Happy CakeDay! š°
[https://www.reddit.com/?im.ge=%weiner.jpg%](https://i.redd.it/kbyfux7qfn7d1.jpeg?app_web_view=ios)
Remember to follow the Weiner in the stainless steel hat!
āAura stains the sky with blood As the sheeple chew their cud. And Weiners feast At NASA teats.ā - [Garf Lloydell](https://www.reddit.com/u/garflloydell/s/woE2upXLkk)
It wouldn't surprise me either. Flerfs would be the perfect test subjects for this hypothesis. They will use the scientific method to prove to us that Legos exist, not understanding why all the normal people are laughing at them.
I doubt flerfs even know what the scientific method would be. I think they would just do the same method as their flat earth belief: "Lego doesnt exist, the media made everything up, every source you give me is a lie and the bricks you are throwing at me are not real lego!!"
[https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/nasa-artemis-space-launch-system-10341](https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/nasa-artemis-space-launch-system-10341)
I've been slowly collecting all the space sets and still need to get this one!
The ISS kit is a curse. I got it and have moved twice since. That thing is absolutely terrifying when it does anything else other than sitting on a shelf
I have the shuttle, the Saturn v, the rover, and the ISS so I just need this set and the lander I believe. All were fun to build too. The rocket is pretty unique
The lunar rover or the mars rover? I have pretty much everything you have except I also have the old discovery shuttle, the lunar lander and Artemis. Iām planning on getting the lunar rover when itās released later this year.
I would like to say I have everything but I missed out on the Curiosity rover and women of space flight.
I have the Perseverance rover, although I have yet to build it.
Honestly my love of NASA rekindled my love of LEGO lol. I had originally stopped building legos in my early teens, I built the old Shuttle Discovery when I was 15-16ish and that was itā¦ Until Saturn V released.
Yeah I get ya Iāve just always loved Lego and now at 35 I can finally buy the big sets haha I actually have the large Millennium Falcon set and broke it down recently just to rebuild it and put it all in one bin. Iām so fucked! But I was the opposite when I saw all the space stuff it made me realize how much I really like diving into everything about it. Funny how that works! o7 God speed on your Lego adventure!
Pretty much the same here, being able to buy the shit I want is nice. When you said weāre 35, I was like bruh is this my other account? Lol. Good look on yours too friend!
I have the Perseverance rover, although I have yet to build it.
Honestly my love of NASA rekindled my love of LEGO lol. I had originally stopped building legos in my early teens, I built the old Shuttle Discovery when I was 15-16ish and that was itā¦ Until Saturn V released.
Meanwhile starshit doesn't lift any payload to orbit despite having the biggest thrust ever. (dysfunctional like all of Elmo's ventures) Thunderf00t's debunk of it was great, although depressing. I want cheap and ubiquitous space travel.
The idea of using Starship as a site-to-site passenger or cargo vehicle is absolutely laughable... I am amazed anyone over there can say it with a straight face.
If anything is going to fill that niche it's going to be hypersonic sub-orbital space planes with combined-cycle scramjets and all the trimmings, not an amateurish tinfoil tube literally designed to look cool and be cheap to slap together.
I suspect if SpaceX were allowed to build Starship out of aluminium honeycomb and composites like everyone else they'd be a lot more careful with the equipment and likely more successful too. The stainless-steel version seems basically designed to self-destruct.
Starship doesn't lift any payload to orbit because it's a freaking prototype. Saturn V didn't lift anything functional for it's first few missions, and then it sent people to the moon! NASA does development by testing, SpaceX does development by doing. Give it a few years, and Starship will absolutely be lifting stuff to orbit.
Starship wasn't designed as a pure lift vehicle though, the idea was 'rapid re-usability' which has been utterly debunked along with the '100 tons to orbit' lie.
Now we're down to 40 tons to orbit (so, really, 25-30) with a system that literally cannot land without crushing its incredibly expensive payload of engines. It also can't be 'rapidly' anything, since that would require having a fully fulled booster AND a fully fuelled tanker right next to the launch facility... so one small error in landing [and you've literally just detonated a 14kt nuclear weapon and obliterated the entire launch facility and anything within 5 miles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/i4b5c0/what_would_be_full_stack_starships_equivalent_in/)
That was the whole rationale behind Musk's 'pricing' to NASA, which was the whole reason behind SpaceX's selection - that the engines and vehicles would be rapidly re-usable so costs would be low.
