>>64314611
Here in Peoria, nobody really cares about this gay shit. We're all talking about the Strategy of Tension.

>>64314611
Based inb4s. Will be keeping tabs on this thread.

>>64314623
But you can't inb4 your own thread in the OP. We've known this for 20 years.

>>64314627
He just did it and it works for this newfag

>>64314640
Sure, you CAN do it, but it's like writing k or /k or /K/ instead of /k/ (you are immediately outed as a pathetic newfaggot)

>>64314611
that is something i've been thinking about, mind you, i don't think anyone will go through with it, because even a small risk of discovery on a project like this would be very deadly, but it wouldn't be inconcievable with starship in high cadence that the US could launch a shiny rocks constellation under the guise of just another surveillance or comms megaconstellation, as tons of those are being built out even today.

>>64314611
>NATO could just keep sending more and more shit to orbit faster than it could be shot down
inb4 Kessler Syndrome

>>64314651
it's interesting how many people don't understand how kessler syndrome works. the only place where a runaway effect would actually be concievable (low earth orbit) is also the place where it would be a non-issue within a short 2-5 years, due to orbital decay times.

I doubt weaponry of space will be a thing in our lives. But surveillance will, and already is, something that will only get more and more important. Maybe some kind of satellite-radar that would render stealth near-useless?

File: 1752954921525944.jpg (41 KB, 500x500)

41 KB JPG

>>64314611
>disruptive technologies
I might care more if you didn't use corporate drone language

>>64314656
Corporate pedophiles own the military lol

>>64314611 (cont.)
>>64314649
>>64314623

to elaborate a bit more on brilliant pebbles 2.0:
In the original proposal each interceptor could weigh as little as 20 kg (44 lbs), but required something called a life jacket that contained communications equipment, solar panels and other auxiliary systems needed to keep the actual interceptor operational. The life jacket itself would have had to weigh almost 2 tons using contemporary technology.

In the modern day it should be possible to cut that weight down in half and most likely mount several interceptors per life jacket. For the sake of calculations let's assume 3 pebbles per 1 ton.

Despite what SpaceX will tell you, Starships are poorly optimized for interplanetary launches. They are LEO superheavy lifters first and foremost, every other capability will be bolted onto the platform later. They will likely be able to lift 150 tons to LEO if they don't have to make the return trip. This means ~400 interceptors per launch, accounting for all the fairings and shit. Three Starships launching at once would then be able to bring up 1200 interceptors, enough to severely blunt or even completely stop a full MAD launch from any nation on the planet. You only need to stop the initial strike as your own SLBMs will be able to blow up TELs and storage sites before they can reload.
>>64314651
I knew some nigger would bring it up
>>64314656
I'm sorry for hurting your feelings anon, I hope you'll feel better soon

>>64314676
see
>>64314659

>>64314705
I don't see how that's relevant, corporate pedophiles own 90% of the government

>>64314656
I am aware you would rather call it 'new shit' but I think you need to stop being a NEET.

>>64314651
Kessler syndrome requires a LOT of material, in fact the 2024 YR asteroid may hit the moon and launch 100 million tons of rock into Earth's orbit. That's the closest we'd ever get to an actual Kessler syndrome.

File: 1756610237839.webm (737 KB, 720x576)

737 KB WEBM

>>64314611
>>64314676

>>64314676
i'm not sure the math checks out, i think you'll be volume constrained on these long before you reach 150 tons of payload in the bay.

>>64314885
wrong board, flattard schizo.

>>64315275
Starship's payload bay is roughly 1000 cubic meters. Again, accounting for fairings and such each life jacket would have a 3.5m x 2m x 1m box to itself, which I think should be enough. Even then, specific numbers don't matter quite as much as the fact that the order of magnitude is roughly correct. If 3 starships aren't enough, maybe 4 will be, or maybe you pack 4 interceptors per life jacket, or settle for sending 100 less interceptors per trip. The ability to bring up hundreds of interceptors into space with just a few launches is the incredibly new capability that gives me hope that it could be possible

>>64314885
>2025
>Bragging about not understanding basic Newtonian physics
People like you should be beaten to death with bricks

>>64314611
Counting the starlink network launches is a bit more than disingenuous, and I would even suggest only including half that number of flight launches for the starlink program, not the number of minisats, in any comparison totals chart.

