you're chugging cum.

                You're solidly in the latter category of "fans".

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you're a 5

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yes but my paycheck makes me a 10

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >he believes the numbers Elon tweets

                >I don't know what point you're trying to make but you seem to be conflation 2 or 3 different thoughts.

                Hydromeme uppers are flaunted as offering larger Delta-V budgets on orbit. A Tug exists to do satisfy the same kind of function, but once they spend their propellants, they're just another piece of upper stage space junk. Effectively, it's a third stage. What's the point?

                Again, you don't have any idea what you're talking about. ACES fundamentally just let the vehicle sit for longer between burns. If you have to expend all your propellant in 2-3 days you limit the sort of on orbit maneuvers your vehicle can do.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >No it wont. There will be no commercial ramp up for at least a few decades. The economy for putting people into space is exceedingly small and Muskship won't change that.
                Wow, utter delusion. Looking forward to watching your descent into complete denial of reality over the next few years though.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Wow, utter delusion. Looking forward to watching your descent into complete denial of reality over the next few years though.
                You homosexuals said the same things when F9 first flew crew and yet some magical economy of pixie dust where people are lining up to go to space never manifested despite the AMAZINGLY cheap seats. What a surprise. Surely it'll manifest soon.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                ah, me vs them mentality. I'm sureeee that isn't impacting your ability to be logical and not deluded.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                bro there have been multiple commercial astronaut missions in the last two years, it will only accelerate

                >did you miss the entire natural gas refining setup that SpaceX were planning on building at Starbase? They get high purity methane off those trucks
                No, but it seems you missed that they took the entire thing apart and started qualifying Raptor on natural gas.

                oh shit what, fill me in please
                with sources

                >Serious about their goals
                I just hope they're serious enough to keep blowing up quarter million dollar rockets every few months for incremental gains in capability. It makes for pretty fireworks and seeing the bits & pieces pop up on eBay afterwards is enjoyable.

                amen brother

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it will only accelerate
                Accelerate to do what, precisely? There are only a few people rich enough to want to go to space and once you run out of millionaires, who do you launch?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                they haven't run out of billionaires yet

                It seems like you're making one point here and then you make another one entirely.

                I was explaining that guy's argument and then explaining why he's an idiot

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    smells like SLSstan in here, gross. Imagine defending that expendable boondoggle in current year

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I personally don't care if we waste tax dollars on big rockets. They're cool. In fact, I think we should be funding an even wider variety of ways to shoot shit into space.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Reusables are a meme on medium lift rockets and are a complete joke when it comes to super heavy lifters.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I really can't tell if you're trolling.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Reusables are stupid for the vast majority of circumstances. They're even stupider considering how few heavy payloads are being lifted.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            holy shit you are trolling. or just incredibly stupid and been living under a rock since 2015.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >le spacex launch a lot (of their own payloads) therefore le reusables are le future!!!!!!!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                (you)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                explain to me the economics of reusability when you aren't launching who gives a frick internet sattelites.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                so you're saying the whole point of reusability falls apart if you have a low launch rate? YES you FRICKING MORON, that's the WHOLE POINT.
                You sound like that petulant butthole at Ariane who was saying "buh buh we would have to shut down our factory if we re-use a rocket because then we only need one for the minuscule number of launches we do a year :~~*(

                frick off to r/spacelaunchsystem idiot

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                The whole point of reusability falls apart when you realize that there aren't nearly enough fricking payloads to justify it you dumb smooth brained tard. That's why they came up with Starlink because they would get single digit launches per year with the normal market.

                you should let BO and RL and Stoke etc etc etc alllll know that they're going down the wrong path. Clearly you know more than them.

                >Companies also headed by billionaire morons are also doing reusability
                Incredible. That's why every country is developing reusable rockets for their next generation launch vehicle. Oh wait.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >The whole point of reusability falls apart when you realize that there aren't nearly enough fricking payloads to justify it you dumb smooth brained tard. That's why they came up with Starlink because they would get single digit launches per year with the normal market.

                The point of reusability is to make launches cheaper so that the market realizes "oh shit, we have access to space". That means orbital infrastructure, asteroid mining, industry.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Incredible. That's why every country is developing reusable rockets for their next generation launch vehicle. Oh wait.
                China has several groups making powerpoints about it, 2 with hoppers; the LM-9 is one of the only next-gen rockets any non-American group has proposed, let alone funded (Ariane 6 is not next gen).
                Speaking of, ESA is (at least pretending to) develop a reusable with Ariane Next - and if the A6 design wasn't already 90% finished by the time SpaceX proved landing and reuse viable with F9, then Ariane would have skipped A6 and gone straight for reuse.
                ISRO has the NGLV which is partially reusable and is intended to replace all 3 of their current launchers. They also have the RLV LEX spaceplane, but that's closer to an X-37B than a true upper stage.
                If r*ssia was even capable of developing any new rockets then they'd have Soyuz-7/Amur.

                Really the only country (that can launch more than 10 tons to LEO per year) that ISN'T really developing a reusable is Japan, but they're in the same position as Ariane where they had H3 already planned out before Falcon 9 showed reusability wasn't a meme, so they fell for sunk cost and went all-in on an obsolete design. Even then, JAXA is still studying reusables; they just haven't put a name on their program yet.
                Frick man, even Australia has a reusable air-breathing SSTO spaceplane memelauncher that's actually built a pathfinder, and the country hasn't even put anything into orbit before.

                Exclusively non-reusable future rocket developers that: HAVE achieved orbit -
                Best Korea, Worst Korea, Iran, Israel - none of which are developing any new rockets; and britain(derogatory) which technically achieved orbit like once and is maybe? developing a new rocket

                HAVE NOT yet achieved orbit -
                Germany
                Spain
                Brazil

                In other words, every relevant space power is now pursuing reusables in some capacity, and most of those have funded named programs to develop rockets with known specifications and already existing engines.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                stop ruining the good time
                morons are way funnier when they're confident and you haven't pulled out the rug from under them yet.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                thread hit the bump limit and it's on page 10, if not now then never since nobody is going to pay attention to a cross-thread post

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you should let BO and RL and Stoke etc etc etc alllll know that they're going down the wrong path. Clearly you know more than them.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                reusability means you get to divide the cost of whatever part of the rocket you reuse by the average number of launches it can sustain

                eg, lets say that a falcon 9 first stage costs 50mil (it doesn't, its far less, but i cba to google it), and you get to use it 10 times
                well, suddenly you can spread that 50mil cost to 10 launches, not 1.
                which means, that first stage only costs 5mil per launch, not 50.

                what part of this is hard to understand, you moronic ass, sls wienersucking, probably democrat voting doubleBlack person?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                But then your tooling and infrastructure just sits idly by while a single rocket does an entire year's worth of launches. You SpaceX brainlets don't seem to understand that rockets are trucks to deliver payloads. That is their only function. You don't build a fleet of trucks for a handful of payloads.

                Get it now? If you don't like there are plenty of circlejerks on Reddit waiting for you.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                damn I didn't realize Boeing's tooling is sitting idly by while their planes are being re-used after each flight. I wonder if CuisineArt's tooling is also idle - I re-used my toaster today too

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Boeing's tooling doesn't sit around because they are constantly making planes for buyers that ordered them. CuisineArt's tooling isn't sitting around because there are millions of people buying them. A reusable rocket's tooling sits around because there are only a few customers who want to put a satellite into space and the one rocket can handle all of those payloads.

                In fact, there are actually fewer customers for satellites compared to 10 years ago so there's even less incentive for a reusable rocket unless you're doing constellations.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >But then your tooling and infrastructure just sits idly by while a single rocket does an entire year's worth of launches
                its not a year. spacex does triple digit launches a year. first stages last double digit number of launches. they're still consumable, just one one-offs

                > You SpaceX brainlets don't seem to understand that rockets are trucks to deliver payloads. That is their only function.
                exactly. how widespread would trucking be if every truck had to be scrapped when it reached its first destination?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >spacex does triple digit launches a year.
                Of their own payloads, hence my point. They launch single digits of customer payloads.

                >how widespread would trucking be if every truck had to be scrapped when it reached its first destination?
                If there was a backlog of payloads due to expendable trucks, then the market would adjust to reusable trucks. There is no backlog of customer payloads in the launch industry. It is a very small industry with razor thin margins who's needs are more than met by expendables. Hence why SpaceX mainly launch their own shit.

                I suppose it isn't too useful to bring up the goal of colonizing mars and the megagrammage it requires with this guy either huh

                >colonizing mars
                A meme. There's no point to it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >There is no backlog of customer payloads in the launch industry. It is a very small industry with razor thin margins who's needs are more than met by expendables.
                wrong.
                it WAS a small industry, because launch costs were astronomical, because rockets were expendable.
                now that they're not, and launch costs have dropped by an order of magnitude, the industry is growing and launching more often

                >A meme. There's no point to it.
                i actually agree with this point
                frick mars
                the important thing is to start setting up some manufacturing capacity, either in earth orbit, or, far more likely, lunar orbit.

                once we have a source of fuel that doesn't need to be sent up earths very deep gravity well, we're in an incredibly better position to start exploiting the rest of the solar system.

                again, play some fricking ksp dude.
                getting minmus ISRU up and running is *essential* if you want to do outer solar system missions for cheap.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >it WAS a small industry
                It's still a very small industry. Rocket companies launching their own payloads doesn't mean anything.

                >the industry is growing and launching more often
                There are fewer customers today than there were 10 years ago. Hence why rocket companies have shifted to launching their own payloads. I invite you to point at any payloads that are only in space right now specifically because SpaceX was marginally cheaper in one of the cheapest parts of spaceflight.

                Even then, Vulcan, a brand expendable (the horror) already has 70 launches sold and earned ULA more launches from the Space Force than SpaceX while being cheaper than the F9.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Half of those are Kuiper, and the other half is NSSF/SDA/NRO where they have two providers for redundancy. But keep shilling for ULA man, whatever floats your boat. I hope your sale to BO goes well.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                While I am sceptical of Starship's viability, I don't mind it existing if they can get it to work before running out of money. I do however take issue with these sci-fi tier ideas being proposed as if they were in any way realistic.
                >the important thing is to start setting up some manufacturing capacity, either in earth orbit, or, far more likely, lunar orbit
                Even with the amazingly cheap cost to orbit of Starship, manufacturing in orbit is going to be insanely expensive compared to doing it on Earth. What are you going to produce in orbit and who is going to pay for it to be produced there?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >What are you going to produce in orbit and who is going to pay for it to be produced there?
                fuel
                and the idea is not to produce it in orbit, but rather on the moon
                sending fuel up earths gravity well costs 9k dV (iirc). sending it up around the moon like 2k (iirc), and you can use rail guns to reduce that to 0.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Producing fuel on the moon is a meme in our life-time. We do not have the technology, by far, to build a manufacturing plant on the Moon. We do not, by far, have the tech for mining on the moon or putting something to mine in orbit around the moon. These are dreams impractical on the same level, or worse, as the vacuum train.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Producing fuel on the moon is a meme in our life-time.
                why?
                pretty sure the moon has ice, which means water, which means water, which means hydrogen and oxygen, which means hydrolox, which means all we need is a vaccum optimized hydrolox engine (we have a few of those already) and we can take advantage of it

                >We do not have the technology
                water + electricity = hydrogen + oxygen
                pretty basic shit, anon

                >to build a manufacturing plant on the Moon.
                we don't need a manufacturing plant, we need a space bulldozer that can mine ice, some filters, and a nuclear reactor (or solar panels, but a nuke would be so much better)

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >just mine some ice on the moon with a bulldozer and electrolyse it
                Are you implying this is an easy task? Have you looked at mining operations on Earth? The maintenance and support infrastructure equipment needs to function? What are you going to use to power the bulldozer? Where will you store the fuel? How are you going to transfer the fuel to a space craft?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Are you implying this is an easy task?
                im implying its doable.