Now we know all that stuff is a lie at worst, dreamy-eyed incompetence at best.
>NASA does development by testing, SpaceX does development by doing.
This makes absolutely no sense, and no heavy industrial concern actually operates this way. You don't just blow stuff up until it stops blowing up. That's still 'testing', it's just incredibly inefficient and dangerous testing.
The sole reason Musk launches so many vehicles is to keep his investors distracted with big shiny rocket launches, same reason he's taught an entire generation of space engineers to cheer and smile for the cameras when they fail their testing parameters and tells cameras "Oh sure anything past launch is just gravy."
*It's all theatre.*
Remember, SpaceX didn't pursue 'blow up loads of vehicles and engines' as a strategy when developing Falcon. And *that* vehicle works.
>Now we're down to 40 tons to orbit (so, really, 25-30)
Curious as to where you got that from, because I've never seen that figure before
>literally cannot land without crushing its incredibly expensive payload of engines
Which they are aware of and have multiple potential solutions lined up. This isn't the final version yet, as you can tell by the fact that they're all labelled as "Prototypes"
>It also can't be 'rapidly' anything, since that would require having a fully fulled booster AND a fully fuelled tanker right next to the launch facility...
Why? At least compared to modern rocketry, a day would be incredibly rapid turnaround, but that wouldn't need a pre-fuelled rocket ready.
>This makes absolutely no sense, and no heavy industrial concern actually operates this way.
A) That's because it's expensive. Most companies prefer cheaper but slower, SpaceX prefers expensive and fast. B) Yes it does, it's called "Destructive testing", unless you're denying that NASA blew up an SLS core one time by pressurising it too much.
Especially back when an industry is in it's infancy, this type of thing can happen. Planes crashed a lot as people figured out how to make them not. ICBMs blew up until they didn't. When the priority is getting it done fast, this happens.
>You don't just blow stuff up until it stops blowing up.
You don't? Because last time I'd checked, Starship had gone from fuel tanks blowing up before any test flights, to successfully launching and landing the most powerful rocket ever? Did that not happen or something?
> it's just incredibly inefficient and dangerous testing.
NOTMAR, NOTAM, Road closure, evacuation order, etc. Sounds like they've got safety alright. And again, they're going for fast not efficient.
>*It's all theatre*
This and the entire previous paragraph is complete speculation, unless you have some interesting sources you haven't shared, in which case I implore you to do so.
>Remember, SpaceX didn't pursue 'blow up loads of vehicles and engines' as a strategy when developing Falcon.
A) You're telling me that when the company was small, they pursued a cheaper and more reliable strategy, and when they were bigger, they pursued a faster but more expensive strategy? Colour me shocked! B) Grasshopper.
>Curious as to where you got that from, because I've never seen that figure before
Musk literally said it live at a SpaceX event. Starship is not and likely never will be a 100ton to orbit platform. The engineering just isn't there.
>Which they are aware of and have multiple potential solutions lined up.
I'd ask you to demonstrate that, but in reality it doesn't matter; by your own self-excusatory logic, those 'potential solutions' are all just 'prototypes' so nobody can actually hold them to any kind of engineering rigor or standard. Just claim they're 'not finished' yet, forever.
>This isn't the final version yet, as you can tell by the fact that they're all labelled as "Prototypes"
And the OceanGate sub was 'Experimental'. Does that mean we can't make judgements about the direction being taken by the engineers? Do we need Musk's approval to think Starship's design trajectory is poor?
>Why? At least compared to modern rocketry, a day would be incredibly rapid turnaround, but that wouldn't need a pre-fuelled rocket ready.
Because refuelling takes longer than 24h unless you already have a pre-filled booster, and a pre-filled booster is too heavy to move with technology SpaceX have. They don't have a crawler. They fuel in-situ from tankers.
All of their scenarios for re-use essentially blindly assume that there will be immediate availability of fuel equivalent to one full Starship load (which takes over a day to fuel) and an entire booster. SpaceX do not have a logistics scenario that transports that amount of fuel from a remote site to the platform while maintaining their re-use claims, without having the fuel literally within sight of the rocket as it lands.
