/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16078129
they scrubbed the Starlink launch

1200 posts and page 10 on the other thread, stop being faggots you unpaid floor sweepers

>>16078129
I want a direct frame extract from the raw file REEEEEEEEEEE

>>16077737
Why do so many people tend to obsess so much over whether to categorize Starship test flights as "success" or "failure"? What does that even mean in this context? They are development test flights. Imo "success" and "failure" are only meaningful terms for certification test flights or operational flights.

>>16078102
My uneducated guess :
-1week to inspect the pad (in the mean time , start bringing all the equipment necessary for S29 like we saw a couple of hours ago with the platform)
-2-3 weeks for S29 - B11 upgrades depending of IFT-3 data
- 3-4 weeks of Testing campaign
-1 week after for License and all .

Total : 8-9 weeks = 2 months - 2,5 months -> End of May

>ACKCHUALLY UM SWEETIE THE THERMAL FABRIC IS WHITE THAT CAN'T BE IT

>>16078129
>TSLA down more than 4% today
the market has spoken, chuds. Elon scam companies are going down.

>>16078141
wait until the ift-3 recap video

https://twitter.com/StarFleetTours/status/1768376423947874806

From the boaters pov

>>16078145
yeah lol that is indeed how it works since white things aren't yellow but white

>>16078154
meh
I'm already bored of seeing alternate launch perspectives
I wanna see the booster splashdown and the reentry disintegration

>>16078143
Literal communists attempting to rewrite history for their propaganda purposes.

>>16078162
I hope they put actual RCS thrusters on the next ship.

Where was Elon? I just remembered that I didn't see him on the livestream.

My smile and optimism has returned.

>>16078157
Even when they start burning?

>>16077962
I think the "partial failure" indicated there was a Chinese Long March 2 launch yesterday.

>>16078168
New Jersey i think

>>16078171
Looks like you're right. The second stage had a problem that put it in the wrong orbit.

>>16078165
I think Starship should have at least one tail fin. For control reasons of course…not spaceplane reasons

>>16078170
Yes. But also it wasn't burning at 130km

>>16078168
Command and control this time was from Hawthorne. Last time it was Starbase. Elon's at Starbase.

>>16078129
>when NASA switches the HLS funding from SpaceX to Blue Origin

>>16078129
Well that 60 minutes documentary predicting the doom of Starship looks kinda stupid now.

>>16078183
Its a propaganda hit piece against SpaceX to fluff up Blue Origin.

>>16078183
it looked stupid the day it came out

Interstellar bros... we are getting closer ...

>>16078177
Being a spaceplane fan is just so incredibly gay.
>>16078180
They showed it on stream and it was the same room as last time which is a hut at Starbase. You're literally wrong

WE WANT TO SEE THE REENTRY DISINTEGRATION

INDIANS, WHAT R U DOING?

>>16078183
>baiting faggot
lol. the best rocket in the world sure does make you seethe

>>16078188
>interstellar
>clearly saturn

>>16078180
he wasn't in the control room at starbase

>>16078189
>being a spaceplane fan is just so incredibly gay
If it lands vertically it isn't a spaceplane no matter how many tail fins it has

>>16078198
is that the fat announcer guy on the right?
why wasn't he in the live stream?

>>16078205
I kneel

>>16078203
No that's not Spruck.

>>16078205
>raptors are unreliable btw

>>16078205
lewd underskirt shot uwu
>>16078207
where was he? someone on the other thread said he left the company or something

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbW3Pybp73A
launch soon
I'm glad john could join!!!

>>16078218
IMPRESSIVE SARS

>>16078218
>>16078220
whats the point?
I dont see a crypto link in the desc
views for the sake of views?

>>16078158
no one cares, stop watching them you dumb retard

>>16078218
what the fuck it blew up again???

>>16078225
i will now continue to watch them

>>16078223

>>16078218
impressive dogecoin +++ elon sir pls tweet

>>16078224
Views still get you money if you have applied for it

>source: former YouTuber

>>16078228
ok, good. sorry for being rude.

>>16078230
>>16078228
You should link the good ones

>>16078162
>around the world around the world
alternatively
>you spin me right round baby right round

>>16078233
i was lying

Cranky GSE at 39A seems to have been the cause of the scrub for the Falcon Starlink launch today.

>>16078235

>>16078236
>Around the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwDns8x3Jb4
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TGPRg89eCw
>>16078239

>>16078238
>problem with his erector
...

>>16078240

>>16078246

Does Space X publish the music used in their promotional videos?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97GOcZ08tc4

>>16078218
fake channel lol, jeet clickbait

>>16078248
It’s so industrial and utilitarian. Feels like a scene from an empty unreal tournament map or something.

>>16078248
>>16078249
They're published but you have to dig a bit to find who they bought the rights from. https://youtu.be/fgOAgTtrHMQ

Good thread OP, I approve

>>16078253

>>16078253
based thx anon

>>16078258

>>16078251
Yeah it's a rocket retard.

>>16078258
Hullo had a good theory on this. You could see the gasses rushing out.
Maybe it was too much pressure and the door mechanism broke itself trying to pry it open anyway.

>>16078262
And that's the last of the highlight clips form last thread

>>16078253
did they ever publish the awesome music from the 2016 bfr video?

>>16078129
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8ThE479bNY
i looked for a video with a lot of femoids crying in the comments and somehow there are so many guys who apparently cried too, no one of /sci/ would cry about that dog, right??? anyways, its weird that so many cry because of a dog, yet most of them probably eat meat from factory farming.

>>16078273
No

>>16078273
you can tell its sad because they put sad twice in the title :(

We will rebuild

>>16078148
just Flight 3 now

>>16078283
booba looks weird

>>16078282
Please God I hope that’s a speed limit sign, it would be so funny

>>16078129

I don't see what all the hubbub is about in regards to the reentry part of the flight test. Don't Spacex post videos of that all the time with F9 fairing videos? Didn't NASA posted a video of Orion capsule reentry?

So what's the summary of what happened?
So from what I've gathered is:
>Liftoff and separation worked very well.
>Starship made it to the correct trajectory.
>Booster was tumbling and couldn't reignite its engines correctly, splashed down faster than it should have.
>Starship did not attempt to reignite engines.
>Fuel transfer happened.
>Cargo door did not close correctly?
>Debris separated from the Starship before reentry, possibly ice or thermal tiles?
>Communication relayed through Starlink satellites worked.
>Starship also tumbling during reentry, spun out of control and blew up.
>Possible RCS malfunction?
Am I missing anything?

