/sci/ - Science & Math

there's probably going to be another center section.

THIS IS GROUND CONTROL TO MAJOR TOM

for people out of the loop, the SpaceX BFR/Starship "hopper", much like their earlier grasshopper / F9R is currently being assembled in Boca Chica. It's made out of 300-series stainless steel, 9m wide, and will only do 0-5km hops

>>10237471
so this is the infamous bfr, with a capacity greater than Saturn V...
whoa

>>10237471

>>10237488
less than Saturn V, but much cheaper per kg to LEO. $7mil/flight might not happen (I hope it does), but it'll still be cheaper by a lot.

>>10237493
>7mil per flight
is this musk's number? absolute kek

>>10237496
(marginal cost)

>>10237496
>>10237493
If it's anything like the model 3 revise that to 10-12.5M (I somehow doubt those numbers too)

Texas anons, do it
make the trip

>>10237527
>muskfags think they are the only non-niggers, the comic
at least admit you're part of the problem

>>10237527
Painfully accurate.

>>10237527
10/10 holy shit lmao
However-
>now this image will be posted every time the topic gets out of hand
YOU’VE FUCKED IT ANON, YOU’VE CONTRIBUTED TO THE META

>>10237533
We just want to talk about SpaceX so why don't you just fuck off and start a SpaceX hate thread?

>>10237542
on the day you start claiming the moon landing was easier than a falcon booster landing lmao

>>10237503
Even if it was 30 million that'd be half the price of an expendable Falcon 9 for over 5x the payload. It'd still fuck everything else.

Nobody except state sponsored rockets are going to survive Starship entering the market. Relativity Space, Rocket Lab, ULA, etc. are about to be finito. Blue Origin might survive because Bezos' infinite money.

>>10237544
The fuck are you on about retard?

>>10237554
This is why I'm doubtful.

>>10237557
>Nobody except state sponsored rockets are going to survive Starship entering the market.
This is also why I'm doubtful. Extraordinary claims, such as what this scenario amounts to, require extraordinary evidence, so I'm unconvinced they're going to trounce everyone.

>>10237544
wrong thread

>>10237557
I think your heavily overerestimating how quickly the aerospace industry adapts to change; also contractors usually like to share out the launches and in turn the money to prevent reliance on a single company e.g. SES-14 launching on a Ariane 5 and SES-12 on a F9. BFR will change what's possible but not necessarily what the new norm will be, at least not when it's first introduced.

>>10237590
most recent

>>10237558
see
>>10237369

>>10237527
10/10, Im in tears

>>10237604
Great, feel free to fuck off to that thread then.

>>10237610
>muskrats will still defend their retarded behaviour

How many engines will the hopper have? Would a single radical raptor be enough for hops?

>>10237633
One is often enough.

>>10237633
we don't know
if they actually want to test the engine it's probably best to load it out with the full set

>>10237649
also, the long flights will last six minutes. One raptor burning for six minutes would take up a substantial amount of fuel, even at low throttle

>>10237661
6 minutes is just the maximum duration on the FAA license, the early flights will definitely be much shorter.

>>10237633
I would imagine at least three, since they plan to use three when landing and it would be best to see how they do in that configuration to figure out issues, particularly harmonics.

>>10237673
do they need three for landing on mars + moon? seems like a lot for the moon

>>10237678
Probably not no, but mostly for Earth. Though I believe they can use two if one shits the bed. Thrust to weight is probably too high to use three for the moon.

>>10237661
that's six minutes of flying up and falling down, maybe?

>>10237689
the flight celling is 5km. stuff falls pretty fast. If you include in a lot of horizontal translation though you could do a fair bit of maneuvering in 6 min that included some "coast" phases

>>10237690
gotta test those restarts

leg geometry has changed a tad from '18BFR. wonder if that's a deliberate design choice

>>10237471
Don't worry guys, I stopped by to take some pictures and posted them on my twitter:

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076977053042466821?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet

I think their about to lift the cone and mate it onto the tank.

>>10237767
I got to tour the extremely large array once. those dishes are pretty cool

>>10237769
This thing is being built way too fast, has to be some kind of mockup.