                >Have you looked at mining operations on Earth? The maintenance and support infrastructure equipment needs to function?
                that shit is doable with cheap rockets that can launch 100t at the moon at a time.

                >What are you going to use to power the bulldozer? Where will you store the fuel
                electricity and batteries, respectively

                >How are you going to transfer the fuel to a space craft?
                2 possibilities

                1) i would launch the ice straight to lunar orbit via rail gun, pick it up with a space tug, drag it to a orbiting refinery station, hydrolize and freeze on site, and transfer it to a docket spacecraft, which could either be a proper spacecraft or a mobile fuel delivery craft, whichever is most convenient.
                2) and this is a more long term goal, i would build the spacecraft on the moon itself, provided the moon has the raw materials for doing so (not sure what minerals there are on the moon, but i'd imagine iron and carbon are present to make steel). anything not practical for in-situ manufacturing, eg advanced chips, i'd have sent over from earth. then it would be a simple matter of fueling the spacecraft in place.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >electricity and batteries, respectively
                Electricity produced from what? Electrolysis of water is very energy intensive as is running a bulldozer that is going to mine ice. Solar power on the moon isn't much more effective than solar power here on Earth.
                >1) i would launch the ice straight to lunar orbit via rail gun, pick it up with a space tug, drag it to a orbiting refinery station, hydrolize and freeze on site, and transfer it to a docket spacecraft, which could either be a proper spacecraft or a mobile fuel delivery craft, whichever is most convenient.
                So now we went from a bulldozer on the moon to a bulldozer and a rail gun on the moon with a refinery in orbit.
                >2) and this is a more long term goal, i would build the spacecraft on the moon itself, provided the moon has the raw materials for doing so (not sure what minerals there are on the moon, but i'd imagine iron and carbon are present to make steel). anything not practical for in-situ manufacturing, eg advanced chips, i'd have sent over from earth. then it would be a simple matter of fueling the spacecraft in place.
                Which would require a full mining operation with support infrastructure, large scale power generation and a whole host of manufacturing plants of everything from metals to microchips. These are fun dreams, anon, but they aren't happening in our life-time if ever.

                I'll stop posting here and give you the last word if you want it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Electricity produced from what?
                nuclear or solar

                >Solar power on the moon isn't much more effective than solar power here on Earth.
                well, technically it is, since you don't have an atmosphere that reduces the intensity of sunlight, nor do you have weather that sometimes obstructs the sun
                but yes, its not a HUGE difference.

                >and a rail gun on the moon with a refinery in orbit.
                yes, there's infrastructure needed to do it.
                mind you, its not that much. the "rail gun" we're talking about is basically just some very powerful electromagnets throwing something into space at a predetermined speed.
                and the "refinery" you need in orbit is vastly simpler than an oil refinery, you just need to filter some impurities from the ice and hydrolyze it.

                >Which would require a full mining operation with support infrastructure, large scale power generation and a whole host of manufacturing plants
                yes, that's a more long term goal

                >from metals to microchips
                metals yes, as they would make up a significant portion of the ships mass, and are relatively easy to make
                chips no, as they are much lighter and MUCH more complicated to make, so those you'd send up from earth

                >These are fun dreams, anon, but they aren't happening in our life-time if ever.
                look, i don't have a crystal ball or anything.
                what im saying is that all this stuff is DOABLE. im not saying it WILL be done.

                at the end of the day, all this scifi shit is cool, but there needs to be the motivation to do it.
                back in the 60s/70s, the motivation was the cold war. which empire would reach space first, which would reach the moor first. it was a matter of pride, of competing against your mortal enemy. so the us government threw shitloads of money at nasa and told them to do it, so they did it.
                nowadays tho, that is not the case.

                i truly believe there are ways to exploit space economically, but getting there requires serious infrastructure to be built beforehand, which makes it a sort of chicken and egg problem

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Public interest is more important because the public pays the taxes and the government funds the space programs, including SpaceX. There's going to be an economical point where SpaceX enters a runaway greenhouse effect phase of mining asteroids and such, but until then the public needs to see an interest in space development. Getting a man on Mars is that carrot.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We still don't know how to get asteroids to orbit but once we do, I doubt there will be any off-planet mining plans for projects on the bottom of a gravity well

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Nobody is talking about going to Mars to mine it. You can already go to Australia for that experience. The Mars mission is just to make us all feel good about what humans can do and our future and stuffs.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                except that is exactly the purpose after the initial soigape about boots on mars wears off. Research and prospecting outposts doing geological surveys to see what ore and resource deposits are there. Followed with on world mining to establish first pieces of the industrial chain. In the end it will be cheaper to build machines on site at mars then wait 6+ months for them to shipped from earth

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It's not quite like that. We want to know what Mars is made of, but the reason for that is to determine the feasibility off building colonies there from local materials. Shipping stuff back to Earth, out of the gravity well, is not on the table.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Mars will have an exceptionally hard soil, since plate tectonics didn't sink the heavy materials and broken apart lighter ones before churning them out on to the surface, unlike on Terra. Same thing for Venus.