>>16078282
starbase needs watercooled steel signs

>>16078289
i think what makes this one a big deal is that we got an external view and it was live streamed

>>16078297
It also was more stable than the TDRIS link while video was still available.

https://twitter.com/DMDowse/status/1768247415759389005
Crowd at the south tip of South Padre Island this morning

>>16078293
AI trash deserves no responses.

>>16078293
>Cargo door did not close correctly?
Its Pez dispenser door, and it opend correctly and closed correctly.
>debris
>tumbling
>rcs
Unknown

>>16078293
>Booster was tumbling and couldn't reignite its engines correctly, splashed down faster than it should have.
They're still tuning the control parameters for the final decent. There's at least one early Falcon 9 landing attempt that had similar almost catastrophic oscillation issues. And it didn't actually splash down. Something got far enough out of control that the AFTS decide to blow the booster about 500m from the water.

>Fuel transfer happened.
Something happened, but probably not enough to really consider it a real success. At the very least, SpaceX doesn't seem to be highlighting it as something in the win column. Whether it didn't perform because of something inherent in the process or because S28 spent its whole time in orbit tumbling out of control is unclear.

>>16078306
And yet you still responded.

>>16078289
I would absolutely eat the liberal ass of the NASA Space Transportation System Shuttle Orbiter

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1768362223657779458

>>16078307
>Its Pez dispenser door, and it opend correctly and closed correctly.
Oh ok. I thought I saw a video of the door appearing stuck.
>Unknown
Well figure it out NERDS.
>>16078309
>oscillation issues
Fuel tank related?
>And it didn't actually splash down. Something got far enough out of control that the AFTS decide to blow the booster about 500m from the water.
Ah ok.
>Something happened, but probably not enough to really consider it a real success.
Welp.
I hope they'll accelerate the rate of testing from now on desu.
Thanks for the infos guys.

>>16078316

>>16078248

>>16078331
Is that edward norton

>>16078306
>AI trash
https://www.artstation.com/artwork/EaNzPA

>inkcels have devolved to the point that they're calling each other's work AI trash
Holy shit, absolutely mindbroken.

>>16078317
>Fuel tank related?
More like they're still training the flight computers on what angle of the grid fins gets what response. Superheavy was overcompensating in one direction and then swinging back too far in the other direction. The descent also didn't have a reentry burn which would put it further away from what it's Falcon 9 descended control program would be used to.

The big thing that AFTS probably didn't like was whatever kept the engines relighting when they were supposed to for the landing burn. I could see Superheavy realizing that it had zero breaking capability and then deciding that coming down as confetti was the more acceptable option.

I hope the hot staging ring survived intact somehow.

>>16078143
Short sellers mad about losing fortunes shorting Tesla
Deranged leftists mad about: twitter, moving from California to Texas, not bending the knee to covid mandates, environment stuff, etc.
Deranged right wingers made about: government subsidies, the existence of electric vehicles
Deranged gibsmonkeys mad about: money being spent on anything other than them
Musk has tons of people who hate him for various reasons and that flows over onto anything his companies do.

>>16078331
DA BELTAS

>>16078342
Balkasian scavengers are already scrapping the debris field as we speak.

Help me understand something.

The government says
>Do not make hiring, firing, or recruiting decisions based on citizenship, immigration status, or national origin.
But
>If a position may require an export license to access certain items or data, employers can condition an offer on the ability to secure a license from DDTC or BIS, if one is required, but should ensure that conditions and requirements are no broader than these requirements.

If the licenses are limited to US citizens, why the fuck can't you just cut to the fucking chase and make the the requirement in the actual job posting?

Reminder Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy are payload limited by their upper stages’s structural constraint and can’t even launch 20 tons of payload to any orbit

>>16078341
>More like they're still training the flight computers on what angle of the grid fins gets what response. Superheavy was overcompensating in one direction and then swinging back too far in the other direction.
I would have assumed that this is the kind of thing they would get right with simulations desu.
>whatever kept the engines relighting
Could this likely (but not necessarily) be damage from the oscillation? Or improper fuel flow due to oscillation?
Was fuel for the relighting coming from a full sub-tank in the booster? Or is that unneeded because the booster slowing down in the atmosphere will keep the fuel at the bottom of the tank?

>>16078353
pretty much all job related to space engineering requires a citizenship and some kind of higher security clearance.
when I applied for PhD visa in an area that is only even remotely related to space engineering, faggots made me do an administrative processing form and I had to wait for 2 months.

>>16078359
>I would have assumed that this is the kind of thing they would get right with simulations desu.
Might be harder than expected to get this kind of thing right in simulation. Nothing as big and heavy as a Superheavy has ever gone through hypersonic, transsonic, and subsonic flight before, so the previous simulations might not simulate the vehicle dynamics correctly

>>16078353
because the DoD needs a loophole to offer high paying jobs in their chosen career to enemy states' scientists and engineers

>>16078368
That’s a pretty broad loophole that leaves a lot of potential for purposeful enemy infiltration

>>16078268
ACK!

>>16078353
Like all US trade policy, it is market protection behind a thin veneer of equial opportunity global trade.

>>16078376
luckily they're not actual US citizens so there are far, far more legal loopholes not in their favor

>>16078359
It could be that Superheavy took more reentry damage than they expected. IFT-3's flight profile didn't include a reentry burn.

Supersonic retropropulsion is also a field of study that's almost got more practical experimentation than it does modeling and simulation work. NASA had an impressively complex lineup of experiments to try and validate the models they were working on, but those all got canceled when SpaceX came in with the Falcon 9 and just solved it using trial and error. Superheavy and Raptor could be running into conditions that were never accurately modeled and only start to show up outside of Falcon 9's performance envelope.

Now watch the battle break out in the wikipedia portal:current events page lol
I guarantee you this paragraph will be changed at least 6 times in the next few hours

>>16078386
EDS patients out in full force even when all the Elon hating publications are handing SpaceX this launch as a success.

>>16078385
Interesting.
Damn I wish they'd explain these sorts of things in their stream instead of emoting and showing us pies.
They had people's attention for almost an hour and they said very little.

after today's failure I finally divested from SpaceX,
first Astra, now this

>>16078327
back in the days when "falcon heavy" was going to be three falcon 1 cores strapped together

>>16078398
Go back to the sharty you fat nigger baiter. We dont want you here.

>>16078404
i've been here since the SN4 explosion and the early starhopper threads, i'm never leaving

>>16078399
And for all that you still only get about the same performance as a standard Falcon 9 Block 5

>>16078391
>and next is the regime of flight were starship does [TRADE SECRET]
>coming up next the booster is going to do a [ITAR VIOLATION]

>>16078391
they avoid speculation(along with trivia related to said speculation} on stream because the press have trouble distinguishing it

So the /sfg/ consensus is that the excess cryogenic oxygen onboard caused ullage thruster valves to be stuck open and vent into space, resulting in an uncontrolled roll which caused the vehicle to fail to survive re-entry.

>>16078248
Holy kino

>>16078385
i kinda doubt there was any significant damage taken during entry. it seemed to hold attitude pretty well until the gridfins started moving around. the thermal conditions for a booster entering ass-first are pretty well-understood by spacex at this point.
>>16078421
either that or an RCS feed line got ruptured during ascent

>>16078283
No niggers please
Space is a no nigger zone

The Pentagon has just signed papers for five starship launchpads, at three different sites, and three accompanying starfactorys.

Glowie agencies want their own piece of the pie as well.

>>16078436
SOURCE?

They are never going to post the payload bay camera footage during re-entry.

I remember the good ol days when you could just intercept SX engineering cam footage

>>16078430
Just add a couple backup RCS feed lines bro

i'm sure somebody figured this out from IFT-2 but staging occured at about 1570 m/s, so starship itself provides a little under 6000 m/s delta v during ascent. i'd seen some speculation that it might go higher but 6 km/s is what you need to return to earth from the martian surface.

>>16078454

>>16078353
Because you need to look up what Temporary Protected Status means to the State Department. A refugee / asylee so designated becomes equivalent to a citizen for every legal consideration related to employment. Because there is a counterfactual to "US Citizen" as a requirement, it can't be part of the requirements of a job posting. It's stupid, but that's what happens when you make broad exemptions like that.

T+48:39 - starlink video stops
T+49:38 - steady telemetry stops
T+50:20 - tiny telemetry update

>>16078462
You need to account for gravity losses.
Mars has less gravity but the ship will also be pointed upright for longer there compared to on earth from staging upwards.

>>16078483
Guy from west australia (near Perth) that I know was on the lookout for it and reported something at least
>Two dots. About 20 degrees alt. Started from the south west and rose north east but stayed low. Flare lasted about 10 seconds, then both slowly faded to nothing. From being first visible to disappearing was about 1-2 mins. total sky area covered might be 15 degrees. Time would have been roughly t+ 55 mins
Timing is about right, and the location is generally correct but it would have been pretty far offshore still so I'm a bit doubtful. May have been an Iridium, but the time and location do seem to match up somewhat.

>>16078490
He also drew this map. Might have typed "north east" instead of "north west" on accident

>>16078212
I love the shock waves. Think about the diameter of those pressure fronts. It's like a 2000lb bomb going off a few times a second

So, it happened AGAIN. We can blame FAA , we can blame NASA, we can praise SpaceX's effort but the truth is it's simply not enough. We need more changes, determination you name it, it all stinks.
Don't get me wrong, I still have full faith in Elon and the lads, but MASSIVE reinforcements are desperately needed in the next launch. Otherwise I'm not very optimistic about starship, or our chances in making it to the moon or mars for that matter. Not launching like this. What do you think, /sfg/

>>16078490
A satellite wouldn't have been multiple dots and I don't think flares would last nearly that long. It could have been a meteorite but ten seconds is pretty slow for something coming in off of a solar orbit. That's about the speed you'd expect for something coming in at LEO velocity.

>>16078431
she cute af dude

>>16078496
Yeah it definitely doesn't sound like a sat, but I feel like it would have been too far offshore to see from Perth. Idk what else it could have been especially if it was 2 dots. I hope someone has a video of it or something.

>>16078306
That's not AI if you look closely. AI is almost at that level but not quite. Everything makes a little too much sense in the picture.

>>16078497
>happy pi day
>3/15/24

>>16078504
time travellor?

>>16078353
Anti-discrimination laws are mostly retarded. Outside of extreme situations (i.e. mid 20th century US with race and India with caste system) and a few select businesses that tend towards monopolies or other situations where people have few or unclear options (i.e. hotels, utilities, banks) they're completely pointless. And it ultimately harms race/gender/etc. relations by creating a mutual paranoia where employees think that they'd be screwed over by the company if not for those laws and the company classifies all "protected" individuals as litigation risks simply on account of their immutable characteristics.

but society has decided that racism bad therefore it should be illegal so we just have to deal with it and pretend that it's normal

>>16078495
Zoom zoom

>>16078530
I'm afraid the zoomzoom is you

>>16078519
you have never lived in the real world
segregation wasn't even that long ago

>>16078533
Yeah, no. Just leave.

420, Pi Day... We should make this a tradition of launching on meme days

so now that starship has FAILED again will you finally accept that giving it the HLS contract was a mistake?
only blue origin can take us back to the moon

>>16078511
Should have her limbs flying off and naked

>>16078500
I'd depend on how far the pieces of S28 were able to fly after telemetry was lost. When SpaceX was saying that Starship was heading into the Indian Ocean my mind just wrote that off as it coming down "Somewhere near Diego Garcia and nowhere else," but the east end of the reentry zone is right on top of western Australia. I'd say it's pretty likely they saw it.

>>16078541
we should make a tradition of launching as soon as possible

>>16078545
im erect

>>16078511
>alternate reality where starship lands in hawaii
would she have made it bros?

>>16078495
you sound like a retard

>>16078236
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uBqNgxAuBA

>>16078553
Made it? Yes. Made it into the surf in one piece? No.

>>16078558
no way, the retarded bait post is retarded?

>>16078546
assuming that map is right then there's no way it got even close to australia. it took ~200 seconds to travel 15 degrees of longitude east at near-orbital speed (it had only lost 4% of its maximum velocity at loss of signal) but it was starting to hit the altitude where deceleration would have gone >1g.

if we assume 1.5g deceleration then it reaches a speed of 0 after 1730km or so, which translates to about 16 degrees of longitude at the equator. those are rough numbers, but they're conservative ones. there's no way it could have gone as far east as dhaka even.

I can't separate the propaganda and truth on the internet anymore, the liars have so many hornets up their asses. Somebody give it to me straight, was it a success or did it blow up?