>>10237769
>IMG_9590
you take this yourself?

another video from musky https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076980944106647552

they're the same video
elon why

>>10237782
Yes, it's me Elon, I lurk here...

>>10237797
gib Grimes

>>10237800
>wanting to fuck that ugly mutt
they aren't together anymore, she left him

>>10237769
Probably. Elon is there today, probably too excited to wait and wants to see the thing put together himself.

>>10237701
grasshopper had completely different legs from falcon 9, they're just for testing.

>>10237779
It‘s just a thing for hover tests. Doesn‘t have to deal with Max-Q or reentry or whatever.

>>10237686
Starship can land on a single engine but if you use three normally then you have multi-engine-out capability and landings can be made way more reliable than they already are with Falcon cores.

>>10237769
>b-but Scott said the bottom section was just going to be a mockup!

>>10237544
if its easier then why were you all faggots screaming
>literally impossible
until it happened?

>>10237857
nobody was screaming that
also it obviously isn't easier

>>10237874
>nobody was screaming that
revisionist history

>>10237874
>also it obviously isn't easier

landing 5 ton vehicle in vacuum at 1/6th g
vs
landing a 30 ton vehicle in atmosphere at 1g

It was obviously harder with the technology levels at the time but if you tried to do them both today the booster landings are harder.

>>10237874
You must be joking. Were you even around for the early days? There was everyone from big brain science guys and engineers to pilots saying it was flat out impossible along with a legion of shrieking autists on here who thought they were very big brained too but clearly are fucking not.

>>10237769
thanks Austin

>>10237885
And there's no differences in the relative velocities or anything like that in those two situations.

>>10237886
Any proof? This isn't the first rocket to be able to land again, I'd be surprised if someone really claimed it as impossible.

>>10237890
A human landed the Apollo spacecraft, I would like to see a human hop into a Falcon 9 and land that manually.

>>10237892
there is no proof, muskrats are just delusional and like to mix up "it's unprofitable" with impossible
no sane engineer would claim something as easy as landing a first stage booster is "impossible", especially after space shuttle

>>10237800
Her latest music release was about AI overlords, kek. I wonder who influenced her.

>>10237900
>falcon 9 landing is literally automated
>compscifags wrote it along with the GUI for the control center
>muskfags will still claim it's difficult to do
the absolute state of /sci/

>>10237892
This shit was only like 3 years ago, how new are you?

>>10237905
You could automate an Apollo landing too with today's computers, what's your point?

>>10237907
post one scientist/engineer saying it's impossible

>>10237905
>a computer can do it so its easy

>>10237909
they automated the apollo landings in the 1960s

>>10237909
they did automate it back then you retard
in fucking 1969 the computer had the capability to land the module
the point is muskfags pretend their booster landing is harder than it actually is and start throwing around claims like
>>10237886

>>10237914
Explain to me what makes a lem landing harder than a falcon 9 landing.
we're not talking about the whole apollo misson, we're talking about the landing.

>>10237527

Look it happened again, Rip thread.

>>10237914
The Apollo landings were only partially automated, the astronauts had to control it manually for the final landing phase. No, the LEM could not land itself like an F9...which is why there's that extremely tense scene in First Man, where Armstrong nearly runs out of fuel trying to manually land it whilst avoiding bolders.

>>10237921
>if we exclude all parts that make it difficult it's easier
no shit, of course the landing itself is easier, see >>10237914

>>10237933
Wow look one of them finally made a reply without moving the goalposts.

>>10237931
no.
https://space.stackexchange.com/a/26051

>>10237933
>the landing is more difficult
>no it isn't
>it is when you include everything that isn't the landing

you flew the goalpost to fucking satrun

>>10237937
>>10237942
which one is it, muskfags

funny how things repeat, now CAN WE ALL JUST GET ALONG

>>10237942
where did I claim the landing is more difficult you mongoloid
I'm
>>10237905
>>10237914
>>10237933

>>10237943
we both meant the same thing.
You agree that the landing is easier, but still fucking argue because somehow flying all the way to the moon is included in the phrase "landing.

>>10237946
>what do you mean landing on the moon includes getting there?