You would be better off showing tonnage to orbit and successful launches if you were to call me an asshole and say the starlink launches matter compared to high fractional payload devices or single device launches.

Thanks for tedding to my cum talk.

File: upmass.png (385 KB, 1221x1068)

385 KB PNG

>>64315339
that graph looks exactly the same. SpaceX 100% monopolized the launch market

>>64314885
Lmao a trollface physics shitpost in webm form.
Brilliant.

>>64314611
>>kessler syndrome
>way overblown meme in LEO where atmospheric drag is still significant
No you retard, you've crossed wires here. It's a meme for STARLINK specifically, because Starlink operates in low-LEO and is aiming to operate in VLEO even. Atmospheric drag is absolutely very significant there. But LEO stretches all the way up to 2000km, and drag in the 600-2000km range is nearly non-existent (there is exponential dropoff here), you're talking orbital lifetimes of centuries to millennia.

It'd definitely be possible to fuckup a bunch of useful orbits though, even though at the same time that wouldn't interfere with lower megaconstellations or high up stuff nor stop anyone from just going through that into MEO/HEO. So it's simultaneously overblown (OMG SEALED OFF FROM SPACE) and genuinely quite serious if players like the fucking chinks and ziggers fuck around with it (which they are notorious for doing unlike America). It's fine if everyone doesn't act retarded and could cost a bunch of money if some act like chimps.

>>64315339
lol I was going to write this too anon but for the OPPOSITE reason, tonnage is both what matters but also makes SpaceX look BETTER, not worse, because lots of the "launches" other players are doing are tiny rockets doing cubesats and shit whereas every single SpaceX launch is medium or heavy. Starlink satellites aren't tiny dude and they're slated to get way bigger, that's a big part of why SpaceX is so serious about getting Starship into MVP status asap: because they actually directly need it. They could use it right now if it was available.

File: image_2025-09-26_232650100.png (4 KB, 256x77)

4 KB PNG

>>64315347
you're right on orbital decay times being much longer at 600-2000km, but I have to caveats:

1) due to the square cube law small objects experience much more drag compared to their inertia than large ones. Tiny shards from shattered satellites will decay faster than large, intact satellites would. I don't actually have any data to back this up, but I'm fairly certain this would be the case

2) Shattered satellite fragments will not stay on a neat orbit, especially if we're talking about anti-satellite weapons smashing into them. They would go off on highly eccentric orbits, a large part of the ones we would care about would end up crossing through denser parts of the atmosphere and going fast as shit, which would again accelerate their orbital decay much more than if they remained an intact satellite at 2000 km.
captcha: KD GPT

>>64315395
The drag is so low in that regime that size doesn't matter. At the edge yes absolutely, it's a very important factor in reducing the threat at like, 550-675km. But as you get much above that it rapidly stretches out too far to matter. The difference between something decaying in 150 years instead of 15000 years is immaterial from a human perspective, both might as well be "forever" or at least "expensive long term remediation and response is required". A rough set of lifetimes for a circular orbit looks like this:
>Satellite Altitude :: Lifetime
>200 km :: 1 day
>300 km :: 1 month
>400 km :: 1 year
>500 km :: 10 years
>700 km :: 100 years
>900 km :: 1000 years
Now you saying that eccentric orbits can be different and might get low enough to get dragged can be true, but the fact is for a big sat constellation enough debris would be created from even one hit that a lot of them will last a long time.

Again, this isn't an issue with some care and modicum of decent behavior. But the turdie countries aren't doing it. And because they're inferior at rocketry, there is a real risk other mega constellations will get stuck into much higher orbits than Starlink. SpaceX has really given a shit, because of course it's their future too, and there are some very positive reinforcing spirals for them. But it's worth taking seriously for others.