>>16078574
yes to both

>>16078574
>success
Yes, massive. They've learned all their previous mistakes, repeatedly outperformed and have consistencies in their past perfect executions (so its not a fluke that they left pad/all engines lit/stage separation happened/hot staging happened/reached orbit/coasted/in orbit fuel transferred happened/pez doors test happened/etc.

Thats operational capability 101 for all rockets barring Falcon 9 (which comes down for reuse).

So with that, they should be able launch missions on the next launch. In that respects, Starship is a massive success.

>blow up
It likely broke up while re-entering rather than blowing up.

>>16078273
I acknowledge that it's unfortunate, and I wish that the people that talk about Belka and Strelka here (I'm Russian) didn't sweep Laika under the rug, but at the end of the day, this happened while my grandma was a toddler (Gagarin's flight was on her 6th birthday), so I don't really care.

>>16078273
>>16078585
a lot of the overreaction to sputnik 2 was cynical american spin doctoring as cope for how badly we'd been beaten. it was a valuable scientific experiment that killed a grand total of 1 dog, at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace. if we'd had a launcher capable of putting a dog into orbit in 1957 we would've absolutely done the same.

>>16078574
It's kind of a silly question desu. It's a test of something that is still in development with many uncertainties as to how it would behave. It got farther than last time and problems were identified. Engineers know what they need to work. If it leads to progress, it's a useful test. If they were like "wtf it wasn't supposed to blow up like this, it makes no sense and the data is garbage" then it wouldn't have been a very useful test.
If by "successful test" you mean "has everything worked", then no, it hasn't. But it's why there are tests.
If you mean "was it disappointing", then it's pretty subjective. I'm sure they would have hoped both the booster and starship had survived longer, but if they really thought it was likely, who knows. And what does it even matter.

>>16078588
>at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace
wtf I hate science now

>>16078591
holy fucking based

>>16078591
the only real failures with iterative design are when the same problem causes a loss of mission twice

>>16078574
Spacex has now successfully tested an expendable rocket that can put double the mass in LEO compared to its nearest competitor for less than 10% the price.
Incidentally, they're having some issues figuring out how to reuse that miracle rocket.

>>16078495
I'm tired, John

>>16078588
>at a time when scientific experiments which killed hundreds of dogs were commonplace
Also ones which killed surprisingly few dogs for how fucked up they were, like the old classic "How Long Do You Have to Expose Something to Hard Vacuum Before it Dies?"

>>16078608
Can't put a payload in orbit very well if you don't have attitude control (and for a second stage this large, not deorbiting isn't acceptable either so in-space relight needs to work)

>>16078596
dont post that wtf

https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-24-222A1.pdf
>FCC Lets SpaceX Starlink Use E-Band for Four Times the Bandwidth

>>16078608

Anyone got that meme news article from the 2050's of the jurno bitching that the boring company is only half finished with the tunnels circumnavigating mars?

IMO the key to Starship’s success is making the Raptor tech WORK RELIABLY — not hyper hand-pick the perfect set of peak engine samples, but be able to reliably produce working engines all the time. So if they got past the boost stage this time just because they went through a bunch of engines before finding the perfect set than it’s not really a success. Everything else is solvable if they can just get the engines right. If Raptor can only work in super-low-yield boutique platinum samples than the tech simply isn’t worth it.

Although losing thermal tiles seems embarrassing. This should be a solved problem, why is it losing tiles?

>>16078191
They where all hard at work in scamming callcenters.

>>16078349
More like chinese subs are looking for raptor engines.

When is the next launch?

>>16078703
stupid frogposter

>>16078687
>making the Raptor tech WORK RELIABLY
They work on the ground but they fail in real use.
This tells me that they're probably not roughing them up enough during ground tests.

>>16078704
That's just, like, your opinion, man.

>>16078703
starlink in ~15 hours

>>16078711
But what about Starship?

>>16078715
it won't launch in ~15 hours

>>16078421
>ullage thruster valves to be stuck open
I'd say the vent or some engine valves rather than thrusters or there would be a lot more spin otherwise. After a while they lost main tank pressure and rcs with it, and then the flap control software couldn't account for no rcs and stabilize the tumbling by itself alone when reentry began and it gained some authority.
They still seemed to have propellant in header tanks and did the transfer test by releasing some of it into the main tank, which then quickly vented into space as well, hence it was a questionable success.

>>16078622
this is you.

I found it on GOES Satellite imagery. Upper Water vapour filter.

>>16078715
2 months

They should just launch a falcon upper stage to push the inert starship upperstage safely into the pacific so they can get the beancounters at faa to approve expendable starship. No need to thank me elan

>>16078730
what is a falcon upper stage?

IT'S ALL CONNECTED
X

>>16078734
A miserable pile of secrets

>>16078739
trade secrets

>>16078737
nice try

>>16078223
It's absolutely nuts how quickly it clears the tower.

>>16078268
00:47:52 to 00:48:03, and then 00:48:12 to 00:48:18 is beyond beautiful. That plasma wake is stunning to watch.

>>16078162
4 RPM. Spincels BTFO.

>>16078223
I'd have to go back and check but I think the staggered ignition sequence was new

Honestly, IFT-3's success or failure is irrelevant. This flight basically proved that Starlink signal works in a plasma wake from 100km down to around 65km stable in a hypersonic regime. That's bonkers and probably opens up the doors for a lot of hypersonic capable hardware.

>>16078608
>can put double the mass in LEO
Two more weeks.

>>16078725
cool

>>16078766
That depends on how much plasma we’re talking about. Millimeter wavelength (3+ GHz) will get through and Starlink is at 137 MHz so unless it’s doing something very unique I doubt it; it just wasn’t generating that much plasma / away from the antenna.

the issue was canceling that roll right? seems easy enough

>>16078792
There are three axis for body rates: pitch, yaw, and roll. Roll presented obvious long term problems, but the yaw rate was basically just as bad and the pitch wasn't looking much better.

400 ton expendable.

>>16078797
was just about to post that yep. wow.

>>16078792
The roll happend because the RCS thrusters didnt work.

>>16078797
V3 is insanely tall if you have ever seen renders of it. 150m tall iirc. I wonder at what height it will be more practical to just build large diameter rings and move on to the next design. I'm predicting gigaheavy will be 18m

>>16078803
You think a valve issue or hot-staging fucked it?

>>16078804
Some anons are claiming the gas we see venting on several parts of the stream could be the leaked thrusters gas, so the thrusters themselfs where fine but the gas leaked out somewhere else.

