/sci/ - Science & Math

SLS is slow but steady and will probably get a single launch by the mid 2020's.
The BFS' schedule depends on how many times it crashes during the prototype tests and whether they can get it up and running next year.
As for New Glenn I'll believe it when I see it.

>>10015885
LOL. The New Glenn is actually the most likely of the three to fly. It is the easiest to built and has secured funding.

>>10015895
Anon BO is older than SpaceX and look at them now. They are doing worse than NASA's pace and that one is pretty much glacial.

>>10015903
They are only getting serious funding since 2012. As I said, New Glenn is fully funded, and will most likely launch in 2020/2021. BFR is still experiencing conceptual design changes and NASA is NASA. It is quite obvious which of the three is the furthest in the development, by a long shot.

New Glenn, but it's not a good comparison. New Glenn is a much smaller rocket than either BFR or SLS.

>>10015885
>SLS is slow but steady and will probably get a single launch by the mid 2020's.
Block 2 will never fly. Worst part about SLS is they can only manufacture two a year, so it will never get economy of scale. Its purpose is to keep SRB engineers employed, and it will not fail at that.

>>10015857
The USSR.

>>10015922
SLS Block 2 would be in a class of its own, but the others can be compared with each other.

>>10015925
By SLS I mean block 1. Not even 1B. That "interim upper stage" will see most of the work this rocket will do.
Blocks beyond that are space opera tier scifi.

>>10015940
When it finally does launch, if it is manned, it will only be because of the embarrassment of how far behind schedule it is.

>>10015934
>SLS Block 2 would be in a class of its own,
That's true. Block2 will cary ~45 T to the deep space.

BFR will carry 100 T to mars.

A class of its own, in between BFR and Falcon Heavy.

>>10015857
SLS
>engines: built
>cargo: built
>boosers: under construction
>tanks: built
>pad: built

New Glenn
>engines: being tested
>factory: built
>pad: under construction

BFR:
>engines: not built or tested
>pad: location not even selected
>factory: a small tent

SLS wins by a mile.

>>10015960
>pad: location not even selected
They've already decided that Boca Chica will launch nothing but BFR.

>>10015960
This is the difference between experienced aerospace company with great traditions and the best and brightest minds working for it - The Boeing Company -, and some tiny irrelevant disruptive startup seeking to waste tax payer's money... on dreams.

Go SLS!

>>10015971
Elon literally said that they didn't have a pad location, just 2 days ago. Boca Chica is for suborbital testing.

>>10015960
>BFR
Engines: already built, now just improving/testing before BFR is launched
Factory: being built right now in San Pedro docks, right next to the tent.
Pad: Boca Chica is already selected for it, months maybe year ago.

>>10015979
>Engines: already built, now just improving/testing before BFR is launched
Show me just 1 (one) picture of a to-scale engine that's built, let alone tested.
>Factory: being built right now in San Pedro docks, right next to the tent.
Same as above.
>Pad: Boca Chica is already selected for it, months maybe year ago.
see >>10015975

>>10015980
Did Musk molest you or did your dad lose his job at ULA during the recent layoffs?
You seem awfully... dedicated, and easily recognizable at these threads.

>>10015857
SLS is the frontrunner but BFR has some potential of pulling ahead (if everything goes well -- which is unlikely).

>>10015980
The video in the dearmoon presentation was full scale. Some autists on NSF deduced it from the railings in the shot

>>10015952
Should change the Falcon Heavy image to an actual photo of the launch to really drive home that it already exists

New Glenn will be first, BFR or SLS second depending on how smoothly everything goes for SpaceX

I personally root for SX but Elon Time is a thing, not to mention their lack of funding compared to Blue Origin.

Also fuck SLS, with the retarded amount of money they've wasted on that thing they could have finished BFR long time ago.

>>10016396
only problem is that FH is not getting human-rated, and doesnt have a big enough fairing to launch the things SLS will launch.

>>10016442
>New Glenn will be first
Are you high? You really think BO will be able to jump from their suborbital rocket to that? BO is bezos's hobby and nothing more.