>>64315361
Ah I wasn't aware that their current gen of tech is above 1000 kilo.
Anyways I didn't mean it negatively. Tonnage to Orbit is simply a superior metric to toss in someone's face.

>>64315568
>Tonnage to Orbit is simply a superior metric to toss in someone's face.
Completely agree with you on that one, "launches" was always a silly empty metric for chest thumping by lesser players. Value ultimately comes from mass to orbit (or beyond orbit for some science stuff), as does a lot of cost and expense since you're forced to figure out the tech needed for higher ISP engines. Like, avoiding turbo pumps for simplicity and cost can work ok on a small rocket but it doesn't scale. And there just isn't that much money in tiny launch either.

That said I think RL has done pretty well for what they had with the Electron and I'm cautious optimistic about the Neutron too, which will be the real do-or-die test for them. There is definitely room for a second player, maybe even a third, beyond SpaceX if it can get to even somewhat F9-level performance and cost, even in a world of Starship. A lot more useful stuff can fit into medium lift, and there will be governments and major players willing to pay some premium to maintain a backup option. RL and BO are the most likely candidates for that. I suspect there will be some serious consolidation though.

>>64315688
>>64315568
Read niggers, read >>64315341

>>64315303
FUND IT

>>64314611
>with a single (or a couple simultaneous) launches before other nuclear powers can figure out what's happening.
Building BP interceptor would require extensive trials programs with real space intereceptions, see US ballistic defense trials.

>>64317772
do you think anyone would call America's bluff if losing that bet meant MAD ceases to work?

>>64317878
Not calling that bluff ceases MAD too.

File: monke_dillema.png (56 KB, 687x498)

56 KB PNG

>>64317885

>>64317579
We saw that retard, everyone is agreeing with it. What are you on about?

>>64317988
nta but your chart there doesn't disagree with MAD ceasing to work. The "M" there is for "Mutual" anon, if it's not mutual anymore then it's not MAD. You might think that's a good thing and I mostly agree except that America chimping out is now a depressingly higher probability than it was in the past.

>>64317988
>You are fine (can't chimp out)
In the eyes of the Russia it's not fine.
See there were no wars between NATO and Russia. NATO is peace on Russian borders.
So what is wrong with Ukraine joining NATO?

>>64314676
>Starships are poorly optimized for interplanetary launches
Yeah, they're optimized for atmospheric operations, because that's the hard part, and when Mars is involved, it happens on both ends (even the lunar StarShip has to go through atmosphere... once). A pure interplanetary spaceship would have to be built in space, and wouldn't be aerodynamic at all. The most fuel-efficient option would be a cycler that moves between Lagrange points, with dedicated vehicles for getting the rest of the way.

> They will likely be able to lift 150 tons to LEO if they don't have to make the return trip.
The 150 is with return, and is expected to increase to 200 with the new version coming out early next year.

>>64319517
>Yeah, they're optimized for atmospheric operations
I meant that they're optimized for bringing shit to LEO, not bring shit to other planets. A starship meant exclusively for Mars launches would have a third stage (counting the booster)
>200 tons expendable
good god, my dick has never been harder

>>64319553
Saying they aren't optimized for interplanetary transfers is as meaningless as saying the first stage isn't optimized for low earth orbit. Yes, it's technically true, but it does not matter. It gets your payload into LEO and then your payload is optimized for transfers if that's what you want to do.

>>64319553
Not really. Refueling in orbit is superior to adding stages, if they can get it working, because you get to reuse the fuel tanks and engines from the second stage--no additional structural mass needed. And again, dealing with takeoffs and landings is the *hard* part, so the solution needs to be optimized for that. StarShip is also SSTO from Mars--and I *think* it can do TEI without refueling, but I don't remember for sure offhand--so you don't need any additional vehicles or stages for that end. Just Ships, and Boosters for Earth Launch. It's not the *optimum* solution (that would involve bespoke vehicles optimized for each stage of the journey), but it has the advantage of being very simple.