Any footage of the booster going Pepsi yet?

A lot of people are talking about how long the ship survived re-entry. Now this might be retarded but in KSP the visuals for re-entry start a whole before the actual temperature warnings show up. Is this the same IRL because if so then the ship surviving as long as it did is not so impressive

>>16078820
In real life, reentry gets intense starting at around 70km. If it was going to fail, it was going to fail somewhere in the range of 60km, give or take 10km.

>>16078821
The chart here is for a sample return capsule at interplanetary velocities. https://www.techscience.com/fdmp/v9n4/24550
Pic unrelated

>>16078820
>>16078821
from my many misadventures in RSS/RO, 65-70km is exactly where you'd expect to have thermal failures on an out-of-control reentry vehicle too, with skin temps shooting well above 2000K. if it had failed earlier then there would have been a serious design problem.

I feel like this FAA investigation will take awhile due to how complex the mission was. We might only end up with 2 or 3 more launches this year.

at this rate, starship will have a successful launch after 3 more attempts

>>16078847
today's launch was successful. it launched.

>>16078847
It did have a successful launch. Just not a successful reentry.

it might be dumb idea, but why can't they just put big balloon into the tank to limit ullage?

>>16078849
>>16078850
you know what i meant

>>16078851
Balloons to limit the ulllage volume increase the number of systems that can fail and add a membrane that's generally superfluous to the job.

>>16078851
using a bladder's been thrown around as an idea going back to the '60s but you can settle propellant with a miniscule amount of acceleration, less than 1/100g, and that's way simpler in practice.

>>16078858
fair enough in space. but maybe it should be reevaluated given the reentry shenanigans

>>16078860
it's going to be a while before we get confirmation of what caused the reentry shenanigans in the first place

>>16078865
What problem is the balloon supposed to solve?

>>16078866
ullage, so engine fuel feeding and more predictable center of mass

>>16078868
What ullage problem?

>>16078146
EV profit margins are certainly going down

>>16078246
Does the ship cut off the RVACs early to get a more accurate final orbit insertion? I wonder if it's because the sea level raptors might have better deep throttle capability, or just because they want to have gimbal control right up till the end

>>16078876
My guess would be G-limiting while needing to keep good control of the vehicle at SECO, which requires engine steering through shutdown.

>>16078804
Length / diameter:
Starship V3 : 145 / 9 = 16.1
Falcon 9 : 70 / 3.75 = 18.7

A lot of room to grow for Starship

>>16078870
Cant help it. With feds raising interest rates, its cutting all the demand.

>>16078847
at this rate they can happily launch payloads in expendable mode, with or without attempted recovery

>>16078519
i fucking hate single mothers and retirees, whats the word for this feel

>>16078882
Still limited by volume

>>16078386
all the were succesful launches, because it launched

>>16078386
>they source arab shit

>>16078893
Absolute truth

So next launch in under 2 months right?

>>16078157
>white things aren't yellow but white
Except the Sun.

So we can all agree that IFT-4 will basically be a near total success?

>>16078757
Man, you weren't kidding. That thing really books it off the pad. It didn't feel anywhere near as fast while watching it live.

>>16078162
>This is no time for caution
>hans zimmer music intensifies

>>16078386
Oh no, how come they list the N1 flights as failures even though they learned so much with each of them and made good progress. You say they have EDS. Maybe you have fragile bitch syndrome.

>>16078919
because americans hate russians

>>16078519
False. They are always wrong and should never be implemented.

>>16078919
N1 was an objective failure and it never made it to staging.. It was also a very clunky rocket due to design flaws resulting from making compromises on the internal structure.

>>16078851
>cryogenic balloons

>>16078365
>>16078359
The data from this flight might be useful for creating a simulation. The more flights they do, the more data they get, the better they can start simulating more complex flights.

>>16078923
im trans btw. if that matters.

>>16078926
anyone got the Atlas Agena webm?

Did this already launch or will it launch soon? I want to watch with that one vtuber again

>>16078386
Thank god wikipedia in my language doesn't have so childish editors.
Failures are listed as failures no matter their marketing.
No debate is required to reach consensus on obvious matters.

>>16078938
>disputed
The thing has proved itself in expendable mode so I would say yesterday's launch was a success

>>16078939
grey area because it was spinning out of control so would likely not deploy a payload cleanly. its also unclear if the payload door worked properly. if it maintained attitude control during the coast and opened the door properly then it would be an undispuitable expendable mode w

>>16078939
Thank god your opinion holds exactly zero value. You don't even understand what the disputed tag means.

But I digress. The point was, this circus has repeated itself three times on en.wikipedia.
Each IFT was at first listed as partial failure because elon fanboys are incredible manbabies. Then everyone's time is wasted by it going through wikipedia's process and a bunch of autistic rules lawyering, and then it was listed as failure.

I mean, it's one thing if trolls do drive-by vandalism, or hostile state actors try to undermine wikipedia's neutrality and reliability.

But petty manchildren doing it because they don't want their favorite toy to look bad? Jesus fucking Christ, what went so wrong?

>>16078941
I assume they tested the payload ba in a wind tunnel, they did do that, r-right?

>>16078948
no, why would they when they could test in the actual environment

>>16078546
So how long until debris starts washing up on Mauritius?

>>16078946
You ever played with superhero action figures as a kid? My guy is stronger than your guy.
It's not a coincidence a lot of them are marvel capeshit fans.

>>16078955
The raptors are all destroyed right? Asking for Chi- , a friend here.

>>16078454
wut

>>16078892
any excess propellant can be in theory offloaded to a depot

>>16078986
They used to broadcast it in the clear with no encryption.

>>16078143
Because the SpaceX Rocketplane is a terrible design, and us engineers knew that from the beginning.
It doesn’t have enough surface area to survive reentry.
But if they add wings like the Space Shuttle, it will be too heavy to reach orbital velocity.
So SpaceX is quite literally fucked.
Unless they put on their big-boy pants and say “We fucked up, this design is shit, we’re going to recreate the Space Shuttle instead.”

>>16078959
It got plasma'ed up the ass end. Sub-atomic assembly likely required on the raptors.

>>16079002
>us engineers
the only thing you've ever engineered is the IKEA shelf for your funko pops.

so doomers whats your next goal post regarding starship? Thus far you have been hilariously BTFOd every launch. Its almost like slapstick comedy already

>>16078282
Kek
>Rapidly reusable
>Oh, we have to rebuild our entire launch facility after every launch at the cost of millions of dollars.

>>16079002
The truth is Lockheed and Boeing killed Tory Bruno's (actualy really good) idea.
This was meant to be the future of US space.

>>16078959
Even if they get their hands on the raptor Blueprints they still could not make them.
The chinese still have problems with making their own reliable jet engines too.
It's about having Quality Materials, the engineering, etc...
Same with semiconductors, anything that needs a high level of detail on every step they have trouble copying it from the West.

>>16079016
what alternate reality do you live in? Starship was suppsoed to be landing on the moon this year, meanwhile in reality its burnt through its entire artemis budget and is 0 out of 3 sucessful

>manned circumlunar flight by 2023
lol
lmao
rofl

>>16079021
>rotating fluid
won't that eventually come to spin on it's largest axis due to liquid sloshing?

>>16079024
>supposed to be landing on the moon
could be more likely that was simply a marketing ploy to get congressmen and investors to keep paying

>>16079028
We literally do not know, because it was only tested once (yesterday)

>>16079016
Losing Starship due to an inability to control its attitude is a bit embarrassing. There's no way to sugarcoat that.

>>16078994
I broadcasted into clear if you know what I mean

>>16079040
yeah idk if they really need to boost the entire vehicle like that just to collect data

>>16079043
lose*
WTF is that autocorrect

>>16078797
>V3
What? Considering they still have not made a single V2, why not just skip it and have the V3 be the V2?

Silly question: who or what replaces the heat tiles when Starship lands on Mars?

>>16079016
first it will be that starship can't survive reentry
once it starts landing regularly the cope will be that it can't be reused
once it starts being reused the cope will be that it can't be rapidly reused
then that it can't carry humans
then that it can't get to the moon
then that it can't land on the moon
then that it can't return from the moon
then that it can't take passengers to the moon
then all the same objections repeated for Mars
they'll be talking about how starship will never succeed even after there are thousands of them regularly flying cargo and passenger routes between Earth and Mars
none of it means anything except that someone's feelings are hurt

>>16079022
>Same with semiconductors
laughs in mandarin (哈哈)

>>16079048
The heat tiles are not intended to be expendable. If the design doesn't work it will be modified or replaced. What a weird objection.

>>16078180
Elon was in Europe at the time IIRC

>>16079053
>Laughs in economic collapse

>>16079064
2 weeks

>>16079071
Yes, that's the amount of days you need to work in the West to earn what a chinese earns in a year.

>>16079002

>>16079002
>It doesn’t have enough surface area to survive reentry.
Why would you need more surface area to survive re-entry? The shuttle had wings because it had to glide down and land on a runway. You can survive re-entry in a soyuz just fine. Given the starship enters belly first, it's mass to surface area won't be much different from a capsule.

>>16078431
She works in a coal mine.

>>16078306
Get your eyes checked, retard.

>>16078644

>>16079083
>soyuz
>ablative heat shield
Why bother opening your mouth when only shit comes out?

>>16078331
TV show Ashford is a lot more likable than book Ashford

Remember transpiration cooling?
Remember how heatshield tiles were lame and oldspace?

>>16079044
>>16079043
>>16079040
it really is amateur. what were they thinking?
Rumor has it that NASA held SpaceXes hand through all of dragon development, and the more I look at the state of Starship the more I think it's true. Dragon would have killed astronauts if NASA didnt make it.

>>16079093
Kek, dont remind em, it causes seizures.

>>16079092
Books got worse and worse and the ending was just a "yeah, we gave up deal with it". Waste of time.

>>16079049
Who’s coping? I see NOTHING but breathless cheerleading by soifaces on YouTube and media. I’m the only person I know of who’s been skeptical. Why? Simply because the whole concept is based on making cheaper full-flow staged methane-oxygen engines work reliably to greatly improve the economics of heavy lift. Those types of engines were abandoned a long time ago because they’re inherently unreliable. A lot of delicate hoops must be jumped through. The whole purpose and promise of Starship is achieving a next level of cost-efficiency for heavy lift, and if it can be done it’ll revolutionize the space industry because by making lifts much cheaper. But that will only happen if working Raptors can be manufactured reliably. Like, how many Raptors did SpaceX have to go through before finding just the right, perfect golden samples just so they won’t fail right after launch? That’s why I’m skeptical. If that can be solved, if Raptors can be reliably built the the economy of Starship will be realized — but if not then it’ll just be a flop.

>>16078797
>Shuttle: 29000 kg to LEO
WRONG

>>16079102
nice cope post

>>16079108
Do that and you have to account of the weight of every empty final stage along with its payload.

>mishap investigation for a "successful" mission
uh, muskrats??

>>16079102
Just give up anon.
200t/400t to LEO. Brilliant Pebbles and other megastructures are coming.

>>16079118
Pretty sure that's how we do that for every other rocket

>>16078289
we've NEVER had an external view, we've never seen the shock forming across the surface before
>>16078611
personally my favorite vacuum trick is "gloves are optional actually"
does anybody have that image I can't find it

>>16079040
That’s what I’m saying. I don’t want to sound like an ass-ravaged liberal shill, but, REALLY, basic control (and keeping heat tiles on) seems like kindergarten-level shit that SpaceX fails at somehow. If it was Roscosmos, the Chinese or one of these startups you’d just smirk and be like "lol of course" — but SpaceX? With such a crucial project? Who’re the engineers? Do they not have the best fluid mechanics modeling and CAD / design software? Do they not do laboratory testing?

>>16079108
Embarrassing correction: I mean "fuel remaining at orbital velocity" not fully-fueled

>>16079127
>Do they not do laboratory testing?
SpaceX is known to falsify test results if a failed test would result in delays

>>16079102
>Those types of engines were abandoned a long time ago because they’re inherently unreliable.
No, they were abandoned because Glushko stopped having hypergolic autism when the UR-700 was cancelled and went with developing kerolox engines, which can't be practically made FFSC because of the clogging from soot.

The Raptor has already proven itself to be as reliable as any other engine at this point. And soon it will be as reliable as the Merlin.

>>16078169
kek

>>16079121
Shows over, take this (You) and go back to whatever board you came from and bait there

>>16079125
No we don't. The drymass of the final stage is never included because it's not a useful metric. Otherwise shit like Long March 5B would be considered super heavy lift rockets.

>>16079145
The mass of the CSM and LM combined would not be anywhere near 140 tons by itself. I go and look for the mass of the S-IVB and remaining fuel however, and as it turns out, it's exactly 140 t

>>16079088
NTA but I've also been looking for this.
Thanks.

>>16078707
>>16078715
>>16078730
>>16078847
stupid frogposters

>>16079127
they blew up a thruster or had some other control systems failure
maybe they ran out of prop due to higher than expected propellant consumption, maybe it froze because using ullage gas as RCS is a bad idea
they'll figure it out

>>16079126
I found the image

>>16078943
Wow thanks for alerting me to this rabbit hole of soijacking fanboys desperately trying to run damage control / propaganda on Wikipedia.

>>16079118
the orbiter was much more explicitly a payload than it is for other rockets. you can argue about the plumbing and the engines, but the rest was clearly a space station the rocket always brought with it.

>>16079127
Fluid dynamic modules for a lot of the extreme enviroments Starship undergoes simply doesn't exist that are accurate enough to use current finite element analyzers. Too many of factors are simply unknown. The best way to make a useful analyzation is through practical tests.

I don't really understand why you redditors can genuinely believe you know better than the world leaders in rocket development and manufacturing.

>>16079151
It was a payload to LEO. Payload can include stages. It's all about useful payload. You could replace the S-IVB with another payload and still reach orbit. That's what they did with Skylab. You can't do that with the Shittle.

>>16079015
>>16079081
>>16079083
See this picture? It's the Space Shuttle gliding to the ground.
The SpaceX Rocketplane burned up in the atmosphere, because it's a terrible design and they are unable to control it enough to stop it from rolling over onto the NON-heat-shield side of the rocketplane. Oh, and its design doesn't allow it to bleed off enough speed so that it can land either. So that's two major problems as a results of the terrible design.
When the vehicle rolls over, the steel becomes soft or melts, loses structural integrity, and disintegrates.
In order for the SpaceX Rocketplane to survive re-entry, it's going to need a MUCH LARGER surface area to help control its descent and glide through the atmosphere.

Go ahead.
Screencap this please.
I would actually love to be proven wrong on my assumptions about this rocketplane.
Also, there is no way the current configuration could ever hope to survive a landing on Mars or The Moon if it can't survive re-entry on Earth first.

Nobody is screenshotting your gay bait.

>>16079158
Do you just patrol every board looking for pepes you absolute tumor

>>16079186
haha stupid frogposter
<- its me, using AI to find and ridicule frogposters

>>16079185
I'll be here for the next failure.

>>16079191
I'll call you a faggot then, too.

>>16079183
Based boomer.

>>16079183
>>16079185
One of you is going to look bad after the next test.

>>16079108
>>16079132
retard

BTW, isn’t it bullshit that the FAA is getting involved? Does Lockheed Martin need FAA approval to test a new missile? Does FAA oversee all space launches?

>>16079220
>Does FAA oversee all space launches?
From US soil? Yes.

>>16079220
why are they even having a mishap investigation for this, there was never a mishap investigation for Falcon 9 reuse attempts

>>16079221
incorrect, all space launches by US commercial companies from Earth
that may be expanded to Mars at some point

I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect SpaceX Heavy Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean.
2. How do they expect SpaceX "Starship" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.

>>16079220
you can't even launch a 4lb toy rocket without FAA approval

>>16079234
1. well obviously they need to get the engines to reignite, which seems solveable
2. obviously they need to maintain control of the vehicle during on-orbit operations and the entry interface, so that the flaps have the chance to maintain control of the vehicle during re-entry, which seems solveable

>>16079234
1. By finding out the cause for why they didn't ignite and solve it?
2. By finding out why the attitude control system didn't work properly and solve it?

KEEEEK what is this thread?
>>16079234
>1. How do they expect SpaceX Heavy Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean
Do you know what the Falcon 9 is?

>>16079261
he's right though, falcon 9 doesn't survive re-entry if the engine doesn't reignite

>>16079225
Because falcon 9 was successful at first, at starship blew up twice and the last one was orbiting without control

I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect SpaceX Falcon Booster to survive re-entry if the engines don't re-ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "reusable" booster just crashes into the ocean.
2. How do they expect SpaceX "Dragon" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.

>losers who have never done a hard thing in their life recommend you stop doing things because it could lead to failure
many such cases

>>16079270
most objects orbit without control though

>>16079268
>he's right
He's not making an argument. Falcon 9 has landed 100 in a row. It is successfully reusable

I have yet to see anyone explain the following:
1. How do they expect NASA Redstone Rocket to survive liftoff if the engines don't ignite? There is no backup plan, and their "expendable" booster just crashes into the ground.
2. How do they expect NASA "Mercury Capsule" to survive re-entry? Any slight turn of the spacecraft will expose the non-shielded side to the intense heat of re-entry, and the spacecraft will be destroyed.

>expendable booster just crashes into the ground
yeah
they're meant to do that

NEXT GOALPOST:
>it cannot reenter
>it is impossible

>>16079183
I'm assuming in the upper parts of the atmosphere, or during the early parts of reentry Starship would not have enough authority with the flaps and would rely on RCS until the atmosphere became thicker, the issue was they could not stop the roll as it re-entered, not the flaps being too small. The same would apply to the shuttle, high up in the atmosphere without reaction control it would pretty much be fucked unless if it's incredibly lucky.

>>16079163
can you actually expose your hands to vaccum and be fine?

>>16078918
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqj_xjc6dmU

Too big for webum

>>16079292
>fully doxxing yourself on 4chan

>>16079292
uh oh..

>>16079291
yeah but you gotta moisturize and it's not pleasant

>>16079294
>>16079295
I dunno Bob seems cool, we should let him get away with this one

>>16079292
/sfg/ moment. Next time Robert, upload it to https://catbox.moe/

So starship's RCS didn't work at all? Not even once?

>>16079305
Catbox is slow as molasses for video.

>>16079307
we just don't know

>>16079307
No, you can thank Estronaut for that

>>16079305
>>16079295
>>16079294

Nobody gives a shit it's not 2007 anymore. This is just another content platform full of nerds.

aieeeeeeeeeee

>>16079307
At the beginning it looks like it was holding position.
But it never stopped venting out the bottom and I think it was just losing pressure due to leaks and the RCS became ever more ineffective.

>>16079312
Lots of retards would on this site. Thankfully I doubt anybody on /sfg/ would care unless they're some porn spamming avatarfag.