                As far as total composition goes, both of our sister planets were made at the same point in the history of the universe so we can expect to find the same stuff in same ratios but it will be much harded to get to.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Venus
                >surface pressure 91 bars. Earths surface is 1 bar. Its like being a kilometer under ocean
                >atmo so thick the Venera probes did not need parachutes. They "floated" to the surface much like crap floats in water to the bottom
                >Average surface temperature planet wide 400-500 degrees celsius
                >sulfuric acid rains from the sky
                >rotation counterclockwise as the only planet in the system and so slow one venutian day is 116 earth days
                yeah, in venus case its cheaper to bring shit from earth then to try and actually land on the thing to make things on site. Crying shame too it got fricked up in the planetary crib and lost its magnetosphere. Other then that its in the goldilocks zone and almost the same size as earth. Very well could have been a sister planet with its own ecosystem as it also had water when it formed.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                you forgot the most important thing about venus.
                it takes 27k dV to reach low orbit from the surface, lol.
                its MUCH cheaper to send stuff over from earth

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Touche. I stand corrected

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                that's a bad number, you can balloon to the middle atmosphere from the surface and then it's like... 7 km/s dV to LVO

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                the Venusian cloud casinos will rule the inner system

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >just pot some plants bro!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Dunning-Kruger much? Pretty much the only thing you said which was correct is that mining things on other planets is harder than on Earth, and yet that's still not for the reasons you asserted.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                How?
                Will Mars have fundamentally different element ratios than Earth does and why?
                If plate tectonics don't sink hard rocks, they stay on top, like on Venus, making any mining difficult.
                Correct me if I am wrong

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Honestly, space stations would be easier to make around planets than actual colonies on them.
                Moon colonies will have to be dug deep, so will Mars colonies, Moon colonies will require constant supplying and Mars colonies will always require specialist equipment be brought to them.

                I personally don't see it, in terms of Mars, but maybe I am wrong, who knows.
                Maybe the space race 2 with China will push us to do stupid things for pride alone, like Artemis.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >30 day night
                >not a huge difference
                lmao warm up those batteries boy

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, indeed. but also
                >30 day day
                fire up the manufacturing plant, bois!

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Producing fuel on the moon is a meme in our life-time
                There is only 66 years difference between the Wright Brothers first flight and Apollo 11. Technology can advance at a lightning pace when people put their minds to something.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Technology isn't even the issue, really. It's just the economics of it.
                It takes more delta-v to stop at the moon and refuel than it does to just keep accelerating a little bit longer and fling yourself out to Mars. It's much more sensible to refuel in Earth orbit, where it's easy to reuse tanker spacecraft. Unsurprisingly, that is SpaceX's plan with Starship.

                On Mars you can aerobrake to slow down for "free", and you can produce methalox. On the moon you need a fully powered deceleration burn to slow down, and you can only make hydrolox. Hydrogen is harder to work with and because you cannot produce methane on the moon, a spacecraft that goes between the moon and Mars is impractical.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >you cannot produce methane on the moon
                wrong

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                in the short term sure its easier to just go directly to mars, in the long term tho building and refueling a massive ship in moon orbit is going to be way more economical then doing it in earth orbit and bigger ships make more sense if we are going to try and colonise other planets

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Stuff that can only be produced in low-g. There are certain chemicals, crystals, drugs, etc., which cannot be reliably produced on Earth. One company already flew a test capsule to see if they could make valuable stuff in orbit... only to see the federal government twiddle their thumbs for 6 months before giving them clearance to bring it back down. Imagine that sort of thing being done at scale, using cheap bulk lift to get feedstock into space and the resulting goods back to the ground.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                he thinks there is a conspiracy afoot to justify reusability by spending billions upon billions of dollars launching starlink. I think? It's kinda funny. And then that same conspiracy has convinced other rocket companies to also go for reusability....?

                Does he not remember shuttle existed? and that it was pre-starlink? hell reusability goes back to the late 50s with concept papers

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >conspiracy afoot
                It's not a conspiracy lmao. The only way to make reusability work is to also launch a frick ton. That's what every study has concluded. The satellite market is way too small to support a reusable rocket so they make their own payloads with Starlink.

                >And then that same conspiracy has convinced other rocket companies to also go for reusability....?
                They also are planning giant satellite constellations to have the launches they need to make reusability work.

                >Does he not remember shuttle existed?
                Also planned for a 2 week launch rate to make reusability work.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                this homie thinks price elasticity of demand doesn't exist lmao.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Reusables are stupid for the vast majority of circumstances. They're even stupider considering how few heavy payloads are being lifted.

                Reusables are a meme on medium lift rockets and are a complete joke when it comes to super heavy lifters.

                yikes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reusables are a meme on medium lift rockets and are a complete joke when it comes to super heavy lifters.

            (you)

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Reusable 737s are stupid for the vast majority of international flights. Reusable 747s are even stupider considering how few heavy payloads are being air-lifted. Best to just roll them off the end of the runway into the ocean each flight.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        what in the absolute frick?
        do you even ksp bro?
        reusability is by far the best way to save money. like, BY FAR.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          it's a troll m8.

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ok fine let's ditch reusability. it's a scam.
    >starship is still a $50-mil a launch 200-ton to LEO beast that eats up even medium launchers
    oop

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    TOTAL SEA TURTLE DEATH

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I suppose it isn't too useful to bring up the goal of colonizing mars and the megagrammage it requires with this guy either huh

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Point it at someone.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When this rocket is fully functional and is sending materials to the Moon, you instead put these rods and drop them on hostiles.
    This is better than a stationary satellite in orbit holding rods because those could be detected and be blown while a rocket masked as a supply transport is a great cover.
    Why not put bombs and nukes? Well many factors to realize why you don't put those on a non military rocket. Meanwhile a tungsten rod could be used as a material on moon.

