/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12095242
>only giving the villagers moderately lethal doses of carcinogens

>>12063506
>"OK" crudely written all over the launch structure

>>12047926

>>11991826
>decolonizing mathematics
Sure, go ahead and try to build civilization on that. Tell me how it goes.

>>11891394
>'ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis'
>took over 6 years to get to the test stand
>has been sitting on the test stand for almost half a year
>'d-don't worry guys, it's almost ready n-newspace btfo...'

>>11870151
>Why did you get that Space X buys Russian engines?
>"Well-known information"
>Is this information in your hospital newspaper?
If that means what I think it means, then nice burn.

>>11778801
Sure dude, go out on march. It'll open up your position for me.

>>11731628
>$20B
>ten years
>reusing shuttle parts
>restructuring Michoud
>all for a leaky propellant tank

>we're expecting SLS to launch late 2021

>>11725137
>>11725145
>>11725147
>>11725155
DO YOU EVEN CARE IF MY PORK'S NOT FEEDING?!

>>11714961
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2020/05/21/spacex-boeing-rivalry-launch/

>No one thought Elon Musk’s SpaceX would ever beat Boeing to space. Some members of Congress even wondered why NASA would bother awarding contracts to two companies to build capsules to fly astronauts to the International Space Station under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Just let Boeing do it.
>“One industry veteran told me, ‘You know [SpaceX] rockets are put together with rubber bands and sealing wax,’ ” recalled Lori Garver, a former deputy NASA administrator who pushed the agency to outsource human spaceflight to the private sector. ” ‘It’s not real. It won’t fly.’ ”
>One industry official said executives inside Boeing “can’t accept” SpaceX is flying people first. “People are annoyed by Elon — how does this guy who smokes pot beat us?”
>Boeing’s response was just as combative: “At the turn of the 21st Century, before Musk entered the space business, Boeing was building the International Space Station with NASA, where we’ve kept astronauts safe and continuously on orbit. … While others talk about aspirations and hopes, we actually do things in space and will deliver on our commitment to America’s journey to Mars. That’s what we get out of bed for.”

>>11714109
>NASA took almost a decade to design and build a single propellant tank
>taking months just to test the fully assembled rocket which reuses parts that should be familiar
>It will cost at least $1B per launch
>Somehow is going to be "mass produced"

>>11698877
>>11698878
>>11698879
Thanks. Oldspace is seething so much.

>Some members of Congress even wondered why NASA would bother awarding contracts to two companies to build capsules to fly astronauts to the International Space Station under NASA’s Commercial Crew Program. Just let Boeing do it.
>In the beginning, SpaceX was largely dismissed as a long shot that would never achieve much. “One industry veteran told me, ‘You know their rockets are put together with rubber bands and sealing wax,’ ” recalled Lori Garver, a former deputy NASA administrator who pushed the agency to outsource human spaceflight to the private sector. ” ‘It’s not real. It won’t fly.’ ”
>Inside the company, officials were embarrassed by the setback — another bit of bad news that followed the fatal crashes of two 737 Max airplanes. It also triggered a role reversal. Boeing, once the trusted partner, was now under renewed scrutiny by NASA, which said it had been lax in its oversight of the company.

>Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket company—jobs.
>"Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see you next year!'"

>>11673806
>"Let's be very honest again," Bolden said in a 2014 interview. "We don't have a commercially available heavy lift vehicle. Falcon 9 Heavy may someday come about. It's on the drawing board right now. SLS is real. You've seen it down at Michoud. We're building the core stage. We have all the engines done, ready to be put on the test stand at Stennis... I don't see any hardware for a Falcon 9 Heavy, except that he's going to take three Falcon 9s and put them together and that becomes the Heavy. It's not that easy in rocketry."
>SLS is real
>I don't see any hardware for a Falcon 9
>It's not that easy in rocketry

>>11660177
>can't design a rocket
>can't design a drill
>thinks a lunar tollbooth will be a great place to stage a moon base
>takes nearly a decade to send a clone of a rover to Mars
>JWST

>>11643405
>In short order NASA has invested tens of millions of dollars into facilities at Michoud. One reason, of course, is to build SLS as quickly as possible.
>But Peter Wilson, a national defense analyst with the Rand Corporation who tracks space issues, believes there is another reason as well.
>“They’re throwing the money into this program, into places like Michoud, to make it very expensive to change course,” Wilson said.
What a shit show.

>>11622804
You're a funny one.

>>11599078
>'results over rhetoric'
>zero results so far
>was cucked by Shelby
>first versions won't even demonstrate reusability
>still less than half the payload to GTO than Falcon Heavy
>mrw
I get that this thing was designed before SpaceX came along, and it's nice to have more rockets, but this seems like too small of a step forward given recent developments and for how slow it's proceeding. I think this would've been a great rocket if it came out roughly the same time as the Falcon 9.

>>11574894
>A 747 can safely land
[Max 8 has entered the match]

>>11572831

>>11460312
>ufo.news

>>11328803
IF SpaceX beats NASA to the moon. But it would be pretty funny if it happened.

>>11051520
>That manifest showed that it would take until SLS-13 for the debut of the fully evolved 130mt version of the SLS, scheduled for 2032
>SLS-1, a 70mt version of the SLS, is still expected to debut in 2017
>The 2021 debut of SLS/Orion for the crewed version of this mission is now being pushed to the left by two years, with a launch date of 2019
>2011 article
Holy fuck, those comments aged as well as milk sitting outside during summer. I'm glad SpaceX came up and showed that aerospace development doesn't have to be stuck in development hell, or else shit like the SLS would've been seen as acceptable.