>>10015857
SLS will fly first in 2020 because it's mostly built and Bridenstine probably wants to launch it before the end of his first (and maybe only) term. BFS prototypes will likely launch around the same time or a bit earlier, doing hop tests. New Glenn will be on the launch pad by 2021, but it will likely face a large amount of teething problems due to it being such a quantum leap from New Shepard. Finally, the BFR full stack will first launch between 2021-2024 from pad 39A, because SpaceX will have to if they want to keep their schedule tight as Boca Chica is still just an elevated pile of dirt.

>>10016787
by design BFR GSE should be pretty simple and minimal, I’d think? Depends what the BFB will need. After all, BFS will have to be able to take off with zero GSE on mars

>>10016601
no need to human rate it. Launch people in F9, then launch whatever boost stage you want in FH. Dock the two in LEO.

>>10016053
Sick, I thought it was just recycled subscale footage, do you have a link to proofs?

Kek imagine the shitstorm if SLS an heroes on take off.

>>10016810
I can link it in the morning. Also, they’ve moved to methalox-spark ignition. No more TEA-TEB

>>10016811
Please let ot happen

>>10016812
Dank

>>10016053
NSF is full of the best autists

>>10015960
SpaceX's supremacy will remain unchallenged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBlIvghQTlI

>>10016801
BFS needs to be able to launch with no GSE for obvious reasons, BFR's GSE will likely be quite simple due to the whole stack having propellant commonality and the lack of TEA-TEB needed for ignition; therefore, it will likely experience less teething problems than New Glenn and Vulcan do with their hydrogen upper-stages

.>>10016810
Elon said in the presentation that the engine being tested was a '200 ton engine', this translates to around 1.78 mega newtons which is slightly more powerful than the 250 bar flight engine in the 2017 IAC presentation. However, Elon also talked about about '300 bar chamber pressure' and '2MN of thrust' when mentioning Raptor; also, the nozzle of the engine being tested was different than the renders of flight hardware. This leads me to the conclusion that the engine being tested in the video is 'fullscale test engine' I've heard rumours about, not the flight model engine. It's definitely not subscale, compare the engine test from 2016 to this newest one and it's apparent this is a larger engine being tested.

>>10015857
BFR is going to kill or bankrupt a lot of people. Either it blows up, or the overly ambitious schedule promised to investors doesn't happen.

SLS all the way

>>10015895
>>10015922
>>10015925
>>10015979
>>10016442
Believe it or not, the SLS will actually fly someday. I've predicted that the public will quickly give up on the BFR and New Glenn and other crazy private space ventures once that happens.

>>10016879
Block 1 SLS will fly, but Block 2 will probably never be built.

>>10015857

Lol not NASA.

>>10016879
0/10

>>10016886
Oh how times have changed

>>10015955
After only 12 orbital refuelings, lel. I wonder if they are going to scratch that and go for 10 tons directly to Mars it could carry.

you after I falcon punch you in the dick

>>10016914
orbital refueling is a meme and physically impossible with no fucking gravity

>>10016920
1/10

>>10016947
Scientists and rocket experts say that lol

>>10016920

>>10015857
2029 for the SLS?

TWENTY TWENTY NINE?

ALMOST TWENTY YEARS AFTER THE SPACE SHUTTLE?

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Jesus Christ, NASA.

>>10016963
That's for the much upgraded Block 2 SLS. Block 1 SLS is supposed to fly in 2020, if it doesn't get pushed back again.

Block 2 will probably never actually happen because SLS is going to be obsolete out of the gate.

>>10016950
>citation needed

>>10016601
FH is not getting human rated because NASA isn't interested, and it's not worth the cost for SX to try to rate it on their own. Same for propulsive Crew Dragon landings, except that the engines are staying there as the abort system. If SX wasn't going full speed ahead with BFR/BFS, both could still have happened eventually.

>>10015908
BO's ability to pay for its developments is not in question. The question is when they'll actually launch. They're in no rush.

>>10016886
>tfw Tyrone

>>10015857
BFR won't launch anytime soon. I bet the lunar fly-by will be performed on a Falcon Heavy instead, unless the japanese guy is willing to wait until the late 2020s.

news!

>>10017531
we space cowboys now

Also - 39a cladding is going up as soon as next week according to NSF.

>>10015960
>SLS
>engines: built
>cargo: built
>boosers: under construction
>tanks: built
>pad: built

not for block 2, it will only fly in 2029

>>10017531
I wonder if musk intentionally bases his company in both cali and texas.

