Citizen, check your oxygen mix!

> Please tell me when and where I said Skylab didn't exist.

They're probably referring to when you wrote this:

> of course there were some other things they didn't do as well including a orbiting space station

is there an official store for buying nasa patches?

Werner, not Warner.

Werner von Braun built models of notional space stations as early as the 50's. He drew sketches. And he had some interesting ideas about how might work. NASA and the US gov't had no plans to build these. The technology did not and does not exist. Even modern space stations are nowhere near what von Braun was touting. The idea that NASA planned to build these is purest fantasy.

In other news, you should call NASA and tell them they're wrong to say: "Skylab Paved Way for International Space Station." I'm sure they'll immediately recognize your superior knowledge on the subject and recant.

Didnt you just launch a new telescope NASA? you dont get another one until you finish that one!

[removed]

you feeling ok buddy?

LYNK Global is launching additional sats this year to enable a future where cell towers will be in space. Texting in some parts of the world will be active this year. As more sats fly, data and voice will begin. It will take 5000 small sats to go full data from any where on earth, but that is going to take a while.

[removed]

Starship by design is hard to crew rate with current standards, like the Space Shuttle, Starship would not satisfy the requirements that Crew Dragon and Starliner have to satisfy. At least without serious changes.

EDIT: The biggest the escape system.

>Not without significant and probably violent change. So as to the very original question....

That's the point of what I'm saying. Significant, and or violent changes happen through progress, it doesn't matter if the progress is positive or negative, unless the negative is completely catastrophic to the entire planet at a point were life can no longer be possible. Violence doesn't necessarily mean technological regression as seen with the atomic bomb. These changes don't have to originate from society to affect society. Society is forced to accept whatever we're given. If man successfully lands on the moon and a base is made. that's already significant enough. There are already missions surrounding it, if we get people on the moon by 2030, then OPs question becomes what does space travel look like in 20 years after an established moon base. If we were doing nothing at all with space as a species, then I'd have your POV, but the internet, GPS, JWST, space probes, star link, rovers and much others all show that the interest is there and it's a matter of when this happens, and who makes it there first. As things fall into place, peacefully or violently, humanity will adapt to a society that utilizes space travel, even if it's only between the moon and earth for the next 30-50 years. That in itself is significant enough because our affairs will not only affect earth, and a proper moon base would serve to supplement earth with resources, energy, a celestial community, assisted research and more. Having a successful Artemis 3 mission before 2030, and other countries pushing to reach the moon first makes this even more tangible, because it all starts with progress.

Please tell me when and where I said Skylab didn't exist. I said the planned space station did not exist and it didn't, you might want to do a little research into what Warner von Braun had actually planned and it wasn't Skylab

Edit: and please keep demonstrating your character by down voting me, apparently you're unable to understand common English if you think I ever said Skylab didn't exist, I don't consider it to be the space station that was talked about, even NASA wouldn't say that, if I recall correctly it was nothing but a modified third stage of a Saturn 5 rocket, or maybe you want to call it the first stage I truly don't remember but Skylab was nothing like what was originally planned, it was the US giving up and doing the least amount of work they could to try to pretend that they hadn't

I’m pretty sure it is several billion tons of several million kelvin hot plasma getting properly irradiated and shredded to pieces.

Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:

|Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |EELV|Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle| |NSSL|National Security Space Launch, formerly EELV| |ULA|United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture)|

^(2 acronyms in this thread; )^(the most compressed thread commented on today)^( has 21 acronyms.)
^([Thread #8614 for this sub, first seen 25th Feb 2023, 19:55]) ^[FAQ] ^([Full list]) ^[Contact] ^([Source code])

[removed]

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwynne+starlink+profitable

And I listed a bunch of other things that also fund spacex. Starlink is only one part.

In addition to all the things I listed previously, they also sell spaceflights to civilians.

You're really rabbit holeing on one thing -- you're wrong about that but even if you're right the original statement STILL holds. SpaceX doesn't need nasa to get humans on mars, it just makes it easier.

Of course they aren't actually going to go to mars without nasa - nasa will get on board the SpaceX plan at some point - too embarrassing to get left behind. But SpaceX COULD

However, NASA cannot keep astronauts on the ISS full time without either SpaceX or Russia.

Well go ahead and link where she says that, but nonetheless I won’t believe shit until there are concrete numbers and that won’t happen until he releases an IPO. They can say whatever they want, but until it’s backed up more than with a “trust me bro” I’ll take it with a pinch of salt. Also, it needs to be more than just profitable to sustain not only the costs to operate starlink, but also fund their development and non-starlink space flights. That is several years away. Until that point, they are NASA’s servant.

And even when they are fully self sustainable, the government should heavily regulate what they can do. We need to make sure these parasites don’t cover low earth orbit with their trash for profit. If they want to do space flight, they need to be kept on a very tight leash

Yes. I’m aware of that as is everyone else on this sub.

I always felt it weird they consider him the 2nd man on the moon. I know he stepped out to the surface 2nd but they landed in the same craft. Splitting hairs in my opinion.

You claimed Skylab didn’t exist. You were wrong, moving the goalposts doesn’t change that.

Yes in the past that was true. In the future it’s not. Gwynne said it’s profitable this year.

You also ignored all the other parts.

Skylab, was an abomination compared to what was originally planned. It was basically the US saying we give up

MIR was a better program and I don't believe the ISS as much of anything to skylab

Except Elon himself said starlink is losing money

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1581345747777179651?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1581345747777179651%7Ctwgr%5Eb87d1f58642555ff176c9fd0c6245925940f5b99%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fool.com%2Finvesting%2F2022%2F12%2F11%2Felon-musk-admits-starlink-is-losing-money%2F

Skylab was an orbiting space station the US built in the 70’s. It wasn’t in use for very long, but it was built and supported several missions. NASA credits it with paving the way for the ISS.

TSLA and starlink is profitable this year and that will only grow.

Also outside investors. Those investors have been lining up with no short term goal for profit.

Plus they launch for other companies.

See. That wasn’t so hard.