  38. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    does a government paying for a constellation also not count as a legitimate reason for using a reusable rocket? https://www.reuters.com/technology/space/musks-spacex-is-building-spy-satellite-network-us-intelligence-agency-sources-2024-03-16/

  39. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How will they land and take off from Luna?
    I understand that they need small nudges to bootstrap out of the gravitational well but even a small engine burst will send shit flying, and if people are present, better get their fans out.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >How will they land and take off from Luna?
      The idea is that they will build a fully functional base/spaceport on Luna.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Who will?
        Artemis? Aren't they supposed to bring the base on these things?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Who will?
          SpaceX/NASA

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            With what?
            SLS?

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Starship. I would be shocked if NASA continues to use SLS once Starship is fully functional.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >I would be shocked if NASA continues to use SLS once Starship is fully functional
                You need to remember that NASA launch vehicle contracts are handouts for Aerojet Rocketdyne, Northrop Grumman, Boeing and United Launch Alliance. The point isn't to actually make a LV that does things but to giving billions to companies that keep high paying jobs in you electorate.
                A lot of people give NASA shit but they can do amazing things, the issue is the incentive structure of congress.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >A lot of people give NASA shit but they can do amazing things, the issue is the incentive structure of congress.
                nta, but this is true.
                i will never not be impressed by how nasa managed to make the space shuttle work.
                it was a moronic design, but they made it work none the less.
                and they made it work with slide rules and other 70s tech
                and then they had the BALLS to strap astronauts to it for its maiden flight
                and the fricking thing worked.
                like, what the FRICK.

                still tho, there's no doubt in my mind that the spacex stuff is FAR superior in every respect (except for the balls) and has heralded a new era of economical space access, the implications of which are still to be determined.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Shuttle sure was bizarre in that it was somehow approved, built, flown, killed 14 people, and then still flown after that. Like it's a lesson in bureaucratic inertia. Recommending this book again

                https://i.imgur.com/rQliNtt.jpg

                this book opened my eyes to the Mormon connection to Challenger

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The moon has virtually no gravity where something of this size is concerned, and it will be mostly empty. Currently, there are two camps concerning how they'll get off the moon (and land). I'll get to those in a minute. However, the initial tests will be unmanned, so it doesn't matter if they fail because it will give them time to test out either of the two methods (which I'll get into now).

      >Cold Gas Thrusters.
      The idea is to use the maneuvering thrusters on the mostly empty vehicle to perform both the take off and the landing. Mainly because these would be very high up on the vehicle and present no chance to cause debris to shoot up from the ground. The debate is whether or not their design could allow for enough powerful thrusters to enable this route.
      >Low thrust RVAC shenanigans.
      You are right that debris have a chance of doing damage to the engines when they fire, but that's just a chance. They could fire one engine with just enough power to start the ascent and then light the rest once they've gotten far enough away from the ground. A sort of double jump if you will, though that isn't the best analogy.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        thx for the explanation

        >we have N1 at home

        This one actually works

  40. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It could make kinetic bombardment economically viable.

  41. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >we have N1 at home

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >N1 at home

      ?t=156

  42. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fill it with nuclear waste and detonate it in LEO. It'll kill all your enemies.

  43. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: morons hooked on sci-fi tropes explain how a rocket that disintegrated in two seperate locations on the third try was in fact a huge success and why they're going to book a flight to Texas to fellate Mr Musk in person.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      What the frick is wrong with you?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        elon derangement syndrome
        the schizm between

        https://i.imgur.com/tLIZmGJ.jpg

        ITT: morons hooked on sci-fi tropes explain how a rocket that disintegrated in two seperate locations on the third try was in fact a huge success and why they're going to book a flight to Texas to fellate Mr Musk in person.

        's own reality where starship MUST be a scam and the real world will become larger and larger with time as more things don't line up.
        eventually he will reach the degenerated state of a flattard, completely incomprehensible to sane people, ranting and raving about a world inside of his mind that doesn't exist outside.

        quite a sad sight to see, and a good case study on why you should not let your hatred for someone turn into an obsession.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Just tell them that they said 33 engines will never work together.
          Remind them of their goalposting.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You talk like a homosexual cult member, bro.

          Just tell them that they said 33 engines will never work together.
          Remind them of their goalposting.

          The booster would be an achievement except it's teamed up with Musk's moron-tier one-size-fits-all fake-space shuttle. An actual engineer (and not a humanities engineer like Musk) would look at losing your mom's dildo in favor of a practical and traditional second and third stage, which would create a heavy lift vehicle second to none, but they might not be high on their own PR farts and dorky CG mock-ups showing his silver butt plug landing on Mars or even soaring by the rings of Saturn.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You speak up for mediocrity and mock people for aiming higher. It won't be long before you go from mildly asspained to wholly assblasted.

  44. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    how do solid rocket fuels work? Like it burns at one end, the end near the engines, would that not create a gap very quick as the fuel burns up? I'm thinking of an upside-down candle here. Or is there something at the top that pushes the rocket fuel back down, possibly gravity+acceleration?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      there are multiple different ways to do it, the way you're describing is called an "end burner" and you can make very long burning low thrust rockets that way
      traditionally, however, the propellant is cast as a tube with a hollow middle and the whole inside of the tube burns at once eroding out towards the edge

      if you're still having trouble: the whole shebang is one giant combustion chamber