>>10015908
Lol. Back in 2012, SpaceX we’re doing grasshopper tests for their undersized falcon 9. Took them 4 years to get reusable rockets into their inventory. And this was a smaller rocket. If BO aren’t doing grasshopper tests with a slightly undersized version of New Glenn to test the limits of their tech in the real world by atleast 2017, them they’re not launching no reusable rockets in 2020. Maybe 2021.

>>10017650
Whoops, forgot the gif

>>10017650
New Shepard does a vertical landing from supersonic speeds since years, you brainlet.

>>10017643
Florida, California, Texas.

Largest population centers
Largest states
Largest politicians-senators-house representatives
Coastal areas
Largest skill sets
Best rocket landing/buildings sites

Its not even a personal decision, its simply a calculus of the best ROI and security.

>>10017674
>a slightly under sized version of new Glenn

Because a glorified rocket the size of a Van which couldn’t even reach Low earth orbit is comparable to a super heavy launcher in the same lift class as the Saturn 5.

>>10017674
>I don't know what orbital velocity means
>all velocity is the same, r-r-right?

>>10017788
>why don’t we just use a balloon to get to space????

>>10017685
I was responding to somebody who claimed BO has nothing that can be compared to the Grasshopper. New Shepard is actually inbetween Grasshopper and Falcon 9.

>>10017788
>doesn't know Falcon 9 1st stage isn't even close to reaching orbital velocities

Idiot.

IIRC, Falcon 9 1st stage's top speed is Mach 5, and New Shepard Mach 2.

>>10016886
>neggro playing candy crush in the corner
top kek

>>10017809
Grasshopper falcon had the same Merlin engines, and tank as those being used in the falcon rocket family at the time. There was continuity between the grasshopper rocket and falcon rockets.

Whilst there’s hardly any similarities in hardware between new Shepard and New Glenn. They’re essentially two different rockets

>>10017809
>near perfect vertical speed of mach 2 is the same as horizontal speed of mach 5
t. reddit spacing retard

>>10017809
Lel you can't even begin to compare new shepherds vertical velocity to F9s horizontal velocity you absolute brainlet.

>>10016811
Lmao it feels awful to say but I would probably laugh my ass off, then cry because of all the wasted time and effort

>>10017834
>>10017838
>goalpost moving

Also, it is actually easier to shoot a rocket out of the ocean and land it on a drone ship, than RTLS, which New Shepard does.

>>10017844
>muh horizontal velocity

What exactly is it that you are trying to say? If anything, laying horizontally is easier on the rocket than coming down vertically.

>>10017858
Lel you are fucking retarded.

>>10017859
Well, I honestly don't know what you are trying to tell me with the horizontal velocity bit. It's a matter of fact that landing on a drone ship in the ocean is the easiest on the rocket, because the trajectory is much more horizontal. So what exactly are you trying to tell me?

>>10017866
F9 can and has done RTLS too brainlet.

>>10017878
>goalpost moving again

I was asking what you were trying to tell me with the horizontal velocity bit, not that the Falcon 9 has also done landings with a much more vertical trajectory.

>>10016811
Honestly, considering the amount of money wasted on the SLS program, whoever approved that program should be all hanged if it doesn’t outperform a rocket which has has had 5-10 times as less funding. They should have stuck with the refueling space station idea.

>>10017880
Shooting a rocket straight up and down is far easier than shooting it sideways at mach 5 and bringing it down on a barge in the sea.

>>10017892
But that's literally wrong. The only reason New Shepard is going up vertically is because otherwise the tourist capsule would be coming down over the ocean.

>>10017809
>Falcon 9 1st stage's top speed is Mach 5

It actually depends on the orbit and trajectory; cores launching to high-energy GTO orbits can hit the atmosphere at speeds up to Mach 8, while cores for LEO launches re-enter at relatively leisurely speeds of between Mach 5-6. Orbital Velocity for LEO launches is Mach 25 btw, just for comparison...

>>10017933
Sorry son but there's no ocean in the middle of Texas, though it seems like your head is mainly filled with liquid...

>>10015974
>The Boeing Company
they used to be the best at the lobbying game and soaking up taxpayer dollars

but lockheed is best now. orion has long term commitments, f35 is a trillion dollar program over 50 year

>>10017947
LC-36 is in Cape Canaveral.

>>10017933
That's not even a rebuttal you fucking idiot.

>>10017809
>>10017858
>>10017866
>>10017878
>>10017880
>>10017933

>>10017972
Not an argument.

>>10017974
>Not an argument
Not an argument

>>10017954
New Shepard doesn't launch from LC-36, it launches from Cape Horn in the middle of buttfuck nowhere, Texas you drooling retard...

>>10017988
0/10

>>10017994
Not an argument

>>10017996
Not an argument

>>10017993
Cape Horn is in Australia you mong.

>>10015885
>SLS is slow but steady
Slow, yes. Steady? No. They've suffered delay after delay.

The advantage they have is that it's all old tech and started back in 2005, on concepts they had been kicking around for two decades, using tech developed in the 60s and 70s. It should be going fast. It should be done already.

The disadvantage is that it's run by NASA bureaucrats, who are experts in making busywork and avoiding committing to actually doing things, and by cost-plus contractors, who make more money the more inefficient they are.

>>10017855
New Shepard only goes up and not horizontally it simply never leaves the launch site

>>10015960
>BFR
>>engines:not built or tested

>mfw

>>10015980
>Show me just 1 (one) picture of a to-scale engine that's built, let alone tested.
see >>10020313

>>10016886
lol get fucked

>>10015974
Holy fuck I never saw such obvious and blatant shilling
This gotta be bait

>>10017531
Does this guy not understand that you don't do anything while you wait for the surcharging to do its job?

>>10018062
Say what now

>>10016814
I really really like this image, anon.

new space race?

>>10021176
Its even a thing now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewSpace

>>10015857
no one will

no second larger iss or orbital habitable ring being built
no asteroid or moon mining to take advantage of building objects in space due to low or no delta v
all moon base plans involve spending 10billion dollars to effectively built a hut, instead of a proper habitat that can house people hundreds and thousands of people
BFR is a joke, design keeps changing and hasnt been tested
we arent actually serious about sending that to mars by itself are we?
we would need a ship like picture included at least, and that is a larger and more complex project than ISS

until i see a moonbase i wont consider anything space exploration related anything but a PR gimmick

>>10020313
Is this the full or sub scale version though? The way he presented it made it sound like it was but I don't think it has actually been confirmed.

>>10020313
>>10021377
This is a sub-scale engine. Raptor is supposed to have a 1.3m diameter, which this one clearly doesn't have.

>>10020313
arent BFR engines just raptor engines anyway. So i mean what is their to heavily test. They can pump out engines it seems and they are going with the car model for engine design.

>>10021335
>.m.
Don't think I didn't see that.

So word has spoken around that ULA has finally decided to use BE-4 on their Vulcans. Congrats, Jeff Who!

>>10021362
So what does all that extra stuff add that a BFR doesn't already have? A rotating section? Gravity is nice but of dubious necessity on a relatively short Mars run.

>>10021416
Yeah rotating sections seems like a waste of time, if you were going the orbital transport route with a big ship that just does the Earth-Mars loop and stays in space then you would be much better off using all the extra mass for the rotating crap to make a bigger section to hold more cargo/crew or add more fuel tanks for faster trips.

>>10021423
I'd say I agree, if you're not going out past Mars. Gravity is for stations and long-haul ships. However this is all speculation. It may turn out that the average zoomer can't handle weightlessness for more than a couple of weeks in which case ring sections will become standard.

>>10021409
>Not sitting in bed on a Saturday morning posting about space travel

>>10021362
>we would need a ship like picture included at least

Nope, it would burn up on reentry. You need to use aerobraking for both arriving on Mars and returning to Earth. BFR is aerodynamic for a reason.

>>10016963
>It is the 40th millennium
>The Imperium of Man stretches from one side of the galaxy to the other
>Beset from all sides by enemies, both from outside and within, only their iron will and their invincible faith in the God-Emperor of Mankind sustains them against the gibbering darkness
>Meanwhile, on Earth, ULA has released a new powerpoint detailing how Block 2 is going to work
>"Tried and true technology is the only way to get real work done in space!"
>The void between the stars echoes with the laughter of the carrion gods, for in the grim darkness of the far future there is only war

>>10021433
Top kek

>>10021430
It's going to be maximum overcomfy when they livestream the moon mission in HDVR and all the bros can hang out in the BFR on it's way to the moon.

So apparently with BE-4 development being close to an end, BO has started developing the BE-5, which is rumoured to be 4m in diameter and have 10.000kN of Thrust. It will fire the New Armstrong, which is conceptualised to have 70.000kN lift-off thrust and put 300 tons to LEO, and 100 tons of payload on the surface of the moon with one launch. New Armstrong is supposed to fly mid-to-end 2020s. These are the rumours that are emerging connected to the ULA decision to settle for the BE-4.

>>10021442
Can't tell if this is satire or actual BO press material.

>>10021442
>citation
>fucking
>needed

>>10021442
Have fun with combustion instability! Von Braun will be laughing at Bezos from his grave...to get an engine of that size to combust in a stable manner, the chamber pressure would have to be so low that the exhaust gas would seap out the nozzle like maple syrup. This makes Musk's idea of using a massive cluster of high-performance engines look relatively sane. The only way to theoretically build such an engine would involve using the multiple-nozzle technique the Russians used for the RD-170; unfortunately for him, Bezos isn't Valentin Glushko and building a relatively mediocre staged-combustion engine doesn't automatically make you able to build some Sea Dragonesque monstrosity...

>>10021492
So I looked it up, the F-1s were 3,7m.

>>10021492
>meanwhile raptor is doing 1 minute+ burns at 300 bar pressure

>>10021517
In your fantasy.

>>10021492
Make no mistake here. The SSME are the best engnines ever created, and both Raptor and BE-4 won't surpass it.

>>10021576
>best

by what measure?

>>10021578
Money spent

>>10021589
lol

Fuck N*SA

>>10021512
IK, but they could only run it at 70 bar pressure without it exploding though, to achieve 3,000MN more thrust from a similar sized engine, Bezos would have to increase the engine's chamber pressure to raptor levels which is technically impossible with the current level of rocket science.

>>10015857
I hate Jeff Bezos and his lack of aesthetics and lack of care for a quality product, fuck him and his bald head

>>10021655
>3.000mN

Yeah, I don't think anybody claimed that. F-1 had 6.700kN, and BE-5 was claimed to be 10.000kN.

>>10021671
His factory space stations are going to be the Fresno of space - ugly but functional.

>>10021702
Yeah fuck that.
I'm glad Elon puts weight on aesthetics.
Fucking hate people who don't strive to make objects beautiful.

>>10016879
You are wrong. We will have 3 heavy lift platforms in operation within 5 years. It's a great time to be alive.

>>10016879
I'm with you on this. I'm hearing a lot of grassroots enthusiasm for ULA from the silent majority - your "moms and pops".

>>10021519
>elon says "200 ton thrust" = 300 bar pressure
>1 minute and 12 seconds video of larger raptor engine burn before video cut off
>visible spark ignition
>sat images of test stand

It's not jeff who anymore, not even jeff btfo. Literally everyone btfo.

>>10021875
some pasta courtesy of nsf raptor thread
>Predicted Raptor Sea Level Engine Performance
>Property 2017 2018
>Chamber Pressure 250 bar 300 bar
>Thrust at sea level 1,700 kN 2,095 kN
>Thrust in vacuum 1,834 kN 2,229 kN
>Specific Impusle at sea level 330 sec 335 sec
>Specific Impusle in vacuum 356 sec 356 sec

>>10017677
Brownsville and Cape Canaveral were also chosen to be close to the equator, which makes it easier to launch to the equatorial plane required by comsats in GEO.

>>10021362
Well how the fuck are they supposed to build a moon base for less than 10 billion if there's no fully reusable rockets. You can talk shit on BFR all you want but it's the only concrete plan to get us to other planets that actually makes sense.

>>10021875
That engine isn't even full-scaled you goof.

>>10022151
It is.

>>10016886
Wasn't this a bring your family to work event?

How long until space travel realizes that BIGGER ROCKET THAN BEFORE is a dead end, and that it's far more practical to send up modular cargo with multiple smaller rockets?

>>10022277
BFR is all about high launch rate, so SpaceX realizes this already. However, if you want to achieve anything serious in space, then there has to be a certain mass and volume available. We aint gonna do shit with 10 ton tin cans either.

>>10021711
>Fucking hate people who don't strive to make objects beautiful.
that's 1000% retarded

aesthetics is subjective, it is a by product of evolution trying to figure out what is useful: example: big boobs soft young skin means reproductive health=pretty. It is just a programing in your head, if somethign is ugly but useful it just means the programing in your head is not advanced enough.

>>10015857
>ever taking humans instead of robots to mars
i mean i know it's just for marketing reasons, but it's getting tiring, it's not even funny anymore how inefficient is to send humans that i can't take seriously any of this shit anymore

>>10022435
How exactly do you plan to colonize the planet without humans? Human presence on Mars is not "inefficient" when it is a goal by itself. Science is not the only, or even the most important, goal of spaceflight.

Also, robots are and will remain shit without real time telepresence.

>>10022434
This. Evolution and by now even industrial design prove time and time again that functional design is the best design, and eventually becomes the most coveted and timeless design.

>>10022462
use robots to build something that can sustain human life, then send humans to live there

you can send so many robots for the price that costs to send a human it's not even funny

>>10022473
one human on the ground can do so much more than so many robots its not even funny

and especially on Mars where it takes half a hour for a command to go through

>>10022483
>one human on the ground can do so much more than so many robots its not even funny
like dying

>>10022483
barely, you need a very thick suit and a >20kg (on mars) weighing life-support-backpack, and even with that you can't work for very long, plus the time you spent outside of your habitat is pretty limited anyway because of radiation exposure.

>>10022498
plus the millions that costs lifting the life support stuff just to keep you functional

>>10021416
>So what does all that extra stuff add that a BFR doesn't already have?
redundacies, back up more oxygen and fuel for when shit happens.
also a bigger ship would provide more radiation shielding for the long ass journey. the BFR would piggy back unto the bigger ship and be used for accent and descent.
remember the ISS is still protected by the van helen belt from radiation exposure. How much radiation can

>>10021431
youre just plan retarded, it would be cycler , wouldnt enter the atmosphere

>>10021924
the 10billion moon hut includes resusable rockets.
the falcon heavy could be used to set up equipment for the moon base right now.

id also want to say, i do want spacex to succeed but the engineerign and cost requirements are outside their company scope. It will require probably north of 500billion to setup a small 1000 plus moon base and trillions to do a MAR ones. Money that musk or his company does not have.

>>10022463
>>10022434
>muh brutalism
Some things are objectively hideous and other things are objectively elegant eg ordinary differential equations vs partial differential equations. Not everything can be reduced to sexual drives.

>>10015857
The moon landing was faked.

>>10022686
Exactly, and things are elegant because they are functional. Take this Range Rover for example. There's no chrome on it, no wood grain on it, not even floormats because those would be too annoying to clean. Everything that's on it is on it for a purpose. It simply makes sense, and it's elegantly simple.

>>10022714
Then how come Bezos' rocket looks like a weird design abortion, whereas the BFR models look clean and functional?

>>10016814
Yikes.

>>10022714
>>10022686
that's not what brutalism is. You don't understand what objectivity is, since there is nothing for which 100% of humans agree what is beautyful. Its an emotion you retard

>>10021335
>>10021430
phone posters should be lined up and shot

>>10022498
>plus the time you spent outside of your habitat is pretty limited anyway because of radiation exposure.
No.
>>10022473
Let us know when you've got a cost effective robot design that can do that.
>>10022498
Have you ever listened to interviews with the people designing the rovers? Literally every bit of science those rover have done in decades of operation could have been done by a human mission in weeks. At some point designing, launching, staffing, providing GSE and mission control add up. Rovers are great when you have a limited budget that changes priority every few years but are not cost effective long term.

>>10022661
Cyclers are shit. You still have to accelerate all your payload up to speed so your paying full price on your cargo anyway.
They only provide savings for things like shielding that aren't consumable and are only used during the trip and if they disallow aerodynamic capture (is this the right term in English?) then your savings are more than equalled by the new cost.
Also what happens if you don't successfully rendezvous with the cycler? You're still on the trajectory to Mars or most of it. Its not like you're carrying enough dV to come back. So you either need to have everything you need to survive on the ship that goes to the cycler or be 100% sure you never ever miss rendezvous. The first is redundant, at that point get rid of the cycler and go in the ships, the second is impossible to be 100% sure on.

Nobody, space doesn't exist.

>>10022661
>also a bigger ship would provide more radiation shielding for the long ass journey

BFR has enough shielding for a solar storm shelter. To shield against galactic cosmic rays, you would need massive amounts of shielding that even your ship wouldnt have unless it weights thousands of tons. The best protection against those is a fast trajectory, which is the very opposite of a cycler.

>>10022714
modern cars look better tho

>>10016811
If this happens and both BO and SX end up with better safety track records I will laugh so hard

>>10016879
If SLS is truly the future of manned spaceflight I think I might just fall into deep depression. Holy fuck, what an underwhelming project.

>>10024275
Modern cars objectively look like dogshit.

>>10024275
You have shit taste friend.

>>10024737
It looks so sad, look at those pouty eyes

wait i have a real mind blowing proposition, most of the radiation in the mars comes from an up direction right? like its nuclear radiation coming from the sun which is up from mars? right?

THEN I HAVE AN IDEA:

LEAD UMBRELLA!!

it stops the radiation, also it can be infinitely heavy since gravity works less on mars

>>10024908
You cracked it anon

>>10024704
Lol, if the future of manned space flight is what sustains you, just eat a gun right now.

>>10015857
New Glenn, but it's really a competitor to the Falcon Heavy which has already beaten it.

>>10015857
>New Glenn
Why is that even here. SLS and BFR are super heavy lifters at ~50+ tons interplanetary payload. New Glenn can't even lift that to LEO- it's more of a competitor to the fully reusable Falcon Heavy variant, where it already lost.

Def not SLS, NASA sucks

>>10024966
This. Remember kids, humans are NEVER EVER colonizing space. Just don't have the economic environment for it.

>>10025033
>>10025146
These. Why are they comparing them to New Glenn and not New Armstrong?
>inb4 New Armstrong has no details
Exactly, because BO is well behind its competitors in that regard.

>>10021435
I will 100% buy a vr headset for this, if I haven't bought one already

>>10025159
Theres tens of billions being pumped into mining and exploration startups right now you dumbfuck. Kill yourself.

>>10025212
Eh, there's no real need to colonize space to reap benefits of mining it.

>>10025292
If it's just mining for use on Earth, costs will still need to come down far more than any currently planned rockets will allow.

>>10025159
About the only good economic reason to have humans in space is going to be metals. There will also probably be some micro-gravity manufacturing in LEO. Both will be automated where possible to send fewer humans. And of course tourism, because free-fall is fun.

>>10025378
why do you need humans to process metals? Robots can do that.

>>10025381
Someone has to fix the machines when they break down. They WILL break down. You know it.

>>10025384
>muh who fix dem macheenz
You can potentially make full-cycle automation with troubleshooter repair drones.

>>10025483
In general I agree, but the kind of robots capable of doing that work are a lot further away than simple automated mining and refining machinery.

>>10021492
Bezos will have to pay Mueller multiple billions to join blue propulsion team if he wants to win

>>10025490
Not necessarily that complex- you can make the mining drone in multiple small segments and a troubleshooter drone will just (dis)assemble, check and replace the segments like legos- it wastes relatively more resources than pinpoint repairs, but not as much as spending tens of billions for maintaining a permanent human presence.

>>10025483
SpaceX will successfully land on Mars and build bases on the moon and martian soil and they'll be fully economical.

Stay mad, nigger.

Love how these pics always compare New Glenn which is not even remotely close in mission parameters to BFR. Bezos needs to step up his game because by the time BFR gets going it really will be pretty much impossible to compete without their own reusable super heavy lifter.

kek found this on twatter

>>10025572
nice knew it was only a matter of time........

dont forget about sea dragon anon

>>10026186
with this monster they could have put up a giant space station in orbit 3 decades ago.
And the cost would probably be lower then the current ISS.

>>10025533
>economical bases on moon and mars

laughingwhores.jpg

>>10026186
looks like a meme

>>10025212
Exploration maybe, military definitely, but civilian colonies are very unlikely, just too expensive.

>>10026186
Now that's Kerbal.

>>10026459
wont be expensive for billion/millionaires

>>10026465
would be a money sink worse than anything, you'd have to have a huge permanent income than won't ever fail or you'd get stuck without provisions

>>10015857
>putting NG in the same bracket as BFR and SLS