>>16079292
You get a 'like' from me

>>16079291
on one of Joseph Kittinger's high altitude jumps his glove depressurized on the way up. his hand swelled to twice it's size but as far as I know it went back to normal when he landed and he had no long term problems

>>16079242
>>16079256
>>16079261
I'm skeptical of SpaceX being able to pull this off.
How many exploded spacecraft is it going to take?
Wouldn't it be better to just design it correctly from the beginning. Apollo engineers in the 1960s were able to create functioning spacecraft without so many expensive tests.
The design of Starship should've been tested with a 1/10th scale model first or something like that.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have lots of lulz as Musk burns through government subsidies and investor cash.

>>16079278
Re-entry capsules have passively stable aerodynamics. They literally can't turn the wrong way due to the re-entry forces acting upon them.
Meanwhile Starship is flopping uncontrollably with a plethora of attitude control systems. KSP-tier.
Unlike Elon Musk, Max Faget knew what he was doing. Elon may preach "no part is best part" but still builds convoluted failure-prone systems.

Apologize to Project Mercury engineers, you brat.

>>16079340
I don't know if you've ever played KSP but if your vehicle is flopping uncontrollably during reentry you are experiencing a "skill issue"

>>16079340
SpaceX built a passively stable capsule spacecraft too. It works great.
So I don't understand the argument.
You're saying they shouldn't do the more difficult thing that results in higher capability because it's hard?
Sounds like loser talk

Although there is a possiblity you could make Starship passively stable with some modifications to the OML.
What would that look like?
>inb4 shittle
not that wasn't passively stable during reentry

>>16079341
It's KSP-tier because it's a fucking joke that only works in KSP.
In fact, in KSP it's a great way to distribute the heat load to all parts evenly. And if structural integrity is ever a problem, you are using autostruts wrong.

>tfw you share /sfg/ with newfags who weren't in /kspg/ since ksp alpha
気持ち悪い

>>16079358
shittle not being passively stable during entry despite having massive aero surfaces was a hilarious design feature.

I think starship is passively stable during entry, its just that it didnt catch enough air to stop the spin before disintegrating, and it seems like the flight computer didnt try to correct the spin so maybe that was fucked too.

>>16079363
it works in KSP because kerbal parts have uniform TPS across the entire skin

>>16079367
I doubt it.
There were times when rates were low and it was facing roughly in the right direction.
If there was a basin of stability it should have fallen in.

>>16079377
idk. theres a realm of passive stability where if it's stationary in the right direction it will be stable, but if it's spinning too fast the upper atmosphere air won't be enough to push it into the correct orientation. please do stop concern trolling though. these are solvable issues. if nothing else powerful RCS rockets and a fuck ton of fuel would fix it

>>16079377
maybe the header tank was empty causing the com to be too low

>>16079307
Yup

>>16078797
Always seeking the absolute limits of the design. Admirable, and certainly the reason spacex is so dominant in the industry with Falcon, but I worry about them sacrificing robustness and weather resilience in the name of asymptotically increasing payload.

KEEEK he's gonna kill himself https://youtube.com/watch?v=CYMewo1JTzI
many such cases

>>16078919
N1 never made it to stage seperation

>NASA has used a small constellation of Tracking and Data Relay Satellites to communicate with spacecraft, beginning with the Space Shuttle. Starship was able to communicate with these satellites upon its reentry, but it was only at a low data rate, and it dropped out as the plasma thickened. The Starlink connection remained longer and is what enabled the stunning video of reentry.

Starlink > TDRS

>>16079108
The Orbiter is the rocket not the payload.

arsetechnigger

Space Pioneer's new factory. Intended production capacity is 30 rockets and 500 engines per year.

Source
http://spacepioneer.cc/news/detail/121

>>16079445
Yeeeeah I’m pretty sure NASA/the DoD saw that reentry live and coomed

>>16079047
>why no V2
Possibly because ROCKET NAME BAD

NRO must have been salivating watching a reentry live feed.

>estronaut violently soigaping at the rocket
it really is like a reflex for them lmao

>>16079464
I was doing it too so I can’t blame him for this one

>>16078928
>The data from this flight might be useful for creating a simulation. The more flights they do, the more data they get, the better they can start simulating more complex flights.
Yep, that's what they'll end up doing, looking at the data and figuring out what aspects are missing from the simulation to fix it.

>>16079460
if you asked me a few days ago I would have said it's physically impossible to get a data stream like that out of a craft entering the atmosphere

>>16079455
>less than a hundred parking spots
Is the factory automated?

>>16079225
Because the objectives of the rocket define the scope of the FAA's own oversights. They don't apply the same standards for one guy's private plane as they do for commercial airliners, and they don't apply the same standards for expendable rockets to reusable ones because they aren't trying to do the same thing. The FAA's mishap investigation into SpaceX not achieving their filed flight plan is perfectly reasonable.

>>16079338
>>16079340
Here's your (you). It turns out that engineers cost more money than hardware and you don't need to spend as many engineer hours simulating the hell out of everything if you just build the hardware and find out how it actually performs instead of trying to calculate it all in advance and still being wrong.

>>16079377
I think its AoA might have been consistently too high, it's designed for ~60 degrees AoA and it probably won't be recoverable if it hits 90, which it did (from my experience in KSP lol)

>>16079464
me during livestreamed reentry

>>16079439
what a hero, that's how you can tell he's based
>>16079445
>>16079457
I REALLY REALLY can't wait until we get footage all the way down, that's going to be sick

>>16079493
The mega mach diamonds are even more pronounced than last flight.
Such a beautiful vehicle.

>>16078797
Sounds like Elon wants to get to ~100 Starlink V2s per launch.

>>16078913
23 seconds from engine ignition to climb to 1km is wild.

>>16079455
Founder Kang Yonglai estimates a launch price of ¥20,000/kg ($2,780/kg) for TL-3 (assuming I interpreted this correctly)

https://weibo.com/5658451754/O3NQND7fG

>>16079503
Now calculate it without subsidies.

>>16079476
There's some more around the back. I've no idea what the public transport situation is in Zhangjiagang.

>>16079503
>Predictions and publicity from a "private Chinese launch company"
I simply do not care what anyone in that branch of the CCP has to say

>>16079516
I wonder how they climate control a building that size? I only see like three air exchanges and they have a shitton of glass

>>16079523
Then what are all those shits on the roof?

>>16078926
New engineers should be hazed by having them procure cryogenic non-permeable elastomers. One day someone might be stupid enough to invent them!

>>16079529
I'd come up with an elaborate trash-compactor mechanism involving telescoping slats before trying something involving novel chemistry