  45. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    How much money does the US government spend on maintaining and operate its nuclear weapons each year and would it be possible to save money by investing that money into NASA to develop a space-based second-strike weapon instead? Something like rockets attached to an asteroid?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >CBO estimates that plans for U.S. nuclear forces, as described in the fiscal year 2023 budget and supporting documents, would cost $756 billion over the 2023–2032 period, $122 billion more than CBO’s 2021 estimate for the 2021–2030 period.
      That is quite a bit of money, but I doubt you could get an effective space weapon with the same versatility as Earth based nukes even for that cost. Sticking your nukes on submarines is so much simpler from a technical standpoint and let's you fire them anywhere you want either way. As for de-orbiting something big and heavy, it's difficult to say since we have never even captured something and put it in Earth's orbit before. Although, even if we did manage that, you're looking at a weapon that will be very difficult to aim correctly and maintain. Not to mention adjusting it's yield with it having to survive reentry and you want it neither too big nor too small.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >$75B per year
        That's a lot, but less than I expected
        >a weapon that will be very difficult to aim correctly and maintain. Not to mention adjusting it's yield with it having to survive reentry and you want it neither too big nor too small.
        No, the whole point is just to be a table flip. Kill us and we will exterminate all known life in the universe.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          If you want total annihilation, I don't think you will manage to get enough mass for that. A naive back of the envelope calculation
          >Potential energy of the ISS in orbit per kg is 3.4 MJ/kg
          >Dinosaur killer estimated energy 300 ZJ
          >Orbiting the dinosaur killer at the same altitude as the ISS would require ~9*10^16 kg to get the same potential energy
          >this is roughly 80 times the total living biomass on earth
          If you're good with a Tsar Bomba you "only" need 123*10^9 kg of mass which is roughly the biomass of all humans alive. You can adjust the orbit etc, but I don't think it's doable regardless. Nukes are just so much more powerful than junk in orbit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see previous discussion re: grav assists
            if you send your tungsten rod on a decade long journey with 5-6 grav assists around earth and other planets, you could probably get it to continent destroying energy levels
            do it for longer, you might make it a planet killer

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              but we were talking having a weapon ready in orbit not accelerating something for years to slam into the Earth.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                oh. yea no, in that case, small tactical nuke level is best you can do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            see previous discussion re: grav assists
            if you send your tungsten rod on a decade long journey with 5-6 grav assists around earth and other planets, you could probably get it to continent destroying energy levels
            do it for longer, you might make it a planet killer

            I'm talking about installing a secret thruster system on some random asteroid near the earth's orbit. It's probably fine if it takes a year or two, you just need to make sure it's soon enough that no other country can organize a mission to stop it.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm talking about installing a secret thruster system on some random asteroid near the earth's orbit
              anon, you're entirely misunderstanding the mass of asteroids. its true, they vary greatly, but even for small ones, we're talking millions of tonnes
              we are nowhere close to being able to move such masses, not even a little bit.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Okay but how about this plan?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                seems like it could work

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                We already moved the asteroid in that picture that weighs millions of tons, just by crashing a little probe into it.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                yes, we "moved" it, sure

                in the sense of very slightly changing its very low energy orbit around another very low mass object. you know, it used to orbit at 2m/s and now its orbiting at 1.75 or some shit like that.

                actually moving an actual asteroid, as in taking it from its orbit around the sun in the asteroid belt, and bringing it around earth, is a VERY, VERY different thing. that would require many, many thousands of delta V, and we have absolutely no fricking hope in the universe of doing that currently. not unless by "asteroid" we mean something that can fit in the trunk of an suv.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah, but you don't take one from outside mars to the earth, you slightly speed up or slow down one that has an earth-intersecting orbit so it hits.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why the frick would NASA be involved at all? The Space Force is more than capable of designing and building their own satellites

  46. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we can drop marines with those

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      We have Starship at home.

  47. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fill it with bouncy balls and release them after it re-enters the atmosphere.

  48. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    ULAnon here.

    Starship is great for mass deploying Starlinks and will be ass for everything else.

    Being reusable compromises it's ability to missions outside of LEO.

    Cool rocket still, pretty much designed around SpaceX being it's only customer. Will be interesting to see how it shakes out over the next decade or so.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm just going to claim some BS without backing it up
      >Don't worry I'm ULAnon though. You can trust me.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Believe me or not. You Black folk are always obsessed with proof.

        this homie doesn't believe in refueling
        [...]
        it needs to refuel to do that

        Refueling starship sufficiently to boost something into a higher orbit, then let it come back and be reusable hasn't been proven out and will be moronicly difficult. SpaceX will blow up several more starships before that little kink is worked out (and imo is the biggest risk to SLS being successful). Methane has really nasty freezing problems which are going to get massively worse when trying to transfer fuel in orbit.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Methane has really nasty freezing problems which are going to get massively worse when trying to transfer fuel in orbit.
          Hydrogen has an even smaller temperature delta between freezing and boiling than methane does.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Who is trying to transfer hydrogen in orbit? Also look up the freezing points of methane condensates vs hydrogen.

            bot, got it
            shut the frick up until you can stay on topic
            [...]
            the Moon's surface is much farther away than Earth Escape in terms of dV, it will absolutely need to be fully refueled and will only be going back to NRHO, not to LEO
            [...]
            it's going to be zero payload, and the math requires knowing the wet mass and dry mass of Starship
            [...]
            >blow up several more Starships
            of course, I predict they'll have it worked out before the end of next year
            >Methane has freezing problems
            what the frick are you even talking about

            >What the frick are you even talking about about
            Says the Black person who knows nothing about methane freezing

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Methane isn't going to form a fricking clathrate bro, it's not that hard to keep that shit dry

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Let's revisit this discussion when starship eats all of the orbital grade methane production capacity and they start lowering the standards so they can fly more often.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      this homie doesn't believe in refueling

      The whole point of starship was to put man on the moon. I'm pretty sure it's not a one way trip. Not yet.

      it needs to refuel to do that

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >ULAnon here.
      lol gay. That explains some of the seething though. How is the sale to Bezos coming along though?
      >Starship is great for mass deploying Starlinks and will be ass for everything else.
      Yeah and reusability is a meme and Falcon surely won't utterly obliterate your entire business beyond a diminishing amount of government pity gibs. Which you can't hit timelines on anyway.

      Oh, it did.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Falcon surely won't utterly obliterate your entire business
        70+ launches already sold cuck.
        >Which you can't hit timelines on anyway.
        Absolute hilarity of a SpaceX shill mocking others for missing their timelines. When's the Starship uncrewed lunar landing btw?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Where's the EUS? Vulcan surely is launching in 2020 right? How about Starliner, is 2024 the year? Why did a bunch of Starliner's missions go over to Dragon seething ULAnignog, was that an accident? Your shitty shotgun marriage company that coasted on a billion a year in taxpayer money for readiness and is now looking at extinction is a bad joke.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Way to miss the point you dumb Black person. The entire aerospace industry is an industry of delays so mocking a specific company for missing their targets while being a shill for another one just makes you look like a moron.

            You can jerk off to your fantasies all you want, but you can't get around 70+ launches sold. Cope.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            he thinks Vulcan is cheaper than f9, it's not worth engaging

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              Vulcan smacks the shit out of FH for the orbits F9 can't reach. Don't be a dumb Black person

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Vulcan smacks the shit out of FH for the orbits F9 can't reach.

                What reference orbit does Vulcan reach that Falcon Heavy doesn't?

                Methane isn't going to form a fricking clathrate bro, it's not that hard to keep that shit dry

                Unprocessed natural gas has a lot of impurities that would complicate handling on-orbit. Something cleaner would be needed for this.

                >bot, got it
                >He can't argue the point.
                lmao

                [...]
                Nothing flies from American airspace and from American launch pads unless they follow what the FAA sets out.

                >Nothing flies from American airspace and from American launch pads unless they follow what the FAA sets out.
                Starship has a non-human-spaceflight market.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                just watch, he's probably going to post some ULA propaganda chart clinging to "high energy orbits!!!111!1" as a selling point , when it's still an inexcusable expendable rocket in current year

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >when it's still an inexcusable expendable rocket in current year
                Every country on Earth, other than the chinks lmao, are developing expendable rockets for the future. There is still no demonstrable need for the launch cadence a reusable rocket requires unless you're launching giga constellations, which most people don't care for.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >STOP
                >DOING
                >ROCKETS(EXPANDABLE)

                cry some more, kid

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Cope all you want. Reusables are still a meme and practically every space agency on Earth recognize that.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Every space agency on Earth just spent a decade betting against reusables after the market thoroughly proved itself and everyone's suddenly very desperate to make up for the capex they just wasted while having no budget to build a reusable.

                Seethe and cope. I make $143k a year to do a job I love. A single days work I've done matters more than every day you've spent sucking dick at the dick sucking factory.

                [...]
                I'm not deriding it, but making a single stick launcher like F9 is a hell of a lot less risky (and costly) than the goals they've set for starship. And some of the things they've done just to meet elons timelines are moronic - blowing up the entire pad on tf1 was an easily predictable waste and compromised the rest of the data that mission could have gather.

                >I'm not deriding it, but making a single stick launcher like F9 is a hell of a lot less risky (and costly) than the goals they've set for starship. And some of the things they've done just to meet elons timelines are moronic - blowing up the entire pad on tf1 was an easily predictable waste and compromised the rest of the data that mission could have gather.
                The pad destruction on IFT-1 really didn't compromise anything, since the plume pushed the debris away from the launch vehicle. The loss of the vehicle in flight was due to the same cause as the loss of the ship during IFT2: methane leaks out of Raptor's pumps, and without a good gas purge system there's risk of entrainment and fire if an oxidizer is present.

                they haven't run out of billionaires yet
                [...]
                I was explaining that guy's argument and then explaining why he's an idiot

                >I was explaining that guy's argument and then explaining why he's an idiot
                Ah, very good. Carry on, then

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It literally lost several ends from concrete that kicked up and hit prop lines. It blew up because of a fire on the booster (should say, tried to blow up, because the FTS failed miserably)

                Are you really this stupid?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's no evidence that any concrete actually hit the booster in flight. As impressive as the destruction was on the surroundings, it was basically all out or around, and the loss of the booster came down to a few bad engines, inadequate inter-engine protection, a fire in the engine bay, and the destruction of the flight computer's data lines.

                I'm not the one stupid enough to believe that a skyscraper sized rocket costs $40m lmao.

                [...]
                >while having no budget to build a reusable.
                Or they realize that they don't have the launch cadence required to make one work. SpaceX fans will never understand the actual economies of reusable rockets lmao.

                The entire development budget justification to their financiers is predicated on Starlink launches. They don't need a single actual external customer to justify Starship to investors: Starlink is sufficient to motivate its existence. The standing economy of scale needed to achieve the target costs from technician salaries is estimated at 20 launches a year.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                every space agency on Earth that can afford it is pursuing reusability
                this notably excludes Roskosmos and includes IRSO, Arianespace, and the various CNSA subsidiaries

                don't reply to the troll morons. god you're all so gullible.

                this is the only way I can feel anything anymoer

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Unprocessed natural gas
                >impurities
                did you miss the entire natural gas refining setup that SpaceX were planning on building at Starbase? They get high purity methane off those trucks

                I don't know what point you're trying to make but you seem to be conflation 2 or 3 different thoughts.

                I've never felt more schizo than reading this thread, people cannot keep a consistent chain of thought going here. Stay on fricking topic, people!!!

                Let's revisit this discussion when starship eats all of the orbital grade methane production capacity and they start lowering the standards so they can fly more often.