>>64315341
No? They're mainly launching their own shit. As you can see by your retarded graph, other launch providers are still launching plenty and developing new rockets.

>>64319517
>new version coming out early next year.
Just two more weeks and then Shartship will not be an embarrassing failure.

>>64319746
>you can't count the largest private spaceflight provider because it's subsidiary is the largest private spaceflight customer
Alright then, feel free to post SpaceX's numbers for non-Starlink upmass. And to make things fair, since CASC is state-owned you also have to exclude anything CASC launches that is owned by, linked to, subsidized by, or at the behest of the Chinese government.

>>64314611
>America holds something like a 90% share of the launch market and NATO as a whole probably closer to 95%.
that's more an anomaly towards SpaceX
they just launches a shit ton Starlink
which make up ~80% of all their launches and apparently get counted each as "spacecraft"

the numbers are also wrong
2 Vega-C starts are missing
probably more are wrong

File: 1728746109774148.png (317 KB, 908x637)

317 KB PNG

>>64319832
I'm not saying you can't count it, I'm saying its disingenuous. There simply aren't enough satellites that need to be in orbit for any other rocket to be launching as frequently. It's why reusable is still a meme. The launch business is a small one with razor thin margins for companies that aren't being endlessly funded by venture capitalist funny money.

It's hardly a monopoly when countries are still developing traditional expendable rockets and their biggest US rival, ULA, just launched a brand new design that already has dozens of launches planned. Chinks also launch a variety of payloads that aren't the same fucking internet satellite x1000.

>>64320101
>upmass doesn't matter because I don't like what kind of mass is getting lifted
satellites are satellites. If SpaceX is making money off Starlink then it's not disingenuous, they aren't paying themselves a million dollars to dig a hole and then another million to fill it back up like the Chinese government does. Get up to speed grandpa, megaconstellations are economically viable nowdays

>>64314676
>1200 interceptors, enough to severely blunt or even completely stop a full MAD launch from any nation on the planet
Now lets take into account that
a. they will be spread in orbit and most of them would not be anywhere near the icbms, and
b. the intercept probability might be below 100%
I have asked Gemini for some napkin math, for a 100km kill radius for a single pebble with 75% hit chance it came up with a ~40k pebbles necessary to achieve 99% interception rate on 1000 missiles. Not taking into account subs launching missiles point blank and nuclear suitcases, so some cities will still be hit.
that makes 100 launches in your model, and can't be done on a single day. And nations may become nervous once you start launches.

File: solar system delta-v map.png (116 KB, 1464x2060)

116 KB PNG

>>64319553
>A starship meant exclusively for Mars launches would have a third stage
I agree with >>64319602, but both you and he are also forgetting the enormous delta-v gained from aerobraking. Rocket Equation means carrying fuel with you to slow down with at your destination is very, very expensive, and aerobraking can actually reduce the fuel requirement for "stopping" to near 0. In turn and somewhat counter intuitively Mars can end up being easier, not harder, than the moon purely in terms of delta-v. If you haven't seen one check out a solar system delta-v map like pic related. Anywhere you see those arrows it means you can use aerobraking when going in that direction and potentially drop down to basically nothing. That's how relatively small probes and rovers have managed to land on Mars despite needing big rockets to get them there.

So specifically for Mars with chemical rockets it's actually extremely worth it to have a proper reentry system, with some optimization/weight savings from needing much less thrust for the final landing burn or to get off again if that's the plan. Of course from an economic perspective sheer quantity is also the name of the game here, and mass manufacturing based off a completely standardized template makes things fantastically cheaper which matters more than optimal efficiency. But for the purpose of getting humans there, and back, I think SpaceX's plans make sense. Of course still a big engineering and economic challenge, but the approach seems sound for the first decade or three anyway, barring some sort of amazing drive breakthrough.

>>64320441
>asked Gemini
LLMs are like the one computer thing that isn’t trustworthy when it comes to math.

>>64320441
>I asked AI-
please don't be retarded anon, don't trust the most power hungry autocorrect ever made with your critical thinking.
1) no nation has the capability to fire off 1000 nuclear ICBMs at once. America has 400 minuteman silos, China and Russia both have 300-400 launchers with actual ICBMs on them. Not all of them will be ready to launch at all times.
2) you don't have to cover the entire planet with the initial wave, just a few orbits that pass over Asia. I bet you could get away with 3-4
3) you don't need a 99% interception rate, only a rate high enough that any sort of confidence in target allocation goes down the shitter. If you normally have to fire 2 warheads at a Minuteman silo, or 5 warheads at a city due to compound failure probability of a regular launch (5% failure rate over three or four critical steps already means you need to send 2 warheads for a high P(k) ) then imagine what kind of carnage a 75% failure rate due to interception would cause on war plans. Now imagine a 94% failure rate (2 BPs allocated per missile)

bump

File: americanDildos.jpg (667 KB, 2062x3556)

667 KB JPG

Big rockets are cool

Thank you for your attention to this matter

>>64314611
the bottleneck is building advanced satellites not launching them and no, a radio with a phased array antenna is not an advanced satellite
>kessler syndrome
very real thing above 300-400km

>>64322304
>the bottleneck is building advanced satellites not launching them
Wrong, or rather, "there's a lot of complex feedback loops". Launch cost, cadence, and mass budget absolutely play into cost of all satellites and building them in fractal ways. If it costs thousands to tens of thousands per kilogram and you have a total mass budget of 9-18 tons that you can only get once in awhile, then you have to care about each kilogram. This means using more exotic and harder to work with materials, more challenging engineering, tighter power and thermal budgets which then feed back to electronics, and so on and so forth, which all pushes volume down which pushes cost up even more and slows iteration which pushes you towards fewer more expensive birds which have to fly higher which lowers budget more and on and on.

If you can throw 100+ tons at it with a huge fairing and it costs $80/kg, a lot of that goes in reverse. You can just use steel/aluminum/whatever is cheap/easy, and lots of it. You can use less efficient stuff and blow what previously was your entire mass budget purely on more solar/thermal. As you bring down cost you can build more which brings down cost even more and you can start to change your entire lifetime philosophy, now you don't need to care if the thing only lasts 5-7 years, which means you can use much higher performance and cheaper but less-rad resistant chips and just throw mass at more shielding + accept everything dies quicker, but that also means you're upgrading capabilities way faster.

This whole dynamic, which is only the very beginnings of the revolution, is what has made Starlink jump to an entirely different league of performance & value vs all previous sat comms. It'll come for more areas in time.

>>64314611
Yeah

>>64314656
how about you get a job? or is ur anus too disrupted lmao

>>64323003
this anon is correct and I don't think people (or industry) have yet understood just how big of a paradigm shift this is going to be. Cheap mass to orbit means that space tourism can be real, lunar industrialization can be real, city killer deflection stops being a fever dream. I have a lot of hope for the next 2 decades as far as spaceflight is concerned. I think that's one of the few things we can be optimistic about these days

>>64314611
The figures are probably a lot lower by mass. SpaceX launches by craft are mostly mini cubesats that they fit thousands of in a single rocket.

>>64315341
I suspect this is some data in a very specific timeframe, or something. Just within the US, SpaceX is not responding for 99.99% of launch mass. I'm assuming it's something like they launched one huge ass rocket for testing in this quarter and counted that.

>>64326530
>this data can't be right, show me mass!
>>64326539
>not like this!
lmao

File: Falcon69420.png (68 KB, 1514x893)

68 KB PNG

>>64326530
by mass is even more in their favor
>>64326539
it's not cherry picked, SpaceX (or more specifically, Falcon 9) are the dominant launch company in the world. That's why the Chinese are dumping tons of money into creating a zillion launch startups trying to create a Falcon 9 clone. They are way behind and they know it.

t. /sfg/

>>64326569
the seethe is amazing isn't it?

>>64325227
LOL

>>64326638
I don't know why people here have to be such two bit retards. it's possible to think that elon is a jackass while also acknowledging that spacex is on top when it comes to putting things in orbit.