>>10237910
not that anon, but sort of this:
http://aviationweek.com/blog/nasa-cnes-warn-spacex-challenges-flying-reusable-falcon-9-rocket?sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_4
I know it's a cop-out answer, but the attitude/beliefs that SpaceX would completely fail weren't exactly things that were published in the news. I'm sure you could find some quotes if you dug hard enough.

>>10237945
in all 3 of those posts you retard

look at this dotard:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46364179

A very detailed anti-Musk piece too (even if Musk isn't the focus, everyone knows he's the only player in the Mars game). Why do the media hate Elon so much? What could it be about him, do you think?

>>10237947
>landing a first stage on earth is harder than landing on the moon
>BUT GETTING TO THE MOON IS HARDER CHECK MATE

>>10237955
I wouldn't call it anti-SpaceX. It never mentions SpaceX. It's more NASA critical.
Still, interesting that he feels that way

>>10237950
"spacex will fail" is not the same as "it's impossible" retardo

considering musk it isnt that unlikely since he likes to bullshit a lot

>>10237963
it does mention SpaceX but it spells it Space X if you arrived at that conclusion with a quick ctrl + f

>>10237955
>no mention of spaced or musk
>literally critical of NASA
>muskfags still feel attacked because muh mars colonisation
absolute kek

>>10237969
see >>10237968

>>10237972
>one mention of musk with bezos in the same sentence
>ANTI MUSK REEE

>>10237969
>Didn't even read the fucking article

>>10237975
I admit I didn't read it, but your retarded anti musk statement still doesn't apply, see >>10237973

>>10237978
>Talks shit
>Doesn't even read what people post

Yeah man you are so big brained.

>>10237980
>gets butthurt about article he can't even interpret correctly
mars colonization is a stupid idea currently btw. in 50-100 years maybe
>inb4 but muh we get more practice and science if we start now
then send some fucking robots

>>10237973
I mentioned nothing about Bezos

EVERYONE knows that manned Mars missions == Elon Musk. Anything attacking manned Mars missions *really is* attacking Musk at this stage.

>show this article to normie
>"oh that Melon Husk guy wants to invade Mars doesn't he? Living on Mars, crazy stuff, eh?"

get a room you dorks, I want to talk about this hopper thing ffs

>>10237779
could be a static test article. That wouldn't need to be very fancy.

>>10237816
the fact that he's there in the first place indicates that they expect the whole thing to be assembled soon, I'd imagine

mmmm, should have a steady stream of pics going forward

>>10237987
Its impossible to get a room because this one fucking fag shows up in every single thread to just constantly fling shit around.

>>10237986
don't worry anon, you will grow up some day too. I was also musk #1 fan back then, even held a few presentations about "muh epic space colonization" with his cgi rockets in school.

>>10237993
and who's fault is it that there is a warzone of arguing?
if you engage but then complain about the engagement it's your fault as well dude

>>10237993
it's not every single thread, he wasn't in the launch day thread at all today that just died, or the previous threads from scrupaggedon

>>10237986
don't worry anon, you will grow up some day too. I was also musk #1 fan back then, even held a few presentations about "muh epic space colonization" with his cgi rockets in school.
the more I worked in my unis space lab the more I realized how much bullshit and marketing he spouts

>>10237992
have they finished stacking the nose cone section up yet? they've got most of that thing done now, looks like

>>10238002
we'll probably know tomorrow

>>10237996
>>10238000
sorry for the double post, mobilefag here

>>10238004
I'm excited

don't worry anon, you will grow up some day too. I was also ULA #1 fan back then, even held a few presentations about "muh epic SMART reuse" with his cgi rockets in school.

>>10238000
>the more I worked in my unis space lab the more I realized how much bullshit and marketing he spouts

I've had similar experience but unlike you I can tell they're senile boomers

>>10238009
>ULA
RENT FREE

>>10238011
HELLO, DID SOMEONE SAY ROADMAP?