                SpaceX have easily demonstrated they're serious about their goals and needs re:high purity cryogenic methane, they put out requests for bids and forecasts and people answer
                if the existing industry can't completely absorb the new demand for space grade methane then they will build it

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >did you miss the entire natural gas refining setup that SpaceX were planning on building at Starbase? They get high purity methane off those trucks
                No, but it seems you missed that they took the entire thing apart and started qualifying Raptor on natural gas.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                >Serious about their goals
                I just hope they're serious enough to keep blowing up quarter million dollar rockets every few months for incremental gains in capability. It makes for pretty fireworks and seeing the bits & pieces pop up on eBay afterwards is enjoyable.

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                There's a lot of hubris in deriding the method that brought SpaceX's marginal costs per launch to $18 million.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I just joined the thread, so whatever other seething isn't me.

        Didn't ever say Falcon didn't disrupt the market, but when you see the NSSL contract awards you'll understand why a rocket like Vulcan still exists (hint: it's because getting satellites into orbits that SF wants them in isn't possible with a reusable rocket, and then the prices get A LOT more comparable).

        Falcon dominates LEO, and has mostly created a market for themselves.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >but when you see the NSSL contract awards you'll understand why a rocket like Vulcan still exists
          Uh, no. Government did it that way because it wants two providers and gave more to the one that desperately needs help because it's utterly uncompetitive otherwise. It's literal subsidy gibs for 2nd launcher. Which is a legit government concern, but will evaporate as soon as there is a 3rd player which is why ULA is looking to sell.
          >hint: it's because getting satellites into orbits that SF wants them in isn't possible with a reusable rocket
          Falcon Heavy beats Vulcan Centaur with side recovered and center expended and is still same price or cheaper. So no that's not it.

          Starship is a ways off from being rated for anything sensitive, it'll do tons of commercial flights first same as other rockets normally have to. But with 150 tons of cargo to work with a kicker is perfectly doable if SpaceX thinks there's a market for it. But they've already got a rocket for high energy that works great and is priced competitively so they don't have major pressure for now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Cope however you want my friend but the reality is that Vulcan has won contracts on its own merits.

            Hard thing to accept for the African-American apologist crowd I know.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >n-no
              as expected from a bruno simp, god you people are petty.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I don't really get how people from ULA so readily tout ACES and tugs with orbital refueling while saying Starship is useless beyond LEO while ignoring its own orbital refueling ambitions.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        ACES (which is dead btw, it's called 'USA' now) is a tug, it's not transferring fuel.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          An orbital tug is a glorified third stage without orbital refueling and begs the question of what the actual frick the point was of using LH2 for the upper stage if that's the plan.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I don't know what point you're trying to make but you seem to be conflation 2 or 3 different thoughts.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I don't know what point you're trying to make but you seem to be conflation 2 or 3 different thoughts.

              Hydromeme uppers are flaunted as offering larger Delta-V budgets on orbit. A Tug exists to do satisfy the same kind of function, but once they spend their propellants, they're just another piece of upper stage space junk. Effectively, it's a third stage. What's the point?

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                Launching a space tug instead of a payload and then docking with another payload is a method of distributed launch (see: the classic /sfg/ yeet train) that doesn't involve moving cryogenic liquids around in zero g
                if you think this is something that anybody should ever give a shit about reveals a lot about your personality imo, especially since SpaceX just did a propellant transfer test for NASA on orbit

              • 1 month ago
                Anonymous

                It seems like you're making one point here and then you make another one entirely.

  49. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I still think this ULA gay is a troll, he's hitting on the ULA PR points just extremely closely. It's too perfect and sad.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      they manufacture these guys in a factory, I've seen it myself down in Decatur

      >STOP
      >DOING
      >ROCKETS(EXPANDABLE)

      cry some more, kid

      expandable rockets are cool
      expendable rockets are horrible
      remember the difference kids

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Seethe and cope. I make $143k a year to do a job I love. A single days work I've done matters more than every day you've spent sucking dick at the dick sucking factory.

      There's a lot of hubris in deriding the method that brought SpaceX's marginal costs per launch to $18 million.

      I'm not deriding it, but making a single stick launcher like F9 is a hell of a lot less risky (and costly) than the goals they've set for starship. And some of the things they've done just to meet elons timelines are moronic - blowing up the entire pad on tf1 was an easily predictable waste and compromised the rest of the data that mission could have gather.

  50. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    don't reply to the troll morons. god you're all so gullible.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Go back to your twitter or reddit circlejerk if you don't want to be confronted with people who disagree with you.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You seem like you are being an butthole for information because you are stupid.

  51. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >yeah but... but muh NSSF contracts :~~*(
    >mumble mumble HIGH ENERGY ORBITS mumble mumble
    ula is a joke

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      95% of those are their own launches, ergo, they don't make money from it. Nice try, cope more.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Starlink is a free service
        The complete and absolute state of (you).

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        They're not making money on Starlink, at $100/month for 2.5 million customers? Even if half of those were discounted or even free, that's a fair chunk of change. And even once the constellation is built and goes into maintenance mode (the LEO satellites will have to be replaced every decade or so), there are other ways that SpaceX can make money internally, such as getting into manufacturing specialized goods that require zero-g if nobody else does.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          starlink was cash flow positive 4 months ago.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >at $100/month for 2.5 million customers
          The average is much higher than that fwiw. SpaceX long since started selling a lot of mobile, business, enterprise, marine, and air links, all of which are at a significantly higher price. Yeah majority of their subscribers are the regular plans and that's the base, but the high margin premium customers have been growing rapidly because Starlink crushes everything else sat in quality and is dirt cheap vs traditional sat on top, even at $2500/month.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Now break it down by external vs internal payload customers

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        By customers, about 40% commercial/government. By mass, it's probably more than 90% Starlinks.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't Arianespace used to be #1? How are they getting mogged so hard by the third world?

  52. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    reminder that Orion has 0 return mass capability for moon roggs

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *