yub
@astro-yub.bsky.social
FYI: My interest is in spaceflight, not Elon.
Yes, far worse connectivity. As I already said.
No, "They thrive on engagement to sow doubt and outrage" is exactly what you're doing with making ingorant statements and blocking anyone challenging said statements. Feel free to look at my comments and point out where I am factually wrong.
No, "They thrive on engagement to sow doubt and outrage" is exactly what you're doing with making ingorant statements and blocking anyone challenging said statements. Feel free to look at my comments and point out where I am factually wrong.
November 17, 2025 at 6:18 PM
Yes, far worse connectivity. As I already said.
No, "They thrive on engagement to sow doubt and outrage" is exactly what you're doing with making ingorant statements and blocking anyone challenging said statements. Feel free to look at my comments and point out where I am factually wrong.
No, "They thrive on engagement to sow doubt and outrage" is exactly what you're doing with making ingorant statements and blocking anyone challenging said statements. Feel free to look at my comments and point out where I am factually wrong.
Important context, before getting rage-baited:
November 15, 2025 at 2:55 PM
Important context, before getting rage-baited:
Hoezo in theorie? Ze hebben letterlijk geprobeerd te landen. Wat mensen denken is toch niet relevant? Booster-landing was niet de prioriteit inderdaad, net zoals deze missie, maar wel een extra doel dat ze duidelijk geprobeerd hebben.
Staat op hun pagina over NG-1: www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-1
Staat op hun pagina over NG-1: www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-1
November 10, 2025 at 12:58 PM
Hoezo in theorie? Ze hebben letterlijk geprobeerd te landen. Wat mensen denken is toch niet relevant? Booster-landing was niet de prioriteit inderdaad, net zoals deze missie, maar wel een extra doel dat ze duidelijk geprobeerd hebben.
Staat op hun pagina over NG-1: www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-1
Staat op hun pagina over NG-1: www.blueorigin.com/missions/ng-1
Tijdens de eerste lancering hebben ze ook geprobeerd de booster te landen, zonder succes.
November 10, 2025 at 10:06 AM
Tijdens de eerste lancering hebben ze ook geprobeerd de booster te landen, zonder succes.
Of course they landed on the ocean, did you want them to test landing with purposefully compromised heat-tiles over populated areas??? Obviously a f-cking rocket exploded after splashing down on the ocean...
I can say the same thing.
Ah yes, thats why they uploaded high-quality video & images...
I can say the same thing.
Ah yes, thats why they uploaded high-quality video & images...
November 9, 2025 at 1:53 PM
Of course they landed on the ocean, did you want them to test landing with purposefully compromised heat-tiles over populated areas??? Obviously a f-cking rocket exploded after splashing down on the ocean...
I can say the same thing.
Ah yes, thats why they uploaded high-quality video & images...
I can say the same thing.
Ah yes, thats why they uploaded high-quality video & images...
Again wrong. Orbital Launch Test is a milestone, which you've already proven yourself by linking this graph. And SpaceX completed this during Flight 3.
You remember my very first comment to you was that you're allowed to use Google, right? Or is it intellectual dishonesty on purpose?
You remember my very first comment to you was that you're allowed to use Google, right? Or is it intellectual dishonesty on purpose?
November 9, 2025 at 10:49 AM
Again wrong. Orbital Launch Test is a milestone, which you've already proven yourself by linking this graph. And SpaceX completed this during Flight 3.
You remember my very first comment to you was that you're allowed to use Google, right? Or is it intellectual dishonesty on purpose?
You remember my very first comment to you was that you're allowed to use Google, right? Or is it intellectual dishonesty on purpose?
Starship HLS will have thrusters on the upper part of the ship, see the black ring below crew/cargo cabins. Again, you're obviously not informed on this topic.
Why are you deflecting to Tesla? You sound like the clowns who believe all ragebait-articles which mention Musk every chance they get.
Why are you deflecting to Tesla? You sound like the clowns who believe all ragebait-articles which mention Musk every chance they get.
November 9, 2025 at 10:32 AM
Starship HLS will have thrusters on the upper part of the ship, see the black ring below crew/cargo cabins. Again, you're obviously not informed on this topic.
Why are you deflecting to Tesla? You sound like the clowns who believe all ragebait-articles which mention Musk every chance they get.
Why are you deflecting to Tesla? You sound like the clowns who believe all ragebait-articles which mention Musk every chance they get.
I don't need to be a pilot to understand technology has improved tremendously over 70 years, Starship is developed to fly autonomously and SpaceX is already working with astronauts to develop the necessary systems.
Also, my comments was primarily to point out SpaceX clearly knows about camera's...
Also, my comments was primarily to point out SpaceX clearly knows about camera's...
November 9, 2025 at 9:24 AM
I don't need to be a pilot to understand technology has improved tremendously over 70 years, Starship is developed to fly autonomously and SpaceX is already working with astronauts to develop the necessary systems.
Also, my comments was primarily to point out SpaceX clearly knows about camera's...
Also, my comments was primarily to point out SpaceX clearly knows about camera's...
SpaceX is delivering.
Even if you keep ignoring how the HLS contract works, NASA stated it themselves.
www.nasa.gov/image-articl...
Even if you keep ignoring how the HLS contract works, NASA stated it themselves.
www.nasa.gov/image-articl...
November 9, 2025 at 7:47 AM
SpaceX is delivering.
Even if you keep ignoring how the HLS contract works, NASA stated it themselves.
www.nasa.gov/image-articl...
Even if you keep ignoring how the HLS contract works, NASA stated it themselves.
www.nasa.gov/image-articl...
Thats literally how the contract works 😂
Artemis 1 was supposed to launch 2016, Artemis 2 was supposed to launch 2022. Didnt happen either, the entire program is delayed. Which is by far the least of anyone's worries.
Can ask the same about you.
Thats how NASA contracts now, instead of cost-plus.
Artemis 1 was supposed to launch 2016, Artemis 2 was supposed to launch 2022. Didnt happen either, the entire program is delayed. Which is by far the least of anyone's worries.
Can ask the same about you.
Thats how NASA contracts now, instead of cost-plus.
November 8, 2025 at 8:06 PM
Thats literally how the contract works 😂
Artemis 1 was supposed to launch 2016, Artemis 2 was supposed to launch 2022. Didnt happen either, the entire program is delayed. Which is by far the least of anyone's worries.
Can ask the same about you.
Thats how NASA contracts now, instead of cost-plus.
Artemis 1 was supposed to launch 2016, Artemis 2 was supposed to launch 2022. Didnt happen either, the entire program is delayed. Which is by far the least of anyone's worries.
Can ask the same about you.
Thats how NASA contracts now, instead of cost-plus.
It is in the screenshot yes, with a clear label "Potential Award Amount". Are you being ignorant on purpose? The "Outlayed Amount" is what's been paid so far.
No, Im telling you they already successfully completed milestones valued in the contract for $2.7 billion. They have completed milestones
No, Im telling you they already successfully completed milestones valued in the contract for $2.7 billion. They have completed milestones
November 8, 2025 at 7:56 PM
It is in the screenshot yes, with a clear label "Potential Award Amount". Are you being ignorant on purpose? The "Outlayed Amount" is what's been paid so far.
No, Im telling you they already successfully completed milestones valued in the contract for $2.7 billion. They have completed milestones
No, Im telling you they already successfully completed milestones valued in the contract for $2.7 billion. They have completed milestones
No, they received ~$3 billion so far. Public information, see screenshot. They only get paid for the completed milestones.
November 8, 2025 at 4:16 PM
No, they received ~$3 billion so far. Public information, see screenshot. They only get paid for the completed milestones.
Yeah, you never know. Imagine the views we'd have if they knew they could use camera's, right ...
November 8, 2025 at 9:20 AM
Yeah, you never know. Imagine the views we'd have if they knew they could use camera's, right ...
"Delays & insane budget overruns don't matter as long as its needed"
Despite SLS/Orion clearly not being ready for the 2022 Artemis 2 launch date.
As they were also not ready for the 2016 Artemis 1 launch date.
But talking about HLS & Orion, which are also part of Artemis, is somehow whataboutism
Despite SLS/Orion clearly not being ready for the 2022 Artemis 2 launch date.
As they were also not ready for the 2016 Artemis 1 launch date.
But talking about HLS & Orion, which are also part of Artemis, is somehow whataboutism
November 1, 2025 at 8:23 PM
"Delays & insane budget overruns don't matter as long as its needed"
Despite SLS/Orion clearly not being ready for the 2022 Artemis 2 launch date.
As they were also not ready for the 2016 Artemis 1 launch date.
But talking about HLS & Orion, which are also part of Artemis, is somehow whataboutism
Despite SLS/Orion clearly not being ready for the 2022 Artemis 2 launch date.
As they were also not ready for the 2016 Artemis 1 launch date.
But talking about HLS & Orion, which are also part of Artemis, is somehow whataboutism
1. He's not the only one with this view on the program.
2. You don't know why he's a former employee. Now you're just dismissing on pure speculation.
No cost-overrun for NASA, or the tax-payer as people love to talk say. HLS is a fixed-price contract, SLS & Orion are cost-plus. So whats your point?
2. You don't know why he's a former employee. Now you're just dismissing on pure speculation.
No cost-overrun for NASA, or the tax-payer as people love to talk say. HLS is a fixed-price contract, SLS & Orion are cost-plus. So whats your point?
November 1, 2025 at 7:09 PM
1. He's not the only one with this view on the program.
2. You don't know why he's a former employee. Now you're just dismissing on pure speculation.
No cost-overrun for NASA, or the tax-payer as people love to talk say. HLS is a fixed-price contract, SLS & Orion are cost-plus. So whats your point?
2. You don't know why he's a former employee. Now you're just dismissing on pure speculation.
No cost-overrun for NASA, or the tax-payer as people love to talk say. HLS is a fixed-price contract, SLS & Orion are cost-plus. So whats your point?
Not baseless, certainly biased in favor of his employers (SpaceX competitor).
Starship is not the only one behind schedule. Which is why Artemis 1 didn't launch in 2016 and Artemis 2 didn't launch in 2022.
Even so, focus on delay is dumb. I'd rather have delays than compromised safety.
Starship is not the only one behind schedule. Which is why Artemis 1 didn't launch in 2016 and Artemis 2 didn't launch in 2022.
Even so, focus on delay is dumb. I'd rather have delays than compromised safety.
November 1, 2025 at 12:13 PM
Not baseless, certainly biased in favor of his employers (SpaceX competitor).
Starship is not the only one behind schedule. Which is why Artemis 1 didn't launch in 2016 and Artemis 2 didn't launch in 2022.
Even so, focus on delay is dumb. I'd rather have delays than compromised safety.
Starship is not the only one behind schedule. Which is why Artemis 1 didn't launch in 2016 and Artemis 2 didn't launch in 2022.
Even so, focus on delay is dumb. I'd rather have delays than compromised safety.
SpaceX is doing well on their projects
October 31, 2025 at 3:35 PM
SpaceX is doing well on their projects
Guess how much taxpayer-money you've given to this thing. If you genuinely think SpaceX is a waste of money, you should look into the cost of other programs in the spaceflight industry.
October 27, 2025 at 3:54 PM
Guess how much taxpayer-money you've given to this thing. If you genuinely think SpaceX is a waste of money, you should look into the cost of other programs in the spaceflight industry.
You're mixing things.
1. Starlink's impact energy is 5x lower than NASA's minimum requirement and has a risk of human casualty below industry standard. See screenshot.
2. Pieces that hit the ground were from Falcon9 2nd-stage, Dragon capsule or from others like NASA. They've been looking into this.
1. Starlink's impact energy is 5x lower than NASA's minimum requirement and has a risk of human casualty below industry standard. See screenshot.
2. Pieces that hit the ground were from Falcon9 2nd-stage, Dragon capsule or from others like NASA. They've been looking into this.
October 23, 2025 at 7:49 AM
You're mixing things.
1. Starlink's impact energy is 5x lower than NASA's minimum requirement and has a risk of human casualty below industry standard. See screenshot.
2. Pieces that hit the ground were from Falcon9 2nd-stage, Dragon capsule or from others like NASA. They've been looking into this.
1. Starlink's impact energy is 5x lower than NASA's minimum requirement and has a risk of human casualty below industry standard. See screenshot.
2. Pieces that hit the ground were from Falcon9 2nd-stage, Dragon capsule or from others like NASA. They've been looking into this.
I was specifically refering to the part: "the goal of beating the Chinese to a moon station". Personally, I'd say safety & reliability should always have priority over "being first". Do you not agree?
As for delivery timeframes, delays are not unique to SpaceX.
As for delivery timeframes, delays are not unique to SpaceX.
October 23, 2025 at 7:13 AM
I was specifically refering to the part: "the goal of beating the Chinese to a moon station". Personally, I'd say safety & reliability should always have priority over "being first". Do you not agree?
As for delivery timeframes, delays are not unique to SpaceX.
As for delivery timeframes, delays are not unique to SpaceX.
Thank you for being open-minded. That's the goal indeed, to advance our technologies. In case you're interested, Tim Dodd (EverydayAstronaut on YouTube) has this to say:
October 21, 2025 at 2:40 PM
Thank you for being open-minded. That's the goal indeed, to advance our technologies. In case you're interested, Tim Dodd (EverydayAstronaut on YouTube) has this to say:
• 3/9 flights were full success, 5/9 partial success.
• Majority of $10 billion is their own investment.
• Starship reached orbital speed on Flight 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. Stayed suborbital for safety + testing re-entry.
• Still in development.
• Landing + reusing upper-stage wasnt a goal yet. Soon.
• Majority of $10 billion is their own investment.
• Starship reached orbital speed on Flight 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. Stayed suborbital for safety + testing re-entry.
• Still in development.
• Landing + reusing upper-stage wasnt a goal yet. Soon.
October 21, 2025 at 1:18 PM
• 3/9 flights were full success, 5/9 partial success.
• Majority of $10 billion is their own investment.
• Starship reached orbital speed on Flight 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. Stayed suborbital for safety + testing re-entry.
• Still in development.
• Landing + reusing upper-stage wasnt a goal yet. Soon.
• Majority of $10 billion is their own investment.
• Starship reached orbital speed on Flight 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 & 11. Stayed suborbital for safety + testing re-entry.
• Still in development.
• Landing + reusing upper-stage wasnt a goal yet. Soon.
