/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #11243376

180KiB, 1160x774, shitliner.jpg

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

/sfg/ Spaceflight General

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 17:03:28 2019 No.11243376 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>11243387 >>11244138 >>11246206

old >>11231620

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO EJDM1C8UwAEz_zo-2.jpg, 52KiB, 900x600

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:07:38 No.11243384 Report

Quoted By: >>11243404

so Gwynne's going to absolutely spam Starlink
They only have fourteen or fifteen commercial launches lined up, and she's aiming to hit thirty-eight launches next year.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO CAUTION SLIPPERY WHEN WET.webm, 3MiB, 1280x610

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:08:06 No.11243387 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243376

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:11:37 No.11243397 Report

Quoted By:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tLQ6lqpVd0

Copenhagen Sub got their heat exchanger.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:15:07 No.11243404 Report

Quoted By: >>11243405 >>11243409 >>11243627

>>11243384
They know the longer they take the more the public opinion will turn against it. They need to get it up fast and actually offer cheap internet to the 3rd world instead of just offering low ping to traders.
The future on humanity is going to be dependant on space industry so it's only a matter of time until there are hundreds of thousands of satellites but I would like SpaceX to demonstrate dead satellite deorbit capability before going hard on starlink.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:16:04 No.11243405 Report

Quoted By: >>11243417 >>11243627 >>11243628

>>11243404
low ping to traders is a nonstarter until Starlink 2 with the free space optical laser links

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:17:27 No.11243409 Report

Quoted By: >>11243417

>>11243404
>I'd like to demonstrate SpaceX waiting a few years for the atmosphere to deorbit a satellite before they launch more of their satellites

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:21:48 No.11243417 Report

Quoted By: >>11243423

>>11243405
I was under the impression starlink 1 would offer lower ping over vast distances eg. London to New York.

>>11243409
>don't worry about the Kessler bro, it'll only last a few years

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:26:04 No.11243423 Report

Quoted By: >>11243448 >>11243629 >>11243895

>>11243417
check out this video for what London to New York requires without the free space laser links (which Starlink 1 doesn't have)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m05abdGSOxY

the satellites will deorbit within five years (at minimum atmospheric solar agitation)
it's fine don't worry about it

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO B96590D0-69B6-4D91-85A6-37735056 (...).jpg, 149KiB, 1080x1440

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:27:34 No.11243425 Report

Quoted By: >>11243428 >>11243435 >>11243437 >>11243470 >>11243630 >>11243872

Nothing personal kiddos, just the most important launch of December coming through...

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/LP0S8jhmT9KDndOrT8t8EQ

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 640.gif, 255KiB, 640x460

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:29:19 No.11243428 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243425
ah, yes of course
I understand everything now <- doesn't get it at all

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:33:59 No.11243435 Report

Quoted By: >>11243441 >>11243473

>>11243425
What's in it?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 44f4e40780e534ba63edfb15403b0ae9.png, 195KiB, 510x346

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:36:05 No.11243437 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243425

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:39:18 No.11243441 Report

Quoted By: >>11243444

>>11243435
Some Ethiopian niggas gave them a satellite to launch.
Ironically a country in africa is developed more then my country which is somewhere in the balkans.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:40:42 No.11243444 Report

Quoted By: >>11243445

>>11243441
What's the difference between Africa and the Balkans?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:41:17 No.11243445 Report

Quoted By: >>11243447

>>11243444
We are not black but we are as poor as them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:41:50 No.11243447 Report

Quoted By: >>11243450

>>11243445
I was going to say the Balkans are better at killing each other

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:42:12 No.11243448 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243423
Interesting, looks like the ping between US east and west coast could be halved with a dozen ground stations. While not as vital for traders as a UK / EU / US link I could still see people being willing to pay stupid amounts for the lowest US ping on the market.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:43:14 No.11243450 Report

Quoted By: >>11243454

>>11243447
Eh that might be also true

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:44:13 No.11243454 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243450
and let's be honest, the Balkans have better folk music

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:49:52 No.11243462 Report

Quoted By: >>11243467 >>11243469

How is it possible that SpaceX does better than NASA/ESA or whatever country with a space program?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:52:31 No.11243467 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243462
SpaceX doesn’t even have a “space program” currently, they launch satellites and sometimes capsules/payloads for NASA’s space program...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:53:13 No.11243469 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243462
Governments are extraordinarily inefficient and they have either very poor or nonexistent mechanisms for weeding out incompetence. Their objectives are often meant more to line the government's own coffers and those of it's close friends rather than to actually accomplish concrete productive goals. Basically anybody with means can do a better job at any given thing compared to a government, who's only advantage is that it's a (possibly) necessary structure to bind large groups of likeminded people together.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:54:00 No.11243470 Report

Quoted By: >>11243474 >>11243477

>>11243425
>most important launch of December
it probably is for the poor fuckers living downrange from the launch site

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:55:02 No.11243473 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243435
Tibetan monks

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:55:09 No.11243474 Report

Quoted By: >>11243593

>>11243470
no, this is a coastal launch, there aren't any peasants downrange from this one

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 17:56:19 No.11243477 Report

Quoted By: >>11243593

>>11243470
It’s being launched from Wenchang, which is by the Ocean. So no debris will be dropped inland.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 18:45:05 No.11243593 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243474
>>11243477
oh, im sure they'l manage to hit some poor fucker in a sampan

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 18:46:12 No.11243595 Report

Quoted By: >>11243613 >>11243705

Boeing and NASA are doing exactly what I assumed they’d do with Starliner after it’s anomaly: practice docking with the ISS, without actually docking.

https://starlinerupdates.com/starliner-completing-test-objectives-while-on-orbit-given-go-for-landing-sunday/

>The Mission Management Team has given approval for a Mission Day 3 landing at 5:57 AM MST (6:57 AM CST) at our landing site at White Sands Space Harbor on the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, with a backup opportunity at the same site at 1:48 PM MST (2:48 PM CST).

>Late yesterday and overnight, flight controllers completed the below activities:

>Conducted two orbital adjustment burns and several smaller checkout burns of the propulsion systems

>Tested Guidance, Navigation and Control hardware including successfully using VESTA camera star tracking functionality to augment Space-Integrated GPS/INS (SIGI) navigational control. These are the “eyes” of the vehicle, which include using star trackers (capturing spacecraft orientation by comparing known star maps to stars the spacecraft observes) and far and near field observations.

>Observed positive performance of Environmental Control and Life Support Systems and executed cabin fan switching

>Communication, commanding and tracking systems testing through both ground links and space-to-space communication, including a positive command uplink from mission control through the International Space Station

>Station keeping and attitude control demonstrations

>Throughout the day on Dec. 21, Starliner will attempt to complete NASA docking system checkouts and extension of the soft-capture system and docking ring.

>Of note, the vehicle remains healthy, the power system is operating exceptionally and solar arrays are operating at above predicted efficiency, and all separation events to-date were nominal, including ascent cover jettison, aeroskirt jettison and separation from the launch vehicle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 18:52:51 No.11243608 Report

Quoted By: >>11243620 >>11243624

starliner update in 8 min
https://www.nasa.gov/nasalive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 18:54:56 No.11243613 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243595
>hey I know, let's just list everything it has done right to make the public forget about the fact that starliner's LOM rate is now 100%
>good idea!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:04:03 No.11243620 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243608
nah bruh here's the REAL link https://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-news-audio1

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:05:06 No.11243622 Report

Quoted By:

who the fuck is this black chick on the line

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:05:07 No.11243623 Report

Quoted By: >>11243626

CORTNEY WHAT DID YOU SAY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:05:13 No.11243624 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243608
What is this shitty music that sounds like a phone system?
then suddenly
>you are on hold for a conference call, press *0
WTF this is a stream?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:06:36 No.11243626 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243623
The world may never know

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:06:58 No.11243627 Report

Quoted By: >>11243629

>>11243405
I saw a video on YT (I wish I had saved the link) where someone explained how it would work, and it only takes a few ground stations to beat the speed of fiber across north america. Getting across the ocean is a bit more tricky, but hopping over novia scotia and iceland could do it.
Even with the laser links, a lot of the time it's faster to do ground station links.
>>11243404
>cheap internet to the 3rd world
That's not going to make anyone care, plus you have to deal with their shitty governments to be allowed, especially now when it's completely dependent on ground stations to reach the internets.
It's cheap internet to the rural US that will be their killer app after high speed traders.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:07:13 No.11243628 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243405
With enough ground stations you don't need the laser links.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:08:03 No.11243629 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243627
ah, this was the video >>11243423 glad someone reposted it here

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:08:13 No.11243630 Report

Quoted By: >>11243633

>>11243425
I eagerly anticipate the possibility of a THIRD second-stage engine failure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:11:05 No.11243632 Report

Quoted By: >>11243634

>successful launch

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:11:44 No.11243633 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243630
third?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:12:57 No.11243634 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243632
much like ZUMA. Atlas dropped off Starliner in precisely the right spot. The payload fucked itself over, not the launch vehicle

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:26:28 No.11243643 Report

Quoted By: >>11243657

Boeing is sticking to their story that it was a launch vehicle integration issue, they didn't interface properly with AtlasV/Centaur and grabbed the timing data wrong.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:37:42 No.11243657 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243643

Yeah right... All that is just pure BS and a pisspoor attempt at damage controll because they dont want to admit that their software is pajeet-tier of shittyness.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:43:25 No.11243663 Report

Quoted By: >>11243666

>NUUUUUU ATLAS GAVE US THE WRONG TIME
>OUR CODE WAS FINE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:45:08 No.11243666 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243663
The Boeing guy explicitly said it was a fault on Starliner’s end and not to do with Atlas. Stop trying to twist words...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:48:40 No.11243673 Report

Quoted By: >>11243676 >>11243684

Berger with the clickbait question

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:50:20 No.11243676 Report

Quoted By: >>11243683

>>11243673
Berger just shitposted on a conference call, what a madman

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:53:03 No.11243681 Report

Quoted By:

JESUS FUCK IRENE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:54:46 No.11243683 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243676
If you call asking a retarded question shitposting, then yes. It’s a redundant question anyway considering if Boeing recover the capsule nominally and solve the timing issue, NASA will likely allow them to do CFT next. At this point NASA can’t actually afford to delay either one of the providers in such a way unless something terrible happens.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO huh2.jpg, 14KiB, 374x374

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:54:48 No.11243684 Report

Quoted By: >>11243696

>>11243673
What did he ask?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:56:58 No.11243691 Report

Quoted By:

>Asks why they won't show the tapes, gets cut off

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO space reporter.png, 236KiB, 385x606

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:57:00 No.11243692 Report

Quoted By: >>11243887

why is this industry so cringe

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 19:58:28 No.11243696 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243684
If NASA forced them to do OFT again, would they quit the program.

Which is a retarded question considering nobody but NASA is in the market for human spaceflight seats.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 72KiB, 595x517

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:02:25 No.11243700 Report

Quoted By: >>11243702 >>11243735

OOF

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:05:25 No.11243702 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243700
Oh no no no no

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO muk.jpg, 67KiB, 1187x794

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:06:48 No.11243705 Report

Quoted By: >>11243714

>>11243595
This is the space equivalent of not knowing the answer in a test, so instead you write down everything you know in hopes of partial credit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:12:10 No.11243714 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243705
Not really, docking with the ISS isn’t even a requirement for the uncrewed test flights, it’s a bonus.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1322615234889.jpg, 19KiB, 423x222

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:24:06 No.11243735 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243700

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 50AF8BEE-4289-4820-9A09-D4FF1F2F (...).jpg, 257KiB, 1864x1080

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:28:47 No.11243742 Report

Quoted By: >>11243787

Boeing have uploaded a clip of Starliner separating from Centaur:

https://starlinerupdates.com/starliner-centaur-separation/

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO CentaurStarlinerSep.webm, 2MiB, 834x476

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:58:13 No.11243787 Report

Quoted By: >>11243791 >>11243827

>>11243742
here's a webem of it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 20:59:41 No.11243791 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243787
Nice

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:24:59 No.11243827 Report

Quoted By: >>11243856 >>11243858

>>11243787
why'd they put all of their solar panels on the bottom of the spacecraft?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ifffoifzu1641.jpg, 721KiB, 2000x3034

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:26:32 No.11243830 Report

Quoted By: >>11243840

39a starship stool

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:30:44 No.11243840 Report

Quoted By: >>11243849

>>11243830
I can't believe they're literally just building a second flame deflector instead of using the NOVA trench that's RIGHT THERE

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:36:36 No.11243849 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243840
they're going to be building a fuckton of pads for E2E, might as well start out with a design that can be built from portable sections and doesn't need a lot of excavation

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:39:24 No.11243856 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243827
Those look like handplaced solar cells added as an afterthought.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:41:25 No.11243858 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243827
My guess is that it protects them during launch, but doesn't need fold out panels (like for example, the Dragon 1 panels) and thus saving on complexity.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:48:27 No.11243872 Report

Quoted By: >>11243879

>>11243425
Did they make if toxic enough to instantly kill all the witnesses when it crashes before they could upload it to the internet this time?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:51:54 No.11243879 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243872
Probably not since that doesn't matter. China is murdering protesters right now and the rest of the country doesn't even care (nor the rest of the world for that matter).

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1524171042066.jpg, 47KiB, 664x416

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:53:21 No.11243885 Report

Quoted By: >>11243897 >>11243898 >>11245286

>docking with the ISS was not a requirement for the Starliner test
Its a FUCKING CLOWN WORLD

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:54:06 No.11243887 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243692
because the earth is flat and the "industry" is nothing more than a bunch of fat faggots who get paid to shill

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 21:54:44 No.11243888 Report

Quoted By:

Mod please go away. Stop shitting up this board.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:01:16 No.11243895 Report

Quoted By: >>11243916 >>11243964

>>11243423
Ironic part for me is ground relay will be faster than laser satellite communication in some north to south communications.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:01:48 No.11243897 Report

Quoted By: >>11243905

>>11243885
It's okay Anon, it's not like Starliner needs to monitor it's location and distance from the ISS while doing a lengthy and precise prodedural approach while interfacing with ISS systems or anything. Let's just fucking wing it with people on board next time. Boeing QC has been impeccable so far.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:01:56 No.11243898 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243885

Indeed, FFS, even the ancient Soyuz can do such a simple thing. It should at least be a hard requirement for new spaceships to be able to dock to a station automaticaly, unmanned.

Just last year, to certify the Soyuz 2.1a for manned missions, they launched an empty/unmanned spacecraft which docked itself to the ISS. It was MS-14 I believe.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:05:17 No.11243905 Report

Quoted By: >>11243922

>>11243897
if Starliner ?po?pecc M-34's the ISS it would be hilarious while also a tragedy

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1231241.jpg, 952KiB, 2136x3216

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:07:31 No.11243909 Report

Quoted By: >>11244109 >>11245258

>comfiest ride to space atm

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:10:44 No.11243916 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243895
yeah, it's because laser links always go along the orbits

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1526106865889.png, 5KiB, 268x188

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:14:20 No.11243922 Report

Quoted By: >>11243924 >>11244444

>>11243905
I really don't want this to happen, but something inside me kinda does want to see it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:15:45 No.11243924 Report

Quoted By: >>11243936

>>11243922
the ISS repair missions would be fucking sweet and you know it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:27:25 No.11243936 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243924
true but I wonder if they would even try at this point if the damage wasn't something simple to fix.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:34:40 No.11243949 Report

Quoted By: >>11243966 >>11243967

So what could the on-board pilots have done if this was to happen in a real flight? They would have some control over the autonomous systems onboard but would that just be like selecting what operational mode the spacecraft is in? Also once they override the autonomous mission profile, they would then have to perform the orbital insertion burn at the proper time by hand right? Everyone is saying “but if pilots were in it” but how trivial of a situation would this really be?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 90KiB, 598x535

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:36:19 No.11243955 Report

Quoted By: >>11243960 >>11243974

from former Shuttle astronaut

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:38:06 No.11243960 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243955
Well I guess he'd have an intimate knowledge of shit space vehicles then.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:39:29 No.11243964 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243895
There's also the fact that ground relays could technically be more robust in handling multiple satellites due to higher power/bigger antenna/etc which could mean they could offload/handle larger bandwidth.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:39:57 No.11243966 Report

Quoted By: >>11244444

>>11243949
I would say that since it was just a simple burn, then the pilots on board could've easily handled the situation. They would either be taught about the procedure beforehand or be given the details from mission control. The orbit they would end up on wouldn't be the orbit needed to go to the ISS, but it would only be slightly off compared to what happened with the automated craft, and thus would have more than enough fuel to make a correction afterwards.

I think the largest source of the issue wasn't that the capsule wasn't doing the correct burn, but rather that it took so long for mission control to remotely wrestle control away from the on-board computer.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:40:31 No.11243967 Report

Quoted By: >>11243976

>>11243949
Unless they were specifically trained to notice these issues on the spot and has backup plan without needing verification from ground control, nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:46:56 No.11243974 Report

Quoted By: >>11243993

>>11243955
>flew on the Shuttle 4 times
>has the audacity to complain about safety
>especially when the incident in question would have caused a crew onboard no risk, unlike most the Space Shuttle’s anomalies

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:48:05 No.11243976 Report

Quoted By: >>11243979 >>11243985 >>11244444

>>11243967
>Unless they were specifically trained to notice these issues on the spot and has backup plan without needing verification from ground control

I’m pretty sure it’s easy for trained astronauts to notice when the engines are burning when they shouldn’t be...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:49:07 No.11243979 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243976
...or not burning when they should be

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO rocketblessing.jpg, 104KiB, 1100x733

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:49:22 No.11243980 Report

Quoted By: >>11243999

Time to remind people of a simpler time where jobs came second to human scientific advancement.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-phxCxTlzQ

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:50:54 No.11243985 Report

Quoted By: >>11243992

>>11243976
>easy
Not so, Astronaut training for controlling vehicles manually require lot more training, especially without any ground control to guide you.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO starliner_gallery9_960.jpg, 497KiB, 960x883

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:53:28 No.11243990 Report

Quoted By: >>11243995 >>11244040

>from the starliner gallery on the boeing website
its all starting to make sense anons

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:53:33 No.11243992 Report

Quoted By: >>11243998 >>11244014

>>11243985
The commercial crew astronauts seemed pretty sure they could’ve sorted out the issue and their veterans of NASA’s human spaceflight program, nobody has had more training than them.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:53:52 No.11243993 Report

Quoted By: >>11244003 >>11244010

>>11243974
>first flight is a hardware induced mission failure
>second flight is going to be manned
I would be salty too if I was going to be ordered onto it.
Just because the shuttle wasn't safe doesn't mean making crewed flights before a successful flight is a good idea.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:54:52 No.11243995 Report

Quoted By: >>11244007 >>11245208

>>11243990
What does a docking adapter have to do with Starliner’s timekeeping software?...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:55:31 No.11243998 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243992
They could do it with ground control with bit of training, but on their own, it will take a miracle.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:55:36 No.11243999 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243980
>von Braun's ferry ran on fucking nitric acid and hydrazine

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:56:39 No.11244003 Report

Quoted By: >>11244012 >>11244043

>>11243993
especially when the SpaceX capsule has been functioning perfectly

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:59:08 No.11244007 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243995
roastie detected

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 22:59:36 No.11244010 Report

Quoted By: >>11244018

>>11243993
No hardware has failed, it was purely a software issue.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:00:47 No.11244012 Report

Quoted By: >>11244035 >>11244041 >>11244444

>>11244003
>SpaceX capsule has been functioning perfectly

Yikes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:02:06 No.11244014 Report

Quoted By: >>11244016 >>11244018

>>11243992
Everyone at the press conference seemed like they had shock collars on. The conference started off with “this was a success”. I seriously don’t trust their opinions 2 hours after the incident when they don’t know the exact details or anything like that. Boeing is plagued with this short sighted sweep the problems under the rug instead of actually admitting fault and taking safety seriously.

t. just read an opinion article on the 737 max fiasco

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:05:18 No.11244016 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244014
>t. just read an opinion article
>opinion invalidated

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:06:47 No.11244018 Report

Quoted By: >>11244048

>>11244014
Boeing is not having a good time and is going to be begging congress for a bailout soon, they need everyone to pretend everything is ok because on top of being more expensive than the Soyuz per seat both tests have been failures (chute and insertion). They are going to have a hard time begging for more money if they admit they can't do anything right.

>>11244010
By hardware I meant the Starliner capsule it was a space hardware induced mission failure.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:07:19 No.11244021 Report

Quoted By: >>11244024

I wonder when Bridenstine will tweet about how Boeing is behind on Commercial Crew and how it's time for them to deliver.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:08:06 No.11244024 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244021
2 days after his retirement.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:12:07 No.11244035 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244012
no issues on orbit!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:14:13 No.11244040 Report

Quoted By: >>11245208

>>11243990
Because of a staged publicity photograph organised by a marketing team?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:14:16 No.11244041 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244012
What has gone wrong with it since the first stage engine out on CRS-1?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:14:34 No.11244043 Report

Quoted By: >>11244045 >>11244444

>>11244003
You mean that thing that blew up?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:15:18 No.11244045 Report

Quoted By: >>11244058

>>11244043
functioning perfectly [on orbit]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:16:51 No.11244048 Report

Quoted By: >>11244052 >>11244062 >>11244123

>>11244018
>Boeing is not having a good time and is going to be begging congress for a bailout soon

>Boeing revenue: 101.1 billion USD

You do know that however bad it gets, America’s biggest aerospace company that’s sitting on a massive pile of money isn’t going to go bankrupt, right?

Please grow a brain before you post again, okay?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:18:03 No.11244052 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244048
Yeah, but how much of that will the execs run away with?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:19:36 No.11244058 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244045
Astronauts don't typically die in orbit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:20:47 No.11244062 Report

Quoted By: >>11244070

>>11244048
>isn’t going to go bankrupt
No shit, "to big to fail" is a thing and they will get any money the ask for on top of US placing sanctions on Airbus.
I'm not saying they are going to declare bankruptcy, I'm saying they will ask for a couple of billion and get it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:23:38 No.11244070 Report

Quoted By: >>11244076

>>11244062
>I'm saying they will ask for a couple of billion and get it.

Why? You don’t ask for billions to fix a single line of code. Stop saying retarded things.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:26:32 No.11244076 Report

Quoted By: >>11244087

>>11244070
>You don’t ask for billions to fix a single line of code
Once again no shit, they have been forced to drop their 737 Max line and are now going to need a full RnD cycle to make something that comes close to competing with airbus.
I give it 2 years tops before they get a bailout.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:33:33 No.11244087 Report

Quoted By: >>11244108

>>11244076
>they have been forced to drop their 737 Max line

This hasn’t happened, they literally unveiled the first MAX-10 unit built a month ago.

>going to need a full RnD cycle to make something that comes close to competing with airbus

I mean the best thing they can do to compete with Airbus is just fix the MAXs problems because nobody wants to buy an unsafe plane. Are you just a salty Europoor? because the detour from spacecraft to tariffs and Airbus suggests this is the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:45:40 No.11244108 Report

Quoted By: >>11244110 >>11244117

>>11244087
>This hasn’t happened
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/16/boeing-737-max-production-faa

>I mean the best thing they can do to compete with Airbus is just fix the MAXs problems
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-wto-aircraft-timeline/timeline-highlights-of-the-15-year-airbus-boeing-trade-war-idUSKBN1WH198
It's a trade war with the US trying to keep boeing alive by saying the EU giving money to airbus is bad while the US gives billions to boeing through military sales and ULA.
>Europoor
Nah, western nation in the east, I have no dog in this fight. I just find it funny that everything is going wrong for boeing all at once and it reminds me of the US automobile bailout of 2008 when old companies become complainant and stopped being competitive.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:46:51 No.11244109 Report

Quoted By: >>11244118

>>11243909
Saw an ISS tour where they went into the Soyuz capsule. It's a tight fit but that makes it 10 times comfier and snug.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:47:27 No.11244110 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244108
>when old companies become *complacent

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:51:01 No.11244117 Report

Quoted By: >>11244120

>>11244108
Production being temporarily suspended doesn’t mean they’ve been forced to drop the line, dipshit. It means their running out of space to store all the planes they can’t sell.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:51:05 No.11244118 Report

Quoted By: >>11244121

>>11244109
two person soyuz is comfy and snug
three person soyuz makes sardines in a tin look roomy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:52:11 No.11244120 Report

Quoted By: >>11244131

>>11244117
>their running out of space to store all the planes they can’t sell
You have convinced me, they are economically viable and not going to need a bailout at all.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sadcat03.jpg, 21KiB, 476x429

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:52:31 No.11244121 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244118
>two person soyuz is comfy and snug
>YWN ride with your gf to the ISS in a Soyuz

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:53:09 No.11244123 Report

Quoted By: >>11244137

>>11244048
I heard this same argument a week before Thomas Cook (one of the world's biggest travel agencies) went bankrupt a few months back.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:55:20 No.11244126 Report

Quoted By: >>11244132 >>11244134 >>11244136 >>11244141 >>11244186

What has made /sfg/ so much more hostile compared to a few months back? Everyone just chill pls

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 0E4BC289-9752-4203-8DAE-36851DE9 (...).jpg, 108KiB, 800x529

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:58:04 No.11244131 Report

Quoted By: >>11244135

>>11244120
The funny thing is that the 737 MAX is actually the most popular aircraft in Boeing’s history:

>As of January 31, 2019, Boeing had 5,011 firm orders from 79 identified customers for the 737 MAX

The problem is they were churning them out at a rapid pace and now have hundreds of planes they can’t deliver. Their storage is overflowing to the point that MAX’s are being parked in the car parks of their facilities.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO doodle.png, 441KiB, 590x656

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:58:10 No.11244132 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244126
no starship tests to placate the masses. mk3 won't be flying for a while anyways so get used to it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:58:57 No.11244134 Report

Quoted By: >>11244139 >>11244151

>>11244126
I think between Starship popping and Starliner turning into a roller coaster while Crewed Dragon is being held to a higher standard than everything else has just got us all a bit down.
There was rapid progress and lots going on and now it seems like everything is going to shit. I know in the mid term progress is still rapid but personally it's got me a bit down.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:58:58 No.11244135 Report

Quoted By: >>11244143

>>11244131
how do they get them out of there?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:59:13 No.11244136 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244126
SpaceX fan wars IMO. Not blaming SpaceX, but there's been alot of fights about them here and those tend to bleed over to other spaceflight topics.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:59:14 No.11244137 Report

Quoted By: >>11244139

>>11244123
Thomas Cook was in an economic down spiral for years before it went bankrupt, Boeing made record revenue last year.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sat 21 Dec 2019 23:59:42 No.11244138 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243376
boeing shit the bed. their excuse was it was sent into a wrong orbit... there is only 1 object to orbit at the distance they reach from the surface of the earth... its the earth

so its official india isnt allowed to code anything but unity projects. im not saying im any better at coding but there is like a 3 strikes policy on this sort of shit where lives hang in the balance

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:00:00 No.11244139 Report

Quoted By: >>11244142

>>11244134
as they say, the "blackpill" is creeping back
FIFTY FUCKING YEARS of NOTHING
>>11244137
cooking the books

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:01:04 No.11244141 Report

Quoted By: >>11244145

>>11244126

People are agitated about the Boeing failures and the heaps of unecessary redtape that burdens SpaceX and the irritation that Boeing apparantly gets a free pass while SpaceX doesnt.

A couple of successes in 2020 should alleviate that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:01:09 No.11244142 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244139
>cooking the books

I accept your surrender

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:01:29 No.11244143 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244135
I assume they drive them around really slowly. Sometimes I see planes drive over a bridge I pass under

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:02:04 No.11244145 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244141
we'll see how much paperwork Boeing gets saddled with

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:06:07 No.11244151 Report

Quoted By: >>11244155

>>11244134
>Starship popping

It’s just a beta model breaking like it was expected to.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:08:08 No.11244155 Report

Quoted By: >>11244171 >>11244176

>>11244151
Seeing they have changed their design for less welds and setup a welder training station I don't think "we totally expected this" is remotely close to the truth.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO D836D44A-67FF-4A30-BA67-5D24F656 (...).jpg, 181KiB, 1080x1918

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:13:50 No.11244169 Report

Quoted By: >>11244182 >>11244183

Does anybody know what’s the purpose of these holes which are leaking hypergolic vapour? I’ve seen them on a few Chinese rockets.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:14:23 No.11244171 Report

Quoted By: >>11244183

>>11244155
"The purpose of today’s test was to pressurize systems to the max, so the outcome was not completely unexpected. There were no injuries, nor is this a serious setback,"

It’s a learning process my dude.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:16:00 No.11244176 Report

Quoted By: >>11244183 >>11244185

>>11244155
Welder here. Looking at the dogshit quality of the welding work on that thing I can't see how they wouldn't expect some kind of failure, apparently Elon was not happy with it either.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:17:38 No.11244182 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244169
Dust some unruly peasants who have bad social credit scores.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:18:24 No.11244183 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244169
Look like vents to stop the tank getting over-pressurized as the Dinitrogen tetroxide boils.

>>11244171
I get they are doing it cheap but welders than can't weld is going a bit too cheap.

>>11244176
Yeah, I work construction and see structural welders working all the time. The Starship welders were shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:19:01 No.11244185 Report

Quoted By: >>11244189 >>11244340

>>11244176
what really got me was they were using inert gas shielding in the texas coast breeze, there's no way they got good shielding on that
also you need to shield the backside of the welds and that's a pain in the ass on such large structures

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:19:07 No.11244186 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244126

Everyone's tired of your shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:20:57 No.11244189 Report

Quoted By: >>11244194 >>11244210

>>11244185
What I would do is seal the bottom and just fill the thing with Argon as you go, it's heavier than air so should just sit in there.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:22:11 No.11244194 Report

Quoted By: >>11244197

>>11244189
sounds like a really really good way to drown some fucking workers
if the argon is concentrated enough it'll cause blackouts in ten seconds flat

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:24:06 No.11244197 Report

Quoted By: >>11244200

>>11244194
So put a lid on the top of each piece as you go.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:25:04 No.11244200 Report

Quoted By: >>11244209

>>11244197
and the argon would blow away in the texas coastal wind, you just need a firewatch/welder helper holding the argon hose to the backside of the welds the whole way around

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:28:47 No.11244209 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244200
I still think they should assemble it horizontally in a sprung tent, looking at some of the crazy automated machines Tesla has I can't see how hard doing one circular weld and lining the next piece up would be. Once you have the tube stack it outside and send Jose in to fit out the inside.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:28:50 No.11244210 Report

Quoted By: >>11244215

>>11244189
......Argon? Pretty sure Starship isn’t using ion engines.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:33:40 No.11244215 Report

Quoted By: >>11244216

>>11244210
to protect the Stainless Steel it's made out of from reacting with atmospheric nitrogen and oxygen

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:34:47 No.11244216 Report

Quoted By: >>11244228 >>11244265

>>11244215
Didn’t know iron reacted with nitrogen. All I ever see is rust.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 00:41:14 No.11244228 Report

Quoted By: >>11244294 >>11244596

>>11244216
it's rust at STP, but when the iron is approaching its boiling point and the atmosphere is an electrified plasma at 3000? nitrogen does bad things to iron as well

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:02:46 No.11244265 Report

Quoted By: >>11244294

>>11244216
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1533/wint.2004.3235

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:14:19 No.11244294 Report

Quoted By: >>11244299

>>11244228
>>11244265

Cool. Sounds like an engineering problem that was figured out fifty years ago, honestly. Must be bad welders

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:16:36 No.11244299 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244294
they might not have had the manpower or the knowledge to apply purge gas to the backside of the welds, either way it's a learning experience
I'm glad they can move on quickly instead of spending six months justifying their fuckup to the circus known as Congress

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:37:35 No.11244340 Report

Quoted By: >>11244345 >>11244461

>>11244185
Should've stick welded it

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:39:11 No.11244345 Report

Quoted By: >>11244360

>>11244340
where's the tool room where they're going to keep their rod ovens?
where's the worksite culture that's going to be diligent about rods?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 01:48:40 No.11244360 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244345
where are the mexican welders who can stick weld

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 300px-Kerbal_mostly_naked.jpg, 14KiB, 300x300

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 02:13:13 No.11244408 Report

Quoted By:

Is it time to breed intelligent humanoids for the purposes of crewed test flights?

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1576853441211.webm, 2MiB, 800x450

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 02:28:15 No.11244444 Report

Quoted By: >>11245694

>>11243976
>I’m pretty sure it’s easy for trained astronauts to notice when the engines are burning when they shouldn’t be...
This video I saw of a simulation from telemetry shows the maneuvering thrusters doing a freaking boogaloo for 30 seconds. (dammit mechjeb!)

>>11243922
It's NASCAR for nerds.

>>11243966
>it took so long for mission control
Right, because it was during a TDRS blackout window.

>>11244012
>>11244043
But NASA told them they could only use each capsule for one mission, so they made it expendable! (it seems Boeing only plans to make 3 or 4 starliners and will re-use them)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 02:35:34 No.11244461 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244340
But stick requires actual skill which Mexicans don't have.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:36:00 No.11244566 Report

Quoted By: >>11244578 >>11244598

>mission failure
>still can move on to CSF

What the fuk.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:41:14 No.11244578 Report

Quoted By: >>11244599

>>11244566
Don't you trust the most skilled and experienced aerospace company in America?!!!??!!!?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:46:54 No.11244596 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244228
Nitrogen does bad shit to titanium even at just a few hundred C, it makes sense why they didn't consider it for Starship.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:47:56 No.11244598 Report

Quoted By: >>11244608

>>11244566
Docking with the ISS was not the primary objective of the test apparently, the contract specifically listed it as a 'bonus' objective.
Also pointed out by a shuttle astronaut:
>No orbital insertion maneuver(s), incorrect altitude, no docking (hardware & software demo), comm outage w/TDRS at critical time. Question(s) about integrated (Atlas/Starliner) end to end software testing.
But apparently that's all fine since old space it ((reliable)). Only hope is that the thing crashes during re-entry on live TV tomorrow.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:48:00 No.11244599 Report

Quoted By: >>11244603

>>11244578
Not really, no. Remember when they gave the Max-8 another chance AFTER it already crashed once?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:49:34 No.11244603 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244599
The joke

Your head

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 03:50:43 No.11244608 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244598
Hopefully it nukes a couple of astronauts and Boeing gets shut down

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO atlas_agena_depressure.jpg, 23KiB, 480x360

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:02:04 No.11244635 Report

Quoted By: >>11244639 >>11244642 >>11244643 >>11244652 >>11244707 >>11244904

Do you think that a smallsat launch market crash is coming up soon? I keep hearing about it elsewhere. The reason is that there's a huge backlog of smallsats waiting for launch, but there are too many launch providers for sustained support. So, the argument goes, that the backlog will run out and many of the smallsat launch providers will go bankrupt until the amount of launches provided match the amount of sats being made. Thoughts?

gif unrelated

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO amidisabled.jpg, 13KiB, 261x193

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:04:17 No.11244639 Report

Quoted By: >>11244707

>>11244635
Well, I thought that it was a gif

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:05:11 No.11244642 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244635
first, literally any of them will need to get off their ass and start launching
Rocket Labs is the only one that's launching so far, and they're only managing every other month

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:05:19 No.11244643 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244635
Yeah only a few small sat launchers will make it, rocket lab comes to mind since they are trying reusability. Ultimately though they will still struggle if spacex provides little kick stages to strap to smallsats and they launch a gorillion at once on starship for basically nothing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:08:23 No.11244652 Report

Quoted By: >>11244662

>>11244635

vector is dead, astra is spending their spooky money on digging up dirt... what else am I missing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:11:41 No.11244662 Report

Quoted By: >>11244667 >>11244680 >>11244691

>>11244652
>Orbex
>Firefly
>ARCA
>Relativity Space
I might be missing some.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:13:32 No.11244667 Report

Quoted By: >>11244672

>>11244662
>ARCA

Lul didn't they propose some clear bullshit scam rocket that used batteries to heat wire elements and use steam as rocket fuel? My sides.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:15:22 No.11244672 Report

Quoted By: >>11245769

>>11244667
I don't think it's a scam. I think that they're trying to be like SpaceX and disrupt the industry with some revolutionary product, but they have no idea what they're doing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:18:27 No.11244680 Report

Quoted By: >>11244695

>>11244662
>Gilmour
>Zero 2 Infinity
>CloudIX
>linkspace
>PLD
>Rocket Crafters
>/ourguys/ EXOS

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:22:45 No.11244691 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244662
S P I N L A U N C H
P
I
N

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:23:46 No.11244695 Report

Quoted By: >>11244701

>>11244680
EXOS are just trying to get a suborbital rocket working, do they even have plans for orbit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:26:00 No.11244701 Report

Quoted By: >>11244704

>>11244695
yes, it's called jaguar. Reusable 1st and 2nd stage iirc. 2022? They're going to start hiring soon, I might apply

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:27:04 No.11244704 Report

Quoted By: >>11244711

>>11244701
>reusable second stage
how many stages to orbit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:28:35 No.11244707 Report

Quoted By: >>11244750

>>11244635
>>11244639
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imkdz63agHY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:29:08 No.11244711 Report

Quoted By: >>11244717

>>11244704
....two? It's only reusable 1st stage, just checked.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:30:51 No.11244717 Report

Quoted By: >>11244771

>>11244711
yeah, okay that makes more sense
reusable second stage is black magic that nobody's managed yet
can't wait for SpaceX to get this whole "building the world's largest trashcan" thing worked out so they can start testing

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:42:20 No.11244750 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244707
[insert losing boner joke here]

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:48:56 No.11244771 Report

Quoted By: >>11244774 >>11244775 >>11244781 >>11244867

>>11244717
> reusable second stage is black magic that nobody's managed yet

Can’t you just attach some parachutes to it or did KSP rot my brain?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:50:19 No.11244774 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244771
It's the reentry part that's tricky. Even for the first stage on the Falcon 9's is rough, and those don't go to orbit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:50:28 No.11244775 Report

Quoted By: >>11244802

>>11244771
KSP has rotted your brain, Earth reentry has more in common with a Jool aerobrake than it does with Kerbin entry

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:52:23 No.11244779 Report

Quoted By: >>11244782 >>11244803

Why is ULA using solid boosters on an orbital capsule launch?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:53:07 No.11244781 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244771
Gotta keep that weight low while giving it enough fuel, maneuvering engines to make sure it doesn't disintegrate in atmosphere and not flatten some poor sods house and then finally space for the chutes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:53:13 No.11244782 Report

Quoted By: >>11244803

>>11244779
because they learned nothing from Challenger

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:58:30 No.11244802 Report

Quoted By: >>11244814

>>11244775
Really? Yikes. Even if you put it low enough that it will deorbit on its own in a few days?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 04:59:05 No.11244803 Report

Quoted By: >>11244813

>>11244779
Because of the design of Atlas V. The basic Atlas with no boosters has a payload capacity that's smaller than what the rocket is expected to deliver on average, while the 5 booster version sends more payload. The idea behind this is to "dial-a-rocket". If it's the typical payload, then would need some boosters. If it's a smaller payload, then it would need less or no boosters to save on costs. The larger payloads can easily be accommodated for with more boosters.

>>11244782
The boosters on Atlas are much smaller both in absolute size and relative to the total vehicle, so a booster related RUD would not be nearly as catastrophic as Challenger. Also, Starliner has a LAS.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO ASTRA1KR_3.jpg, 1MiB, 2011x3000

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:02:28 No.11244813 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244803
DID SOMEONE SAY DIAL-A-ROCKET?
KCHUC KCHUC KCHUC KCHUC
YOU HAVE DIALED...
411!
CONGRADUATUONS!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:02:50 No.11244814 Report

Quoted By: >>11244838

>>11244802
70x70km low kerbin orbital speed is roughly 2200 m/s
200x200km low earth orbital speed is roughly 7,800 m/s
imagine entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 7.8 km/s

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:10:44 No.11244838 Report

Quoted By: >>11244848 >>11244849

>>11244814
>imagine entering Kerbin's atmosphere at 7.8 km/s

Yeah okay I got it. Are heat shields mandatory?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:15:50 No.11244848 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244838
yeah, just a little bit
I'm not convinced a KSP heatshield would survive 7.8 km/s lol

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:16:14 No.11244849 Report

Quoted By: >>11244859

>>11244838
Why don't you tell us how much heat you think entering an atmosphere at 7800m/s will generate?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:23:14 No.11244859 Report

Quoted By: >>11244861 >>11244865 >>11244890

>>11244849
A whole ton, which makes me think that deorbiting whole rockets is unfeasible unless they have a LOT of delta/v leftover so they can burn retrograde and decelerate which would mean leaving more fuel in the stage and thus having a smaller payload-to-wherever. So that’s why reusable second stages aren’t a thing in real life.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:24:36 No.11244861 Report

Quoted By: >>11244876

>>11244859
What about a sail to retrograde "burn"?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:26:29 No.11244865 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244859
the OG shuttle concepts didn't have a huge payload bay, and the shuttle served as it's own hydrocarbon upper stage
Starship uses the same concept but does vertical landing instead of horizontal landing for both stages

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Untitled.png, 1MiB, 1361x1440

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:27:00 No.11244867 Report

Quoted By: >>11244883

>>11244771
Use this to undo the damage KSP has done, realistic sized solar system, realistic orbital velocities, realistic reentry heating.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki

Pic related is my crewed LEO rocket, enough Delta-V for a Duna return mission in stock, enough to get to LEO in RP-1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:29:50 No.11244876 Report

Quoted By: >>11244880

>>11244861
What do you mean “sail”? Like.....a big sheet parachute? I’d think it’d rip off and/or incinerate. But I dunno maybe it could still remove some velocity before it does so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:32:27 No.11244880 Report

Quoted By: >>11244886 >>11245500

>>11244876
Solar sail

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO excited_pear.gif, 647KiB, 366x336

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:35:52 No.11244883 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244867
I am so getting that the moment I buy a new laptop.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:36:42 No.11244886 Report

Quoted By: >>11245500

>>11244880
The energy from solar sails is much too low for the task

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:39:23 No.11244890 Report

Quoted By: >>11244922

>>11244859
Which is why you make a bigger second stage so the mass fraction of your heatshield is not as big a hit which coincidentally is exactly what spacex are doing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:50:38 No.11244904 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244635
Depends almost entirely on SpaceX's Starship.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:52:03 No.11244906 Report

Quoted By: >>11244910 >>11244915 >>11244938 >>11245214

>2x starlink launches a month next year

OH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:54:01 No.11244910 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244906
I can't wait for good service out here in a state that doesn't exist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:56:14 No.11244915 Report

Quoted By: >>11244919 >>11244931 >>11244946

>>11244906
I wonder how hard it'll break ISP monopolies.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:58:26 No.11244919 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244915
They'll lobby against it and for bailouts.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 05:59:20 No.11244922 Report

Quoted By: >>11244927 >>11244931

>>11244890
Wait, where exactly is the heatshield? Do they chuck the engines off or does the rocket have a headshield at the top and it dives head first?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:00:36 No.11244927 Report

Quoted By: >>11244934

>>11244922
not all heatshields are circular, anon
Shuttle had a heatshield, so will Starship; it's the black stuff on the bottom

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:02:57 No.11244931 Report

Quoted By: >>11244934 >>11245500

>>11244915
Depends how much the antenna costs, if they can keep it under ~$300 install or no upfront cost with a ~2 year contact it should shake things up but if it's a $2,000 install it won't do much.

>>11244922
Current (known) starship design has a tiled underside for reentry, titles are "soft" and light compared to the shuttles tiles so it should be able to fly multiple times without replacement. They are also bolt on instead of the shuttles glue on so replacement should be quicker and easier.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:04:37 No.11244934 Report

Quoted By: >>11244939

>>11244927
>>11244931

Oh that’s really cool. Based Starship

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1457514041-4455.jpg, 102KiB, 620x436

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:05:23 No.11244936 Report

Quoted By: >>11244947

Inflatable heatshield for second stage reentry?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:06:05 No.11244938 Report

Quoted By: >>11245500

>>11244906
one of the launches has already been delayed since october. so dont get your hopes up.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:06:30 No.11244939 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244934
the spaceplane parts in KSP are treated as having a similar heathshield on them, their maximum skin temperatures are absolutely ridiculous

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:09:12 No.11244946 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244915
In theory most ISPs will be broke and desperate the moment starlink starts serving, in practice they will bribe politicians and lobby like you have never seen before so we will just have to wait and see.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 06:09:30 No.11244947 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244936
Catch is materials that are flexible enough to inflate and materials with a high enough melting point have very little overlap.
Maybe a carbon based composite will be developed that will work on earth but for now they are only good for aerobraking rather than actual reentry.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO D0C3DEB1-AEC0-4FCE-BDB2-C5E57731 (...).jpg, 11KiB, 226x170

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 08:02:38 No.11245133 Report

Quoted By: >>11245665

Anyone remember Rocketplane Kitsler? It was supposed to be fully reusable and yeet payloads ala Starship. It had a completely blunt nosecone which also acted as the heat shield for the second stage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 08:28:12 No.11245167 Report

Quoted By: >>11245189

Who's in the crew thats scheduled to die in the first manned launch of that billion dollar hunk of junk?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 08:47:32 No.11245189 Report

Quoted By: >>11245200

>>11245167
They have got to be nervous at this point

>Ride spacex capsule which probably won't explode, but maybe will

Or

>Ride Boeing capsule which has pajeet code like 737 max and multiple failures but is still greenlit

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 08:55:51 No.11245200 Report

Quoted By: >>11245298

>>11245189
>test parachutes
Failure
>test flight
Failure

This is why they are technically enlisted, civilians with any sense would unionize and refuse to fly until it works.

What really pisses me off is Dragon is being held to the standards you would expect for a crewed launcher while Starliner is getting a free pass thanks to political influence and corruption.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:01:38 No.11245208 Report

Quoted By:

>>11243995
>>11244040
toasty roastie

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO images.png, 19KiB, 539x569

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:10:19 No.11245214 Report

Quoted By: >>11245236

>>11244906
>OH YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:33:04 No.11245236 Report

Quoted By: >>11245253

>>11245214
Seethe harder Boeing shill

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:48:55 No.11245253 Report

Quoted By: >>11245262

>>11245236
We'll fly a crew before your exploding coffin fixes its killer parachutes.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:53:53 No.11245258 Report

Quoted By: >>11245346

>>11243909
>Soyuz with American flag
I wonder what Khrushchev would have to say about that pic

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 09:56:41 No.11245262 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245253
Depends if you can even reach the iss first lmao.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:15:15 No.11245286 Report

Quoted By: >>11245317

>>11243885
It wasn't. The mission was meant to test onboard systems and it successfully tested them. Once review is done we can safely move on to crewed flight.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:20:10 No.11245298 Report

Quoted By: >>11245312

>>11245200
those standards exist for a reason. new aviation and space flight safety rules get written every time someone finds a new way to kill themselves or others, so following the ones that exist is usually a smart choice. if boeing ends up accidentally killing to many more people by skirting safety rules it could be the end of them, there might even be people demanding blood from the folks responsible.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:27:58 No.11245312 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245298
>if boeing ends up accidentally killing to many more people by skirting safety rules it could be the end of them, there might even be people demanding blood from the folks responsible.

Lmao did you miss the part where Boeings latest plane has already killed hundreds of people and they just have been given what is essentially a slap on the wrist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:30:01 No.11245317 Report

Quoted By: >>11245380

>>11245286
>and it successfully tested them

Except you know, the most important ones.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO There are communists everywhere.jpg, 23KiB, 333x499

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:49:36 No.11245346 Report

Quoted By: >>11245357 >>11245384

>>11245258
I'm thinking more about him.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 10:59:23 No.11245357 Report

Quoted By: >>11245384

>>11245346
He did literally nothing wrong

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:13:50 No.11245380 Report

Quoted By: >>11245393

>>11245317
I mean the only thing they can’t test is docking and they’ve been testing the docking mechanism on orbit anyway.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:15:21 No.11245384 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245346
good man
>>11245357
seconded

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:23:10 No.11245393 Report

Quoted By: >>11245414

>>11245380
>testing the docking mechanism on orbit anyway

Seems to me that to test your docking mechanism correctly you have to, you know, dock.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:43:32 No.11245414 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245393
The docking mechanism has already been tested on DM-1 though, both Starliner and Crew Dragon use the NDS. NASA already knows it works.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:50:25 No.11245421 Report

Quoted By: >>11245426

>Boeing Starliner Orbital Flight Test Landing
www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPzNHeX7OYM

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 11:55:24 No.11245426 Report

Quoted By: >>11245431 >>11245432

>>11245421
No dubs and they wont get any footage of the actual landing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:00:25 No.11245431 Report

Quoted By: >>11245500

>>11245426
but I want to watch it slam into the Earth at terminal velocity

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:03:13 No.11245432 Report

Quoted By: >>11245435

>>11245426
No dubs and they will be the first to do manned launch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:03:42 No.11245433 Report

Quoted By:

>sniffers
I love the smell of hydrazine in the morning

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:04:40 No.11245435 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245432
no dubs and their crew will be turned into confetti when they hit max q

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:08:41 No.11245439 Report

Quoted By:

fuck the cunt is about to orbit above my house (west oz)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:23:58 No.11245452 Report

Quoted By: >>11245454

i wish they stream some basic telemetry too

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:24:59 No.11245453 Report

Quoted By: >>11245456

I'm calling it, Starliner will perform the deorbit burn in an incorrect attitude

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:25:16 No.11245454 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245452
at least this time, unlike the launch, they are showing the control room screens

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:26:02 No.11245455 Report

Quoted By:

Also they are not using SI, no wonder they fucked shit up

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:26:03 No.11245456 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245453
I doubt they will fuck up again.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:26:54 No.11245458 Report

Quoted By: >>11245461

>inb4 they fuck up mission clock again and it lands way off course

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:30:28 No.11245461 Report

Quoted By: >>11245464

>>11245458
The clock has apparently been fixed

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:30:55 No.11245462 Report

Quoted By: >>11245464

fuck this chick's voice is fucking horrendous

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:31:36 No.11245464 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245461
don't underestimate Boeing incompetence

>>11245462
like nails across chalk

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:39:47 No.11245473 Report

Quoted By:

"TheChad138 Don’t want to see her as a cam girl for sure."

ok which one of you faggots was this.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:45:10 No.11245477 Report

Quoted By: >>11245481

>Jim bridenstein watching in room

please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail please fail

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:47:25 No.11245481 Report

Quoted By: >>11245485

>>11245477
Why are you all such fannboyish cunts?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:53:13 No.11245485 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245481
it will be funny and i hope boeing takes another hit for being taxpayer vampires that can't even make planes properly anymore

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:54:38 No.11245487 Report

Quoted By: >>11245497

why would someone want a space mission to fail?
I don't understand the mentality. Am I missing something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 12:54:47 No.11245488 Report

Quoted By: >>11245494

>camera made of potato
DAMMIT

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:01:19 No.11245494 Report

Quoted By: >>11245499

>>11245488
It’s an infrared camera, their all like that.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1572214483850.jpg, 68KiB, 997x1024

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:03:20 No.11245497 Report

Quoted By: >>11245503 >>11245510

>>11245487
Because in this case it would actually be beneficial in helping a much more innovative company to get the contracts instead

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:04:31 No.11245499 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245494
Not really, it is the 1970s era datalink Nasa uses is a failure

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO starflare_ksp.gif, 3MiB, 800x338

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:04:34 No.11245500 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244880
>>11244886
Also it's too slow, you would drop out of orbit before you could reduce your orbital velocity enough to avoid a hot re-entry.
Solar sails are more like ion engines, slow, continuous dV.

>>11244931
>Depends how much the antenna costs
It's probably going to be a big square patch antenna like the ones on Starlink itself, so economies of scale ought to kick in nicely.
It also gets to compete with telcos wanting $5K or so to dig a new fiber to a rural location.
>a tiled underside for reentry
Also it's made out of steel, not aluminum or some expensive aerospace alloy, which starts out able to take more heat.

>>11244938
When you are throwing stacks of satellites up twice a month and miss a lunch, you can't really consider a specific launch from months ago to have been "delayed".

>>11245431
Which episode of Space Brothers was that? Only there was no SpaceX equivalent on that show.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:06:23 No.11245503 Report

Quoted By: >>11245508 >>11245522

>>11245497
But Starliner is an innovative design: a 10 times reusable capsule, that can touchdown on land with airbags (something never done before by the US).

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:08:17 No.11245508 Report

Quoted By: >>11245525

>>11245503
Crew Dragon is capable of soft landing on its own. What is so innovative about airbags in 2020-1 again?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:08:41 No.11245510 Report

Quoted By: >>11245742

>>11245497
>He doesn't believe in competition

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:08:42 No.11245511 Report

Quoted By:

"i don't think we could have had a better flight"

wow the PR damage control is astounding

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:18:06 No.11245522 Report

Quoted By: >>11245530 >>11245542

>>11245503
20 million more than soyuz (a reliable proven launch system) and 70 million more than Dragon 2 (which is fully reusable and can do propulsive landing)

starliner is overpriced shit tier

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:20:38 No.11245525 Report

Quoted By: >>11245624

>>11245508
To be fair, it could before they had to replace check valves with burst valves, because of a problem with NTO that nobody knew about. (it probably even happened a few times in satellites on orbit where nobody could examine the wreckage to find out why)
But that was all because it would have cost money to fully develop the propulsive landing system, and NASA didn't want to pay for that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:23:02 No.11245527 Report

Quoted By:

I'm surprised they left chat enabled, space launch/landing chats are so cancerous.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:25:40 No.11245530 Report

Quoted By: >>11245549

>>11245522
>Dragon 2 (which is fully reusable and can do propulsive landing)

>won’t be doing propulsive landing or be reused

Also, Jim B debunked the GAO estimates about seat prices several days ago: he said that he has no idea where the estimates came from because NASA haven’t even negotiated the seat prices yet!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:34:13 No.11245542 Report

Quoted By: >>11245549

>>11245522
the change they did to keep it from exploding takes away the propulsive landing option

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:40:10 No.11245548 Report

Quoted By:

The number they gave out for the news conference (281) 483-5111

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 13:40:40 No.11245549 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245530

>won’t be doing propulsive landing or be reused

no shit sherlock it won't be, that's different from it from being a minor upgrade away from being able to do propulsive landing, heck right now they are even mulling using the superdracos to do propulsive landing anyway as a backup in case chutes fail during decent
>>11245542
in that configuration yes but it doesn't rule it out being used later on

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:11:37 No.11245581 Report

Quoted By: >>11245612

Looks like boeing is going hard on next flight is cft and not a redo of oft.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:30:36 No.11245612 Report

Quoted By: >>11245623

>>11245581
I don’t think NASA will make them re-do it. They proved Starliner can safely fly astronauts from ascent to landing, I assume they’ll just do more on-orbit testing and take a more conservative approach to rendezvousing with the ISS for CFT.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:40:26 No.11245623 Report

Quoted By: >>11245629

>>11245612
Probably. Though it seems they're still not yet sure what caused the MET to go take the wrong value from Atlas V.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:42:11 No.11245624 Report

Quoted By: >>11245633

>>11245525
Propulsive landing is by design fail deadly with lots of potential failure points. While there are missions where you don't have a choice like the Moon or Mars for LEO work it makes sense to stick with parachutes that generally only need a pin to slide from a hole to fuction.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for propulsive landing but having a simle chute backup makes sense.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:43:23 No.11245629 Report

Quoted By: >>11245652

>>11245623
>Though it seems they're still not yet sure what caused the MET to go take the wrong value from Atlas V.

Publicly their not sure, but L2 tells a difference story. They’ve apparently tracked the problem to a single line of code.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:45:20 No.11245633 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245624
>I'm all for propulsive landing but having a simple chute backup makes sense.

When SpaceX were doing propulsive landing with Crew Dragon they still were going to have a parachute for backup.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 14:57:52 No.11245652 Report

Quoted By: >>11245655 >>11245664

>>11245629
It would be more accurate to say that they've blamed it on a single line of code. I don't believe a word of that, not from Boeing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:03:56 No.11245655 Report

Quoted By: >>11245694

>>11245652
It didn’t come from Boeing itself, it came from a NASA employee involved with commercial crew. He suggested their too embarrassed to reveal how such a minor error scuppered the mission. He also talked about how Starliner’s RCS went through a serious workout to raise the capsule’s altitude; Starliner’s software had to shut down some of the thrusters when they triggered overheating sensors.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 16744285-67EE-4E4B-B2F9-4A59831B (...).jpg, 692KiB, 2048x1256

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:06:02 No.11245660 Report

Quoted By:

Clean as a whistle!

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:07:36 No.11245664 Report

Quoted By: >>11245667 >>11245672

>>11245652
>SpaceX say they expected their flight hardware to explode on the ground
>Boeing say that 2 failed tests in a row were really successes
>ULA say SLS is going to be worth it
>Blue Origin say they will never make an orbital launcher smaller than New Glenn
>Rocketlab said they would never recover boosters
>Virgin said they would be flying passangers years ago
I don't trust anyone in this industry.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:08:40 No.11245665 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245133
IIRC the reentry of both stages would be tricky to work out, especially for that upper stage. Also, I think it would need some kind of nose cone to cover that heatshield because that blunt nose would cause way too much drag.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:09:49 No.11245667 Report

Quoted By: >>11245669 >>11245687

>>11245664
>Blue Origin say they will never make an orbital launcher smaller than New Glenn
Did they go back on that? I'm pretty sure that New Glenn is still their smallest orbital launcher.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:12:41 No.11245669 Report

Quoted By: >>11245671 >>11245694 >>11245798

>>11245667
We will see, they haven't gone back on it yet but I would be amazed if it's cost effective to fly something that big for every mission when there are so many ~5 ton comms payloads that can't really ride share due to weird inclinations.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:14:23 No.11245671 Report

Quoted By: >>11245686

>>11245669
>really ride share due to weird inclinations.

It works for Arianespace, so why wouldn’t it work for Blue to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:14:38 No.11245672 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245664
>SpaceX say that their flight hardware exploded in a test where they were making sure their flight hardware wouldn't explode
>Boeing say that whoopsie we forgot a pin and whoopsie our corporate culture doesn't respect programmers
>Boeing (NOT ULA) ask for more money for SLS
>Blue Origin are building a giant fucking launch facility in Florida
>Rocket Lab were pleasantly surprised at how well their rocket survived first stage reentry
>suborbital tourism is once again proven to be a fucking scam
these range from unfortunate to holy shit (both good and bad)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:23:43 No.11245686 Report

Quoted By: >>11245697

>>11245671
Lets just say SpaceX and Blue Origin are competing for the same contracts, both are recovering and reusing the first stage.
Now you have heavy-lift and medium-lift competing on price, I'm assuming the medium rocket is going to be cheaper for single ride launches it's capable of making.

As for ride sharing on weird inclinations it just isn't an option if they are more than few degrees apart due to the huge delta-v cost of inclination change in LEO. Out at GEO it's more reasonable but pretty much everything at GEO is 0 inclination.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:24:48 No.11245687 Report

Quoted By: >>11245689 >>11245726

>>11245667
They don't have an orbital launcher, just a few CGI animations and silly illustrations

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:27:35 No.11245689 Report

Quoted By: >>11245693

>>11245687
Yeah, that’s not true anymore. Anybody who’s toured Blue’s Florida factory or even has a NSF L2 membership knows this isn’t the case.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:30:27 No.11245693 Report

Quoted By: >>11245698 >>11245805

>>11245689
How far along are they? I saw the short BE-3U burn the other day.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:30:31 No.11245694 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245655
>Starliner’s RCS went through a serious workout
You mean this workout? >>11244444
It looks like disco fever.

>>11245669
>I would be amazed if it's cost effective to fly something that big for every mission
If the vehicle is reusable then your fuel costs for using a larger vehicle are minimal, especially if the larger size improves re-usability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:32:44 No.11245697 Report

Quoted By: >>11245702 >>11245712

>>11245686
It all depends on how expensive New Glenn ends up being. I don't think it'll be that expensive per launch, probably less than an Ariane 5 since New Glenn is going to compete with that and due to the fact that New Glenn is largely built by Blue Origin instead of having a distributed production like with Ariane.

New Glenn would also allow for better cheaper heavy lifting. The only thing comparable is Falcon Heavy and that design is heavily constrained and we may never see it's full potential, meanwhile New Glenn don't have those restrictions. Smaller cheaper launchers are nice for sustained services, but the future of spaceflight depends on cheap access to space for heavy payloads.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:34:30 No.11245698 Report

Quoted By: >>11245712

>>11245693
Their currently building a pathfinder version of New Glenn’s first-stage to test in a hydrostatic cell (the new tall building at their Florida factory). Think of it as Blue’s equivalent of SLS’ test tank. These tests are supposed to begin in the first-half of 2020.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:36:41 No.11245702 Report

Quoted By: >>11245712 >>11245721

>>11245697
>The only thing comparable is Falcon Heavy and that design is heavily constrained and we may never see it's full potential
It's as though SpaceX decided to make something else instead. Hmmm...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:41:49 No.11245712 Report

Quoted By: >>11245736 >>11245738

>>11245697
I agree that we need bigger launchers but I also thing "we will never go smaller" isn't going to be an economic reality in the mid term.

>>11245698
I hope they start being more public with their tests, it'll be interesting to see how they fo.

>>11245702
Falcon heavy is a direct competitor to Delta IV Heavy with a smaller fairing, because of this + politics it will never get government launches and commercial launches generally don't need to go that big.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:46:41 No.11245721 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245702
I was just comparing New Glenn to what was currently flying.

Also, even if SpaceX pushes for more Falcon Heavy flights, the design of the rocket has some issues that are holding it back such as the small core diameter and the kerolox upper stage. There's also the issue of them losing core stages which might make them fly the Falcon Heavy on a less aggressive trajectory at the cost of performance.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:48:34 No.11245726 Report

Quoted By: >>11245735

>>11245687
they also have a fuckhuge launchpad complex

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:55:27 No.11245735 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245726
For a rocket made of plywood

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:55:33 No.11245736 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245712
>I agree that we need bigger launchers but I also thing "we will never go smaller" isn't going to be an economic reality in the mid term.
Lets see how that develops. They have all the parts for a smaller rocket, but I'm not sure how they can do reusability with the BE-4 on a smaller rocket.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 15:57:23 No.11245738 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245712
>Falcon heavy is a direct competitor to Delta IV Heavy

It actually isn’t, Delta 4H’s remaining launches have all been planned out as part of the “block buy”. These launches weren’t able to competed on because they are all Class C payloads, which only the D4H can currently launch due to their size and other requirements. After this block of payloads are launched, D4H will be retired.

Falcon Heavy will however be competing with Vulcan, New Glenn and OmegA for the next block of Class C payloads in 2023.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:00:55 No.11245742 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245510
>Implying throwing even more money down the endless pit of boomerspace is somehow competitive

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:22:19 No.11245769 Report

Quoted By:

>>11244672
I do think they are a scam. Remember their aerospike endeavour, for which they had only promocional youtube vídeos to show, but never reportes any progress on? I think they just act like they do things to grab money from investors

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 003848C6-EAEA-4DBB-A1DE-1001BB4F (...).jpg, 1MiB, 1870x2000

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:26:45 No.11245773 Report

Quoted By: >>11245776

This is a great picture of the drogues popping off

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:30:19 No.11245776 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245773
The top half looks like some deep ocean picture of some jellyfish.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:47:17 No.11245798 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245669
Size doesn't correlate to cost in absolute terms. If an expensive company builds a bigger rocket it's gonna be more expensive, but a cheaper company can build a rocket for the same price of a smaller competitor. BO is betting on being both a cheap company and to operate a partially reusable vehicle, so they shouldn't have any issue with an oversized launcher.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 16:48:38 No.11245805 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245693
>the short BE-3U burn
It wasn't a short burn, sure it was shorter than a full-duration mission burn, but it was definitely long enough to get into a stable full thrust configuration. The engine is effectively complete in terms of startup sequencing, which means it's very very close to complete overall.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO file.png, 41KiB, 598x308

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 17:34:15 No.11245870 Report

Quoted By: >>11245889 >>11245900

I'm glad they're going to be raking Boeing over the coals for this one
https://twitter.com/nasawatch/status/1208769392164687872

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 17:40:53 No.11245887 Report

Quoted By:

so uh the MET was off by 11 hours
wtf

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 17:41:59 No.11245889 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245870
>rake boeing over the coals
NOOOOOOO their $750 million open ended contract will be changed to a $800 million dollar contract. the extra $50 will be paid to boeing for them to internally investigate their processes

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 17:49:16 No.11245900 Report

Quoted By: >>11246197

>>11245870
Nobody is getting raked over the coals, NASA is just going to review Boeing’s software with more scrutiny in case there are more undiscovered issues. Furthermore, NASA seems pretty confident that Boeing won’t have to re-do OFT.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 7653546686745.jpg, 3KiB, 125x118

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:05:53 No.11245923 Report

Quoted By: >>11245930 >>11245948 >>11245962 >>11246450

>all starships scrapped yet again, back to square one with zero new data collected (with the exception of one (1) raptor engine flight test)
>florida starship plans scrapped, meaning any and all existing superheavy pad plans are scrapped too
>zero successful falcon heavy core recoveries and continual failed fairing recoveries
>dragon 2 exploded during a test
>80% of starlink missions that were expected this year did not happen; starlink close to being banned in the regulatory world
>starliner just went belly-up, delaying things for another 2 years
>vulcan is years behind schedule and now ULA only has atlas V
>rocketlab recovery test failed
>virgin orbit delayed another year
>virgin galactic delayed another year
>firefly delayed another year and aerospike engines dropped
>dozens of smallsat launchers going belly-up
>Europe, Russia and Japan doubling down on expendable launchers
>orbital debris problem growing with no solution in sight
>multiple lunar lander and mars lander failures
>Northrop Grumman meme solid booster rocket which is essentially holding taxpayers hostage
>Blue Origin building dozens of new facilities with no purpose and New Glenn is moving back even more
>New Shepard manned flights moved into next year, exactly like how the end of last year went
It's over.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:08:32 No.11245930 Report

Quoted By: >>11245933

>>11245923
space is hard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:09:35 No.11245933 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245930
the same tired old excuse

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:17:03 No.11245948 Report

Quoted By: >>11246010

>>11245923
They're continuing to collect data on Raptors with production ramping up and new test stands coming online at McGregor
The Pad 39A Super Heavy deflector is continuing construction while the area at Roberts Road on KSC has SOMETHING going on back there
Falcon Heavy always was and forever will be a mistake
Dragon 2 is progressing and will take the flag
Starlink has permission to proceed and launches are queuing up and the DoD is already signed the fuck on
Starliner is coming along I guess
Vulcan is going to come online to compete with the new generation of medium lift launchers
RocketLab is following the recovery roadmap they established at the start
Virgin Orbit/Galactic is still a scam
smallsat lift in general is completely irrelevant
the rest of your shit is also dumb and stupid but I won't explain why, aside from Northrop Grumman complaints

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO oy vey.png, 43KiB, 616x679

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:22:17 No.11245958 Report

Quoted By: >>11245982 >>11245990

There are people in this thread that actually give money to this guy so that he can run a 2000 era Invision tier web forum despite the fact its hosting could be paid for by change found underneath the seat of a couch.

Imagine being a pay piggy for this retarded boomer and his autistic zoomer staff who already receive their paycheck directly from Boeing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:23:18 No.11245962 Report

Quoted By: >>11245992 >>11246010

>>11245923
>starlink close to being banned in the regulatory world
What? How?

>Blue Origin building dozens of new facilities with no purpose and New Glenn is moving back even more
No. New Glenn is on schedule.

Look, spaceflight can be pretty depressing at times, but there are still good things happening. Have hope.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:29:23 No.11245974 Report

Quoted By:

Boca Chica is awfully busy, even if they're not actually building Mk3 hardware yet. Plenty of buildings going up, lots of shipments, lots of testing equipment. I'm sure that we'll see good progress on the starship front soon.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:33:13 No.11245982 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245958
the guy's biggest mistake that really drives up his hosting costs are that he hosts his own images and lets users upload images to be hosted on his servers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:34:28 No.11245987 Report

Quoted By:

the people drawing parallels between the 737 MAX and Starliner are completely correct, the disrespect for programmers and code in general at Boeing is top down, it comes straight from the CEO

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1488185630520.jpg, 441KiB, 810x810

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:35:25 No.11245990 Report

Quoted By: >>11246313

>>11245958
>spaceflight news websites drama

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 55f80186fe780ce29a16f1df48be4b8d.jpg, 47KiB, 371x348

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:36:32 No.11245992 Report

Quoted By: >>11246010

>>11245962
the guy's a retarded frogposter and everything he said was either wrong or phrased poorly

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:45:41 No.11246010 Report

Quoted By: >>11246013 >>11246033 >>11246038

>>11245948
>the rest of your shit is also dumb and stupid but I won't explain why, aside from Northrop Grumman complaints
t. northrop grumman shill

>>11245962
>What? How?
mass orbital debris and disturbance to astronomy
it's already being talked about in congressional circles

>No. New Glenn is on schedule.
Source?

>>11245992
kys, bozos-worshipping retard

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:46:53 No.11246013 Report

Quoted By: >>11246031 >>11246054

>>11246010
where's your source for any of that shit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 18:59:34 No.11246031 Report

Quoted By: >>11246035 >>11246054

>>11246013
There is no source. Blue Origin are still internally aiming to fly New Glenn in the first-half 2021, whether that actually happens is anybody’s guess. His points about Vulcan being delayed (it isn’t and is probably the most likely new rocket to fly in 2021) and Rocket Lab’s recovery test failing (it didn’t and actually went better than expected) are false as well.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:00:02 No.11246033 Report

Quoted By: >>11246054

>>11246010
>mass orbital debris and disturbance to astronomy
The astronomy community is very small and they've been aware of starlink for a while. They had plenty of time to make their case but haven't.

>it's already being talked about in congressional circles
Source?

>Source?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Glenn
>Blue Origin indicated that the first orbital launch was expected no earlier than 2020
>Blue Origin aims to launch New Glenn in 2021
It seems like they're still on course with New Glenn, and the vast amount of hardware being built seems like a good sign. Stop being depressive when theres no real reason to be.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:00:32 No.11246035 Report

Quoted By: >>11246040 >>11246054

>>11246031
I'm still a believer on Starship, New Glenn AND Vulcan

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:03:55 No.11246038 Report

Quoted By: >>11246047 >>11246054 >>11246395

>>11246010
Since BO gave a somewhat realistic timeline from the very beginning and nothing changed since then, i am curious where this rumor about them beeing not on schedule anymore comes from.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1497150054387.jpg, 197KiB, 500x375

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:05:00 No.11246040 Report

Quoted By: >>11246047

>>11246035
fuck SLS

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:06:53 No.11246047 Report

Quoted By: >>11246066 >>11246106

>>11246038
>Bezos sets super conservative timeline
>falls behind anyway
>Elon sets hyper-aggressive timeline that's impossible to meet
>nearly fucking makes it
>>11246040
god bless

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:08:22 No.11246054 Report

Quoted By: >>11246062 >>11246073

>>11246033
>>11246013
>>11246031
>>11246035
>>11246038
kys blue origin losers

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:13:00 No.11246062 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246054
Why are you shitting in Blue Origin?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:14:03 No.11246066 Report

Quoted By: >>11246074

>>11246047
>Blue Origin sets super conservative timeline
>They're still on schedule
FTFY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:15:39 No.11246073 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246054
Fuck off with your space tribalism. Nobody gives a shit.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO F2BC7CBC-2842-4DB9-876E-C301C488 (...).jpg, 200KiB, 1920x1080

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:16:10 No.11246074 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246066
I mean there’s nothing conservative about New Glenn...

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 19:31:44 No.11246106 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246047
>nearly fucking makes it
depends entirely on how generous you define "nearly"

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:17:19 No.11246197 Report

Quoted By: >>11246231 >>11246923

>>11245900
They never proved autonomous operation of approaching and docking to the ISS.
Something SpaceX proved on their Crew Dragon and is fully in operation on the Cargo Dragon.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 1573925447742.jpg, 37KiB, 910x512

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:22:46 No.11246206 Report

Quoted By: >>11246209

>>11243376

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:24:17 No.11246209 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246206
I PUSH MY FINGERS INTO MY

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:36:50 No.11246231 Report

Quoted By: >>11246260 >>11246923

>>11246197
>They never proved autonomous operation of approaching and docking to the ISS.
I thought they did via a pretend docking approach in orbit?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:55:01 No.11246260 Report

Quoted By: >>11246267 >>11247411

>>11246231
Its like taking a gun and firing blanks and pretending you now know where the bullets are going to go and you know how to shoot.
You can pretend all you fucking want, but it doesn't mean you are completely and 100% capable.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 20:57:28 No.11246267 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246260
But it’s enough to get a waiver from NASA ;)

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 21:18:43 No.11246313 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245990
t. L2 paypiggy

Oink for us like the animal you are.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:12:11 No.11246395 Report

Quoted By: >>11246403

>>11246038
Because New Shepard has been progressing at a snail's pace and not much had been seen or heard about New Glenn development until recently.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:20:12 No.11246403 Report

Quoted By: >>11246426

>>11246395
The thing is that they are very secretive, new glenn could be nearly finished or it could just be a pile of engines because they don't release jack shit.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:42:23 No.11246426 Report

Quoted By: >>11246437

>>11246403
>new glenn could be nearly finished or it could just be a pile of engines because they don't release jack shit.

In reality New Glenn is neither of these things: Blue have been busy practicing welding tank sections together and are now manufacturing a pathfinder/test first-stage which they expect to have completed by Spring 2020. By late-summer they expect to have completed their first “flight-quality first-stage”, whilst the launch pad at LC-36 won’t be finished until next winter. Their aiming for New Glenn’s first test-flight to occur in Spring, 2021.

This was the last Blue Origin progress report we got, from early November.

t. L2 paypiggy

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:50:16 No.11246437 Report

Quoted By: >>11246448 >>11246460

>>11246426
question, what will it do... better than F9/H? I assume SpaceX will pretty much have fairing recovery nailed down by then. Will they still be cheaper than 50 mil for a F9?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:56:23 No.11246448 Report

Quoted By: >>11246497 >>11246503

>>11246437
>what will it do... better than F9/H?

It will have a vastly bigger payload fairing, bigger payload capacity, be able to dual-berth even the heaviest GTO satellites and have superior performance to high-energy trajectories because of it’s hydrolox upper-stage.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 22:56:44 No.11246450 Report

Quoted By:

>>11245923
>>rocketlab recovery test failed
What? It was a resounding success, they were only trying to get it to survive reentry, which it did better than expected.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:00:06 No.11246460 Report

Quoted By: >>11246497

>>11246437
>what will it do... better than F9/H?
Some things.
>methalox first stage instead of kerolox which removes coking issues
>hydrolox upper stage which performs much better than a kerolox upper stage
>larger fairing
>designed from the ground-up to be reusable

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:24:48 No.11246497 Report

Quoted By: >>11246504

>>11246460
>>11246448
But, is it cheaper though?
Interesting advantages either way. Plus I suppose they can always generate launches for themselves if Bezos’s Kuiper starts building satellites

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:28:17 No.11246503 Report

Quoted By: >>11246509 >>11246540

>>11246448
What will it do better than Starship SuperHeavy then? Or is that New Armstrong territory?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:28:30 No.11246504 Report

Quoted By: >>11246525

>>11246497
>But, is it cheaper though?
Per launch? Most likely "no" since it is larger than F9. Per mass of payload? I'd say that it can be fairly competitive due to Blue Origin building all of the major components themselves.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:30:28 No.11246509 Report

Quoted By: >>11246749

>>11246503
I’m as big of a SS fanboy as anyone, but I doubt that SS will be able to take away contracts from NG for at least a year and a half.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:37:02 No.11246525 Report

Quoted By: >>11246535

>>11246504
Also, with it’s big fairing and big payload capacity it has the potential to launch hundreds of constellation satellites at a time. Personally, I think it’ll put more pressure on Arianespace than SpaceX, by dethroning the former’s A5/6 as the premium GTO launcher, whilst also reaping the cost-savings of reusability.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:40:17 No.11246535 Report

Quoted By: >>11246607

>>11246525
>I think it’ll put more pressure on Arianespace than SpaceX, by dethroning the former’s A5/6 as the premium GTO launcher, whilst also reaping the cost-savings of reusability.
I think Ariane already knows this considering this quote from last year.

>"It is about future business," Charmeau said. "Why do all the billionaires invest in space? Why does Jeff Bezos come to Germany and declare that the country should not go to space? He makes money with your personal data. Today he knows your Amazon orders, tomorrow he drives your car."

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 22 Dec 2019 23:42:05 No.11246540 Report

Quoted By: >>11246610

>>11246503
Since we only have the theoretical/planned performances of the two vehicles to compare, New Glenn would most likely be something like a reusable SLS/Saturn V.
Starship, especially if orbital refuling works out the way it's planned, would be an entirely new category. How New Armstrong will compare to that we don't know, since all information we have about NA is that it's going to be huge as fuck.

Personally i doubt that even Blue Origin knows exactly what they want to build as of this moment.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:16:00 No.11246607 Report

Quoted By: >>11246616

>>11246535
>Why does Jeff Bezos come to Germany and declare that the country should not go to space?

How about you useless fucks take some of those billions of gibs to develop competitive reusable launchers?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:16:31 No.11246610 Report

Quoted By: >>11246723

>>11246540
>New Glenn would most likely be something like a reusable SLS/Saturn V.
Not really. SLS/Saturn V are ultra-heavy launchers while New Glenn is more like a high-medium to heavy launcher.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO mrks01.jpg, 138KiB, 800x1702

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:21:28 No.11246616 Report

Quoted By: >>11246629

>>11246607
I mean, DLR had the concept of a flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster back in '99.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:25:42 No.11246629 Report

Quoted By: >>11246640

>>11246616
>flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster

German was a mistake

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:30:25 No.11246640 Report

Quoted By: >>11246674

>>11246629
I don't think it was ever called that. I just made up a hässlichkomplexeswort for laughs. Someone who actually understands German would probably scoff at it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:52:08 No.11246674 Report

Quoted By: >>11246677

>>11246640
so what does it mean, my top men can't make hide nor hair of it

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 00:54:37 No.11246677 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246674
>flüssigkeitsgeflügelterbooster - liquid winged booser
>hässlichkomplexeswort - ugly complex word
I just used google translate and deleted the spaces.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:11:33 No.11246723 Report

Quoted By: >>11246736

>>11246610
New Glenn is planned to have a capacity of 45tons to LEO in reusable mode. comparing that with the performance of other rockets we can assume it would have about 90-100 tons to LEO capacity when used in expandable mode. This would definetely put it in about the same category as the rockets i mentioned earlier

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:20:19 No.11246736 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246723
>New Glenn is planned to have a capacity of 45tons to LEO in reusable mode. comparing that with the performance of other rockets we can assume it would have about 90-100 tons to LEO capacity when used in expandable mode.

I’d say it’s expendable payload capacity is closer to 75 tons to LEO; considering it’s longer, gliding-reentry and lack of entry burn means it loses much less Delta V to recovery margins. Therefore, it doesn’t get it’s payload capacity roughly halved by reusability unlike the Falcon series.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:23:21 No.11246746 Report

Quoted By: >>11246796

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

someone please call in make us proud please.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:23:26 No.11246747 Report

Quoted By: >>11246755 >>11246758 >>11246783

I still can't believe they are landing new glenn on a fucking manned ship, did they not see all those falcon 9s grenade the drones ships?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:23:39 No.11246749 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246509
In that sense, wouldn't NG also take time to take away F9/FH contracts. Which after that we will have SS ramping up then take away NG contracts and so on.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:26:23 No.11246755 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246747
How many of those F9 barge landing failures resulted in the booster hitting the barge directly (at high velocity I mean)? I only recall one. I think most of those failures had the boosters crash nearby. Maybe if the crew retreated to a well armored part of the ship, then it's safer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:29:48 No.11246758 Report

Quoted By: >>11246783 >>11247402

>>11246747
Droneships are only needed cause F9s need to do a suicide burn to land. The NG will slowly throttle to a hover and once all is fine scoot over to the actual ship.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO E2B85D78-8D09-4246-8B4A-765FD51D (...).jpg, 747KiB, 2048x1534

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:41:11 No.11246783 Report

Quoted By: >>11246785

>>11246747
We don’t actually know where the crew will be for the landing, they could be evacuated to another boat or to an armoured citadel somewhere inside the ship.

>>11246758
Even if New Glenn can hover, I assume they’ll try and make the landing burn as efficient as possible because unlike NS, maximising payload is important.

Also here’s a recent picture of the ship everybody is talking about for reference:

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 5E6CDD39-93A3-4DF7-A503-4F53FECF (...).png, 841KiB, 672x491

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:42:14 No.11246785 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246783
And another one...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:47:46 No.11246796 Report

Quoted By: >>11246833 >>11246852 >>11246871

>>11246746
>246 people watching
The state of NASA

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:48:46 No.11246798 Report

Quoted By:

Space isn't real and spaceflight is just money laundering.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:50:03 No.11246802 Report

Quoted By: >>11246815

>MET clock was 11 hours off

jesus

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 01:54:40 No.11246815 Report

Quoted By: >>11246840

>>11246802
Did they fuck up timezones or something

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:03:01 No.11246833 Report

Quoted By: >>11246839 >>11246852 >>11246871 >>11246880

>>11246796
Meanwhile tens of thousands of viewers for a spacex launch.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:07:09 No.11246839 Report

Quoted By: >>11246852 >>11246862 >>11246871 >>11246881

>>11246833
Because Elon pays them to. He also forces employees to watch the stream.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:07:24 No.11246840 Report

Quoted By: >>11247224

>>11246815
No, Starliner apparently snagged the wrong timing data from Atlas 5 when updating it’s internal clock due to a small software error. Think of it as Starliner grabbing the wrong baton in a relay race. What’s interesting is which variable it mistakenly snagged to create such a big timing error.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:14:23 No.11246852 Report

Quoted By: >>11246869

>>11246796
>>11246833
>>11246839
I have no idea in hell why your comparing the viewership of people just watching the views from the ISS which play when there’s no program scheduled on NASA TV, to that of a live SpaceX webcast. That’s like comparing how many people are playing a video game because of it’s loading screen and how many are playing for the gameplay. Are you just trying to start stupid arguments to bump the thread or something?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:16:29 No.11246862 Report

Quoted By: >>11246867 >>11246871

>>11246839
Lul ok

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:19:04 No.11246867 Report

Quoted By: >>11246874 >>11246991

>>11246862
nice retort redditbro

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:20:02 No.11246869 Report

Quoted By: >>11246872

>>11246852
Uh, they just had on a special program on where people could call in and ask questions directly to the NASA administrator and Boeing leadership. At no point was anyone talking about the ISS feed, which came on after this event. Delete your post and then delete urself.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:20:40 No.11246871 Report

Quoted By: >>11246896

>>11246796
>>11246833
>>11246839
>>11246862
I don’t know why you idiots are comparing the viewership of astronauts just talking to an exciting event like a rocket launch, you’ve obviously run out of intelligent things to talk about.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:21:54 No.11246872 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246869
I’m pretty sure that was just a repeat of this mornings’ post-landing press-conference.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:23:13 No.11246874 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246867
Seethe boeing

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:24:02 No.11246880 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246833
well to be fair the starliner launch got near 20,000 viewers

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:24:06 No.11246881 Report

Quoted By: >>11246893 >>11247149

>>11246839
I doubt that. SpaceX does much more work to popularize their events than NASA.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:26:28 No.11246888 Report

Quoted By: >>11246896

You’ve all been watching repeats you dumb fucks, the talk with Boeing and NASA leadership happened this morning after the landing...

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:29:38 No.11246893 Report

Quoted By: >>11246897

>>11246881
>popularize
That's a weird word for "shilling"

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:32:28 No.11246896 Report

Quoted By: >>11246900

>>11246871
I don't know why you keep spamming this thread with your shitty hot take after you got the original details wrong, had to cover them up, and ironically were audacious enough to call anyone here an idiot afterwards.

Why does it offend you that someone pointed out the laughably low viewership rate of NASA events? I could start a Youtube stream right now with me just dancing like an idiot and get more viewers than them. There's near zero public interest in their programing despite the money they spend on it.
>>11246888
Calm down, autist.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:32:46 No.11246897 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246893
Well, technically both are the same thing.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:35:23 No.11246900 Report

Quoted By: >>11246988

>>11246896
>I don't know why you keep spamming this thread with your shitty hot take after you got the original details wrong, had to cover them up, and ironically were audacious enough to call anyone here an idiot afterwards.
I missed it, what did he say?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 02:47:25 No.11246923 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246197
>>11246231
They did the pretend approach, and SpaceX already validated the ISS side of things, so technically they're copying some of SpaceX's test answers.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO sci-11246871.png, 36KiB, 746x191

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 03:22:54 No.11246988 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246900

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 03:23:35 No.11246991 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246867
>you cannot disprove my arbitrary retarded claim :)

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 04:35:16 No.11247149 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246881

Competent video feed coverage.

Boeing can't even get that right.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 05:09:25 No.11247224 Report

Quoted By: >>11247276

>>11246840
thats more than 1 line of code fucking up

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 05:35:26 No.11247276 Report

Quoted By:

>>11247224
One line would have fixed the clock. The bigger problem was (from what I've read) a design WTF that gated vehicle operational modes exclusively by the MET. It thought it must already be on orbit, and used the wrong kind of course correction. This is a much different specific situation, but a similar sort of design laziness as the MCAS trouble.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 07:04:02 No.11247402 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246758
>once all is fine
Nothing is ever fine when there's a tank of oxidizer next to a tank of fuel next to a chamber with high pressure gas at temperature above melting point of most construction materials

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 23 Dec 2019 07:11:58 No.11247411 Report

Quoted By:

>>11246260
Fuck analogies

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches