Well done, Kubrick. It's a nice effect

Well done, Kubrick. It's a nice effect

Attached: 1647208972050.webm (1280x581, 2.83M)

Other urls found in this thread:


He was such a perfectionist he insisted they film on the moon

The Saturn V was such a kino rocket.

The SLS looks like trash with the shiny orange tank

Absolute unit.

My grandpa was in Beaufort, South Carolina when they launched one of these bad boys and you could literally hear the rumble two fucking states away.

Saves a ton of weight not painting it, but you're entirely right.

Max Q, peak kino.

Would've been cool if they'd kept painting the ET's on the Shuttle

Attached: Capture.jpg (835x704, 122.88K)

I miss her bros.

Attached: 20170511_134659.jpg (4032x2268, 2.74M)

I like how much the Shuttle causes redditors to seethe

So awesome that you can see exactly when it hits and goes through max q.

do you have any space shuttles accesible in america? We have a Buran here that you can kind of walk into, and its very cool to see the scale of it all.

always preferred the Apollo Systems, but I have to admit the STS is pretty neat

Serious question for moon landing deniers.
If Kubrick filmed it as is often claimed, and he is known as an obsessive perfectionist, why the fuck would there be "evidence" in the film giving away that it's not really on the moon?

The shuttle was pretty gay though. So much cheaper and safer to use capsules.

>why the fuck would there be "evidence" in the film giving away that it's not really on the moon?
A denier would say this:
1. Kubrick did the best he could but wasn't entirely perfect.
2. It was clearly good enough to fool the public so why worry about a handful of conspiracy nuts?

true in theory, but the knowledge gained by having a reusable system (and actually reusing it) is great too. Stuff like refittable heat shields, controlled landings etc. came only from the shuttle program. it may have been a costly move at the time, but it allows us to get to space much cheaper now.

>do you have any space shuttles accesible in america?
That picture is from the Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in VA. There's 4 total shuttles left and they're all on display.
Discovery in previous pic is in VA
Atlantis in Kennedy Space Center in FL (and pic related) KSC also has a complete Saturn V rocket.
Enterprise is in NYC at the Intrepid Museum
Endeavour is in California Science Center.

Attached: 20150304_155142.jpg (5312x2988, 3.63M)

I disagree
If NASA had stuck with Apollo and Saturn hardware, then eventually someone would have looked into resusing the rockets, probably a long time before SpaceX or any equivalent would be a thing

The shuttle reused it's rockets. This wasn't new even on NASA's end.

Yes but it was exceedingly expensive and kind of ruined the idea of reusability in NASA's eyes
Developing a self landing booster or just using parachutes would have been a far better idea imo

Rocket reusabilitly was a problem of compact computing (and servo controlled motion, but that would be solvable), not really material science. The reusable orbiter was a great testbed for the time, even if it was ludicrously expensive.
Mass manufacture of rockets would have been a better approach for the Saturns.

Nice. Maybe I´ll visit those one day.

The reusable boosters where only in name, they were only about as reusable as a tuna can. It would have been cheaper to scrap them end build them anew every time.

>just using parachutes
But...they did? The nose cone opened, parachutes slowed them down, and the two boosters landed in the ocean.

SpaceX benefits from GPS, automation, and everything NASA learned from the shuttle program, plus being 30 years later. Also they wrecked plenty of rockets before they got the autoland right.

The shuttle had a lot of things working against it, not limited to the CIA or AF (forget which) wanting a bunch of extra crap on it for covert ops that they never actually used it for, a race to get it working in time to boost skylab back into orbit, and Reagan generally being a doofus and leading to Challenger blowing up.

It was still invaluable for things like hubble.

Attached: 566975main_booster-lg.jpg (3008x2000, 1.07M)

Hey mate Im agreeing with you, but the good part about the orbiter is that it was effectily man-landable, because it works like a (very heavy, very dumpy) airplane. Vertical rocket landing wouldnt be possible mid 80´s, and just dumping a Saturn V first stage in the atlantic wouldnt be possible. As a testbed for reusability it was great.
As a pure orbit ferry, a Saturn V like the one that carried Skylab (So no 3rd stage) would have probably been better, especially if you scaled up production.

I genuinely don't understand why NASA stopped making 2-stage Saturn Vs or whatever you would call them. The one at KSC was left to rot, and only was refurbed for the museum decades later.

remember what they took from you


Price, probably. Apollo was as srtisan a program as there is, and in 78 everyone thought STS was gonna be cheap per kg, but toothing issues jumped the cost to the point where a single shuttle launch cost the same as a non mission Saturn V launch. But by then they were committed, and the "agencies" like the idea of a long term, reusable orbiter that could be used for satellite repair (and "aquisition"), and after 69 the public lost interest in NASA; so money had to come from somewhere.
A mass produced, 2 Stage SatV would be great, with a 140t LEO payload a reusable spaceplane would have been utterly possible.

one of the booster segments that will fly on SLS was used in the launch of the hubble space telescope back in 1990

I wouldnt use SLS as a prove of either good planning or financial decisions.

shuttles were a stupid meme design that wasted billions of dollars and stagnated the space program for over three decades
literally half of them blew up and killed everyone

One third of them, user. Not half. I know Math is rough in america but 2/6 = 0.33 not 0.5

Also if you look at missions vs failures, its 135 to 2, which is pretty good.

the original idea was good, until it got fucked with by congress and the military

Attached: von braun mars.jpg (2296x1485, 640.89K)

Why not Douglas Trumbull?

Man, von Braun really was like a scifi-writer that could actually count. Amazing what he dreamt up and actually achieved.

also sadly nuclear propulsion would have never flown in the 70s/80s, and in the 90s people were way to afraid of it. Imagine what would be possible if they greenlit something like NERVA in the 60s, and pulled through with it.

incoming kino reminder

I really recommend the Apollo 11 documentary, if you havent seen it already. Especially on a big screen with good speakers. Amazing footage, and the first act is like a 60s slice of life. I think I even saw Johnny Carson in the crowd at Kennedy SC.

I have. The old 70mm footage looks incredible.

Holy shit America used to be so cool

Yeah. Really funny to think about, but what would be an immense expense to a picture production (think 2001 or stuff like Ben Hur), was just a drop in the bucket at NASA. Id like to imagine them setting up cameras and budgeting that, putting it on someones desk who was probably wondering why he had to sign for something that looked like it was missing three 0s at the end.

A nazi man made this and he was based.

still is

Attached: 1647843241354.jpg (2000x3000, 2.87M)

>boomers shitted and pissed themselves because they thought this was real

Based Star Trek: The Motion Picture enjoyer

I hope this turns into something real. Those proposed USD/kg in LEO numbers are amazing.

Based. Starship will make congress niggers, Boing, nu-Nasa, the mini space shuttle fags and China who are currently working on their starship copy shit their pants when it's fully operational

>There's no market
The very second this titan either deploys 500 StarLink satellites or whatever that thing with Mr beast and other youtube fags happens first

Attached: StarCHOMPer.png (1000x1000, 944.84K)

Attached: 1473230580532.gif (320x240, 2.15M)

>There's no market
If they actually hit anywhre close to the 2mUSD/flight mark, it will make its own market. Thats 20 bucks a kg. Thats a reduction in cost of 2 magnitudes. At that price, I´ll make my own satellite, just to say I did.

How else was the DoD supposed to get their spy satellites into orbit though?

You could totally put a X37-sized craft on a SatV.
Maybe even a SatI, may be close though.

Just looked it up, you could nearly double the dimensions of the X37, put a crew in it, and be good with a SatI. Easy moonshot with the V.

thank you for the reply reddit

Riddle me this, redditor: which space launch system took the most astronauts and tonnage both into orbit and back

>Riddle me this, redditor: which space launch system took the most astronauts and tonnage both into orbit and back

Which space launch system killed the most astronauts after exploding in mid-air?

If the SABRE engine ever comes out of R&D its going to make all rocket launch systems obsolete.

Nope. Soyuz couldn't bring things back down btw

Everyone knows space travel is inherently risky. 2 failures out of 135 isn't bad.

haha upvoted!
edit: wow i never expected to get gold for this comment lol! thank you kind stranger!

The orange was aesthetic as fuck, you're all blind.

Theres that word again

Ur mom

the space shuttle was so inefficient at launching cargo that the Soviets genuinely thought it was a high speed nuclear bomber in disguise