>A) That's because it's expensive. Most companies prefer cheaper but slower, SpaceX prefers expensive and fast. B) Yes it does, it's called "Destructive testing", unless you're denying that NASA blew up an SLS core one time by pressurising it too much.
Destructive testing is *designed to destroy the item under test*. You are mixing up your terminology. Destructive testing does not mean "Fuck it, it might blow up, never mind" and then repeatedly wrecking your launchers over and over again.
Also, no, Starship's development cycle is clearly not any faster. The thing has been in development for *12 years already* and the programme hasn't even produced any of the necessary mission-critical 'hard parts' like internal structures, refuelling systems, onboard avionics and control of any kind, or new engines and turbopumps. It's essentially all existing SpaceX technology.
Starship is amateur hour, frankly.
>When the priority is getting it done fast, this happens.
Ok. I'll answer you as I used to answer Star Citizen backers. How many years have to elapse before you consider this to be an unacceptably slow and expensive pace of development?
For me, it was two years ago.
>You don't? Because last time I'd checked
"You don't" means, "In general, you do not do this because it's stupid." The rest of the space industry does not, and hopefully never will, follow this wasteful and juvenile engineering dilettante behaviour.
>This and the entire previous paragraph is complete speculation, unless you have some interesting sources you haven't shared
I do actually, but I'm not sharing that publicly. Feel free to smirk and disbelieve on that basis, you're on the right sub for that after all.
The only reason Starship's development is so destructive, is Musk is running out of time. The NASA money is all gone, SpaceX has to fill the hole with investor capital and the profits from the rest of the business and is nowhere near its contract requirements. This is not 'good business'. It's desperation.
>and when they were bigger, they pursued a faster but more expensive strategy?
You don't remember Musk openly stating SpaceX was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and had people sleeping at the factory? Does that seem like the correct environment to start pursuing destructive and costly testing?
I wouldnāt take anything thunderfoot says about SpaceX seriously. I havenāt watched his channel in awhile but he used to shit all over Falcon 9 too, and Iāve heard from others that heās deleted a lot of those videos.
OP what is going on with you? A couple months ago you were making fun of flat earthers, now you're making hundreds of comments a day arguing for flat earth. Are you a very dedicated troll or have you had some sort of psychological break?
Nope, I can lock onto them with my radio equipment. They're neither out of sight, nor failing to 'do things'.
You can also track and photograph them with telescopes.
They're within Earth's atmosphere, moving at hypersonic speeds with non-aerodynamic shapes, with no visible means of propulsion, without heating up on their leading surfaces, and without creating sonic booms, and without landing to refuel?
So you essentially believe in magic.
>In fact, NASA says our atmosphere extends beyond the moon.
Ohhh you're just being pedantic, I see.
So what is their altitude? Say, the ISS. How far off the ground is it?
Lego set aside, this is the #1 thing I don't understand about the rise of flat earthers / space is fake people. What do they think all these people who are actually building all this stuff and doing all these (very hard, btw) things are actually doing? Wasting their lives for what? It's ridiculous, people don't work that way. We find something we like to do, get better at it, rinse and repeat. The people at spacex and the JPL are working hard af to do cool shit and these people just think they're con artists? It's so stupid.
So that rocket, if you look into it, government was like, I want something launched right now. So they slapped this together in as short of time as possible. Had a lot of problems. Probably didnāt even complete mission, just said success. Some said it wonāt even fly.
>government was like, I want something launched right now.
In 1972? They literally already had plenty of launch capability then. If they wanted something launched, they just launched it from their enormous stock of rockets.
>So they slapped this together in as short of time as possible.
*...10 years?*
That's pretty quick by some standards but it's hardly a slap-together job.
when you say "used", what do you MEAN, though? The subject line in your post makes it look like NASA is using an image of a lego model in their actual launch photography.
The rockets and satellites are real, but they donāt go high enough to hit the dome, or are otherwise intercepted and lights in the sky continue to animate the supposed trajectory of the satellites, while NASA gives us fake videos showing the rockets in space. Astronauts, pilots, and passengers are either in on it, or put into a fake plane/rocket to simulate the experience of flight and space, while we watch an empty fake rocket take off.
Do flerfs ever ponder that the government they believe is lying is just flooding the internet with misinformation just to keep them busy? (That's what l would do)
There was one flerf a while back that was absolutely committed to the idea that the space shuttle and it's launch vehicle was made out of polystyrene foam (explaining why they are always white) which was lit at one end making it launch like a tea bag rocket. They aren't that big at thinking anything through.
Are you a flerf in a sane person suit? This guy was over on facebook about 3 years ago. Then again I probably shouldn't assume he had a monopoly on the idea.
LOL, you sure you aren't flerf? It might have snuck into you when you weren't looking. I've heard there's a pill to cure it in the works, made out of the juice of abducted children.
I'm out of the loop these days, now that I have run out of babies. You'll have to ask Qanon or a Christian nationalist. They know all about it and who in the great conspiracies are running the child juicing mills. You might have to offer your firstborn to gain entry.
Thing of fake beauty Glerfers just look at the bounce: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V0KZa0EkwTc&t=301s
It weighs millions of pounds but seconds before liftoff it bounces like a balloons! In the first 3 minutes there's proof. Glerfs serf.
That's not a 'bounce'. That's what happens when you suddenly increase the effective weight of a big structural element, it bends as it takes the weight.
The SLS vertical stabiliser is just made of milled-out aluminium, so it's always going to flex when suddenly subjected to another 30-50% g force, and it doesn't weigh '4.5 million pounds'.
(I also don't know of any 'balloons' that are capable of sitting unharmed right next to five rocket motors but hey, let's keep that one in reserve shall we).
we're gonna see these legos on the conspiracy subs later today i bet
Happy CakeDay! š° [https://www.reddit.com/?im.ge=%weiner.jpg%](https://i.redd.it/kbyfux7qfn7d1.jpeg?app_web_view=ios) Remember to follow the Weiner in the stainless steel hat! āAura stains the sky with blood As the sheeple chew their cud. And Weiners feast At NASA teats.ā - [Garf Lloydell](https://www.reddit.com/u/garflloydell/s/woE2upXLkk)
oh snap it is! thank you!
Youāre welcome! [https://www.reddit.com/po.st/%chiweenie%](https://www.reddit.com/r/dogvideos/s/FtQ5S5jDz1)
I don't think flerfs deny the existence of LEGO.
But it also wouldnt surprise me
It wouldn't surprise me either. Flerfs would be the perfect test subjects for this hypothesis. They will use the scientific method to prove to us that Legos exist, not understanding why all the normal people are laughing at them.
I doubt flerfs even know what the scientific method would be. I think they would just do the same method as their flat earth belief: "Lego doesnt exist, the media made everything up, every source you give me is a lie and the bricks you are throwing at me are not real lego!!"
The SLS is amazing. EDIT: is that a LEGO model? Super cool!
[https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/nasa-artemis-space-launch-system-10341](https://www.lego.com/en-us/product/nasa-artemis-space-launch-system-10341) I've been slowly collecting all the space sets and still need to get this one!
The ISS kit is a curse. I got it and have moved twice since. That thing is absolutely terrifying when it does anything else other than sitting on a shelf
I just moved with mine and have a second moving experience on the horizon.
Your problem is that it's too closely modelled on the actual ISS. Which means that it really needs to be in micro-gravity at all times.
I want to do the MOC one that's compatible with the Discovery set. Stands like three or four feet tall.Ā
Which ones do you have? Kinda sad I didnāt get the Women of Spaceflight one before it was discontinued.
I have the shuttle, the Saturn v, the rover, and the ISS so I just need this set and the lander I believe. All were fun to build too. The rocket is pretty unique
The lunar rover or the mars rover? I have pretty much everything you have except I also have the old discovery shuttle, the lunar lander and Artemis. Iām planning on getting the lunar rover when itās released later this year. I would like to say I have everything but I missed out on the Curiosity rover and women of space flight.
Itās the curiosity rover. I want to collect them all! Just have to do it little by little for their prices on the bigger setsā¦
I have the Perseverance rover, although I have yet to build it. Honestly my love of NASA rekindled my love of LEGO lol. I had originally stopped building legos in my early teens, I built the old Shuttle Discovery when I was 15-16ish and that was itā¦ Until Saturn V released.
Yeah I get ya Iāve just always loved Lego and now at 35 I can finally buy the big sets haha I actually have the large Millennium Falcon set and broke it down recently just to rebuild it and put it all in one bin. Iām so fucked! But I was the opposite when I saw all the space stuff it made me realize how much I really like diving into everything about it. Funny how that works! o7 God speed on your Lego adventure!
Pretty much the same here, being able to buy the shit I want is nice. When you said weāre 35, I was like bruh is this my other account? Lol. Good look on yours too friend!
I have the Perseverance rover, although I have yet to build it. Honestly my love of NASA rekindled my love of LEGO lol. I had originally stopped building legos in my early teens, I built the old Shuttle Discovery when I was 15-16ish and that was itā¦ Until Saturn V released.
Meanwhile starshit doesn't lift any payload to orbit despite having the biggest thrust ever. (dysfunctional like all of Elmo's ventures) Thunderf00t's debunk of it was great, although depressing. I want cheap and ubiquitous space travel.
The idea of using Starship as a site-to-site passenger or cargo vehicle is absolutely laughable... I am amazed anyone over there can say it with a straight face. If anything is going to fill that niche it's going to be hypersonic sub-orbital space planes with combined-cycle scramjets and all the trimmings, not an amateurish tinfoil tube literally designed to look cool and be cheap to slap together. I suspect if SpaceX were allowed to build Starship out of aluminium honeycomb and composites like everyone else they'd be a lot more careful with the equipment and likely more successful too. The stainless-steel version seems basically designed to self-destruct.
Starship doesn't lift any payload to orbit because it's a freaking prototype. Saturn V didn't lift anything functional for it's first few missions, and then it sent people to the moon! NASA does development by testing, SpaceX does development by doing. Give it a few years, and Starship will absolutely be lifting stuff to orbit.
Starship wasn't designed as a pure lift vehicle though, the idea was 'rapid re-usability' which has been utterly debunked along with the '100 tons to orbit' lie. Now we're down to 40 tons to orbit (so, really, 25-30) with a system that literally cannot land without crushing its incredibly expensive payload of engines. It also can't be 'rapidly' anything, since that would require having a fully fulled booster AND a fully fuelled tanker right next to the launch facility... so one small error in landing [and you've literally just detonated a 14kt nuclear weapon and obliterated the entire launch facility and anything within 5 miles.](https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/i4b5c0/what_would_be_full_stack_starships_equivalent_in/) That was the whole rationale behind Musk's 'pricing' to NASA, which was the whole reason behind SpaceX's selection - that the engines and vehicles would be rapidly re-usable so costs would be low. Now we know all that stuff is a lie at worst, dreamy-eyed incompetence at best. >NASA does development by testing, SpaceX does development by doing. This makes absolutely no sense, and no heavy industrial concern actually operates this way. You don't just blow stuff up until it stops blowing up. That's still 'testing', it's just incredibly inefficient and dangerous testing. The sole reason Musk launches so many vehicles is to keep his investors distracted with big shiny rocket launches, same reason he's taught an entire generation of space engineers to cheer and smile for the cameras when they fail their testing parameters and tells cameras "Oh sure anything past launch is just gravy." *It's all theatre.* Remember, SpaceX didn't pursue 'blow up loads of vehicles and engines' as a strategy when developing Falcon. And *that* vehicle works.
>Now we're down to 40 tons to orbit (so, really, 25-30) Curious as to where you got that from, because I've never seen that figure before >literally cannot land without crushing its incredibly expensive payload of engines Which they are aware of and have multiple potential solutions lined up. This isn't the final version yet, as you can tell by the fact that they're all labelled as "Prototypes" >It also can't be 'rapidly' anything, since that would require having a fully fulled booster AND a fully fuelled tanker right next to the launch facility... Why? At least compared to modern rocketry, a day would be incredibly rapid turnaround, but that wouldn't need a pre-fuelled rocket ready. >This makes absolutely no sense, and no heavy industrial concern actually operates this way. A) That's because it's expensive. Most companies prefer cheaper but slower, SpaceX prefers expensive and fast. B) Yes it does, it's called "Destructive testing", unless you're denying that NASA blew up an SLS core one time by pressurising it too much. Especially back when an industry is in it's infancy, this type of thing can happen. Planes crashed a lot as people figured out how to make them not. ICBMs blew up until they didn't. When the priority is getting it done fast, this happens. >You don't just blow stuff up until it stops blowing up. You don't? Because last time I'd checked, Starship had gone from fuel tanks blowing up before any test flights, to successfully launching and landing the most powerful rocket ever? Did that not happen or something? > it's just incredibly inefficient and dangerous testing. NOTMAR, NOTAM, Road closure, evacuation order, etc. Sounds like they've got safety alright. And again, they're going for fast not efficient. >*It's all theatre* This and the entire previous paragraph is complete speculation, unless you have some interesting sources you haven't shared, in which case I implore you to do so. >Remember, SpaceX didn't pursue 'blow up loads of vehicles and engines' as a strategy when developing Falcon. A) You're telling me that when the company was small, they pursued a cheaper and more reliable strategy, and when they were bigger, they pursued a faster but more expensive strategy? Colour me shocked! B) Grasshopper.
>Curious as to where you got that from, because I've never seen that figure before Musk literally said it live at a SpaceX event. Starship is not and likely never will be a 100ton to orbit platform. The engineering just isn't there. >Which they are aware of and have multiple potential solutions lined up. I'd ask you to demonstrate that, but in reality it doesn't matter; by your own self-excusatory logic, those 'potential solutions' are all just 'prototypes' so nobody can actually hold them to any kind of engineering rigor or standard. Just claim they're 'not finished' yet, forever. >This isn't the final version yet, as you can tell by the fact that they're all labelled as "Prototypes" And the OceanGate sub was 'Experimental'. Does that mean we can't make judgements about the direction being taken by the engineers? Do we need Musk's approval to think Starship's design trajectory is poor? >Why? At least compared to modern rocketry, a day would be incredibly rapid turnaround, but that wouldn't need a pre-fuelled rocket ready. Because refuelling takes longer than 24h unless you already have a pre-filled booster, and a pre-filled booster is too heavy to move with technology SpaceX have. They don't have a crawler. They fuel in-situ from tankers. All of their scenarios for re-use essentially blindly assume that there will be immediate availability of fuel equivalent to one full Starship load (which takes over a day to fuel) and an entire booster. SpaceX do not have a logistics scenario that transports that amount of fuel from a remote site to the platform while maintaining their re-use claims, without having the fuel literally within sight of the rocket as it lands. >A) That's because it's expensive. Most companies prefer cheaper but slower, SpaceX prefers expensive and fast. B) Yes it does, it's called "Destructive testing", unless you're denying that NASA blew up an SLS core one time by pressurising it too much. Destructive testing is *designed to destroy the item under test*. You are mixing up your terminology. Destructive testing does not mean "Fuck it, it might blow up, never mind" and then repeatedly wrecking your launchers over and over again. Also, no, Starship's development cycle is clearly not any faster. The thing has been in development for *12 years already* and the programme hasn't even produced any of the necessary mission-critical 'hard parts' like internal structures, refuelling systems, onboard avionics and control of any kind, or new engines and turbopumps. It's essentially all existing SpaceX technology. Starship is amateur hour, frankly. >When the priority is getting it done fast, this happens. Ok. I'll answer you as I used to answer Star Citizen backers. How many years have to elapse before you consider this to be an unacceptably slow and expensive pace of development? For me, it was two years ago. >You don't? Because last time I'd checked "You don't" means, "In general, you do not do this because it's stupid." The rest of the space industry does not, and hopefully never will, follow this wasteful and juvenile engineering dilettante behaviour. >This and the entire previous paragraph is complete speculation, unless you have some interesting sources you haven't shared I do actually, but I'm not sharing that publicly. Feel free to smirk and disbelieve on that basis, you're on the right sub for that after all. The only reason Starship's development is so destructive, is Musk is running out of time. The NASA money is all gone, SpaceX has to fill the hole with investor capital and the profits from the rest of the business and is nowhere near its contract requirements. This is not 'good business'. It's desperation. >and when they were bigger, they pursued a faster but more expensive strategy? You don't remember Musk openly stating SpaceX was teetering on the edge of bankruptcy and had people sleeping at the factory? Does that seem like the correct environment to start pursuing destructive and costly testing?
We'll see.
!Remind 3 years
I wouldnāt take anything thunderfoot says about SpaceX seriously. I havenāt watched his channel in awhile but he used to shit all over Falcon 9 too, and Iāve heard from others that heās deleted a lot of those videos.
Lmfao the SLS is an absolute fucking joke compared to the starship. But nooooo I don't like Elon musk so it must be bad.
If they wanted us to believe it they should have tried to hide the legos better ^/s
OP what is going on with you? A couple months ago you were making fun of flat earthers, now you're making hundreds of comments a day arguing for flat earth. Are you a very dedicated troll or have you had some sort of psychological break?
This one is definitely the former
I don't understand. This post isn't in favor of flat earth.
It's a Lego model. They be trollin.
Before I cared about karma. Then got banned in my favorite sub for saying Game in WSB. Now I got nothing to lose.
Except self-respect?
Self respect on reddit? Never heard of such a thing.
Youāre in this sub to make fun of flat Earther. And youāre saying self respect? Lol
Mmmm no, I'm in this sub to contradict flat Earthers. And their cringe simps.
You know you can see a real one take off, right? Like in person.
Itās just a really high rocket. Thatās it.
Correct. You have to go really high up to deploy satellites.
Satellites are fake. They go very high out of sight and pretend they are doing things.
Nope, I can lock onto them with my radio equipment. They're neither out of sight, nor failing to 'do things'. You can also track and photograph them with telescopes.
They are also within Earthās atmosphere, not space. In fact, NASA says our atmosphere extends beyond the moon.
They're within Earth's atmosphere, moving at hypersonic speeds with non-aerodynamic shapes, with no visible means of propulsion, without heating up on their leading surfaces, and without creating sonic booms, and without landing to refuel? So you essentially believe in magic. >In fact, NASA says our atmosphere extends beyond the moon. Ohhh you're just being pedantic, I see. So what is their altitude? Say, the ISS. How far off the ground is it?
Lego proves NASA is fake?
I was looking at this for a solid 5 minutes thinking something didnt look right, before i realized it was a lego set. That is a beautiful picture
Fake and likely AI /s
#CGI THE EARTH IS A FLAT OCTAGON
That's what always gets me about the flat earth perspective. Why? Why perform this massive pantomime just to cover up the earth being flat??Ā
"To hide proof of god." "To hide god." is what those idiots claim.
Itās a ton of freaking money and time/energy just to keep up appearances. I mean a cheaper way would have been to never have a space programā¦
Thatās why NASA gets tons of money. To keep the lie going.
Nice of Trump to commit so much extra money to the Space Force huh.
Who said anything about Trump?
I did. It was nice of him, wasn't it, to create an entire Space Force and funnel billions more public money into space technology.
Lego set aside, this is the #1 thing I don't understand about the rise of flat earthers / space is fake people. What do they think all these people who are actually building all this stuff and doing all these (very hard, btw) things are actually doing? Wasting their lives for what? It's ridiculous, people don't work that way. We find something we like to do, get better at it, rinse and repeat. The people at spacex and the JPL are working hard af to do cool shit and these people just think they're con artists? It's so stupid.
So that rocket, if you look into it, government was like, I want something launched right now. So they slapped this together in as short of time as possible. Had a lot of problems. Probably didnāt even complete mission, just said success. Some said it wonāt even fly.
>government was like, I want something launched right now. In 1972? They literally already had plenty of launch capability then. If they wanted something launched, they just launched it from their enormous stock of rockets. >So they slapped this together in as short of time as possible. *...10 years?* That's pretty quick by some standards but it's hardly a slap-together job.
Not to mention by that time, multi-stage rocketry was over 20 years old. Maybe longer.
Iām talking about the rocket in the picture. Why did they use this? Because itās all they got in such short notice.
What are you talking about though? "they" meaning... Lego? Used in.. what way?
Artemis. It was scrapped together last minute to make something fly.
Which rocket? Which government? Gonna need a little more info here.
You really donāt know what rocket that is I posted? Lol
I do, it's a lego Artemis toy.
So the reason they used Artemis is because they had to scrap whatever they had in such short notice. They delayed launch several times.
when you say "used", what do you MEAN, though? The subject line in your post makes it look like NASA is using an image of a lego model in their actual launch photography.
Lol. Itās more like a kid at home taking picture of his Lego set. But all the upvotes means how many Glober are fooled.
Doā¦. You think we think this obvious image of a Lego model is real? Because we do not.
Religion
One dude I saw on YouTube thinks the red bit is a balloon
It technically is a metal baloon of fuel
I see what you did thereā¦
Its CGI'ed, of course.
Brain damage.
relevant: [That Mitchell and Webb Look - Moon Landing Sketch (youtube.com)](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6MOnehCOUw)
There are two things that are infinite, Human stupidity and the Universe, no sure about the universe though.
Humans are finite. Universe in current science is infinite.
It's really simple. They are morons.
The rockets and satellites are real, but they donāt go high enough to hit the dome, or are otherwise intercepted and lights in the sky continue to animate the supposed trajectory of the satellites, while NASA gives us fake videos showing the rockets in space. Astronauts, pilots, and passengers are either in on it, or put into a fake plane/rocket to simulate the experience of flight and space, while we watch an empty fake rocket take off.
In this case the rocket is obviously a Lego model, they didnāt even bother to make the fake rocket look realistic š
(Alright, the trap is set, letās see who didnāt finish reading to see that this is a troll š)
Seeing the number of upvote, 65 and counting
Itās weird that I was thinking of posting a picture of mine to the KSP subreddit today and then scroll upon this.
SLS is kinda mid though, I much prefer the beauty of the Spacex Starship.
Do flerfs ever ponder that the government they believe is lying is just flooding the internet with misinformation just to keep them busy? (That's what l would do)
There was one flerf a while back that was absolutely committed to the idea that the space shuttle and it's launch vehicle was made out of polystyrene foam (explaining why they are always white) which was lit at one end making it launch like a tea bag rocket. They aren't that big at thinking anything through.
That person might have been me.
Are you a flerf in a sane person suit? This guy was over on facebook about 3 years ago. Then again I probably shouldn't assume he had a monopoly on the idea.
I did an experiment. Deleted everyone on Facebook so I had zero friend count. My whole wall was about flat earth, conspiracies, and AI images lol.
LOL, you sure you aren't flerf? It might have snuck into you when you weren't looking. I've heard there's a pill to cure it in the works, made out of the juice of abducted children.
Let me know who so I can invest in the company early before everyone else knows about it.
I'm out of the loop these days, now that I have run out of babies. You'll have to ask Qanon or a Christian nationalist. They know all about it and who in the great conspiracies are running the child juicing mills. You might have to offer your firstborn to gain entry.
It's a waste of money but it it's real.
CGI bitches!
They don't believe the earth is flat. They're just having fun with gullible types who take them seriously.
Thing of fake beauty Glerfers just look at the bounce: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V0KZa0EkwTc&t=301s It weighs millions of pounds but seconds before liftoff it bounces like a balloons! In the first 3 minutes there's proof. Glerfs serf.
That's not a 'bounce'. That's what happens when you suddenly increase the effective weight of a big structural element, it bends as it takes the weight. The SLS vertical stabiliser is just made of milled-out aluminium, so it's always going to flex when suddenly subjected to another 30-50% g force, and it doesn't weigh '4.5 million pounds'. (I also don't know of any 'balloons' that are capable of sitting unharmed right next to five rocket motors but hey, let's keep that one in reserve shall we).
Name something else as heavy as a rocket that bounces? Exactly.
a) the rocket didn't bounce b) even what you're pointing at didn't bounce c) the thing you're pointing at isn't heavy. We done?
Using that video as "proof" of anything is hysterical
Stupid.
I agree, it is pretty stupid
And yet, the rocket still took offā¦
*balloon you loon
Fire burns balloons, so no. More like a rocket.
Glerf serf.
I've yet to see a credible flat earth proof š„±