>>10238018
>I got a roadmap or 10 for you

>>10237905
>Curiosity, Insight, Huygens, Yutu, Phoenix, Viking, Spirit and Opportunity, Venera landings are literally automated

>>10238026
THANKS FOR LEAVING THE WHOLE CUBESAT MARKET FOR ME, DUMB AMERICAN GAIJIN

>>10237944
based screencap

>>10238027
some of those actually are, but they also are all more complex than simple booster landings

don't worry the horde of "ackshually" muskfags will arrive soon

>>10237984
>mars colonization is a stupid idea currently btw. in 50-100 years maybe
Right because the technology will just materialize eventually whether or not we start actually working on it.

landing from an interplanetary transfer orbit > suborbital controlled propulsive landing on earth > propulsive landing from low lunar orbit

>>10237986
>I mentioned nothing about Bezos

You still didn't read the article. What a nigger.

>>10238043
>cherrypicking this hard
literally read my next paragraph

>>10237997
this is the type of shit argument that causes kids who fight back against bullies to get suspensions

>>10238048
how are robots going to test life support systems adequately

STOP REPLYING TO HIM JESUS CHRIST

>>10238051
>we can't test life support systems on earth or in space, we literally have to go to mars for that

>>10238044
this

BONJOUR, WE CRITIZIZE RE-USE IN THIS THREAD, YES?

>>10238048
>more robots will eventually lead to us sending even one person
no

>>10238051
We could make biorobots that depend on breathable air, pressure, gravitation and the like. Or we could send those two autists since they apparently don't have functioning brains anyway.

>>10238059
yes

>>10238067
>We could make biorobots that depend on breathable air, pressure, gravitation and the like.
Oh ho ho no no no noooo

>>10238064
>what exactly do you expect humans to do on Mars to progress the advance of mars colonization, assuming we had a functional rocket right now?
>>10238067
see
>>10238059

>>10238054
you can sum up what we know about this starship hopper test article in a few sentences:
they're building SOMETHING in a field in texas
Starship will be made out of 300 series stainless
the turbopumps will be made out of a crazy space magic superalloy that they're making in california (it's in cali, right?)
Raptor is being finished with this alloy and should be ready for testing soonish

>>10238059
Mars 2020 Rover will be testing MOXIE. It could be scaled up to supply a martian colony with oxygen.

>>10238077
oh look, NASA doing the real progress once again

>>10238071
>what exactly do you expect humans to do on Mars to progress the advance of mars colonization
Build shit we can live in, quickly and flexibly, for one.

>>10238083
They are just laying the groundwork. I hope that Starship, SLS and New Glenn all take payloads to Mars. We could create a Martian Fuel Depot next to frozen underground or crater lakes. Mars could be a deepspace refueling station for sending Robotic missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn, or or asteroid mining.

>>10238088
yeah, the first humans will be
1) setting up habitats
2) grading landing areas
3) rolling out PV rolls
4) growing stuff
until the ISRU equipment shows up

>>10238077
>>10238083
Moxie is hideously complicated and one of the products is essentially just waste. Electrolysis of water is much simpler, albeit more energy intensive but you end up with another useful compound at the end of the process.

>>10238098
and by grading I mean

>>10238070
It was more for the sake of making that joke.

>>10238083
>real progress is a chemical reaction we already know will work and don't need to send to Mars to find that out

The shit we need to develop isn't technology, it's hardware. With the same life chemistry and electronics and shit we already have we can build Mars hardware right now, the problem is not how to get breathable oxygen out of CO2, it's convincing people to just go ahead and develop a life support cabinet for a Mars habitat instead of a tech demo that you can do in a bottle on Earth.

>>10237905
>compscifags did it so it must be easy
That's incredibly unfair.
We just steal all the actual thinking from the physics/math people.

>>10238106
where's that one NSF forum post where someone lays out how we have the hardware RIGHT NOW to set up an outpost on Mars?
he went through the mass and efficiency of current flexible PV panels, water re-use systems....

>>10238101
>>10238106
>>10238114

>t. retarded anons who think they know more than NASA scientists because they took physics in highschool

>>10238117
honestly we've had the tech to put humans on mars since the 80s desu

>>10238114
I went through a few of those threads, great content. Basically it boiled down to power requirements, everything else is more or less there. The economics with panels were not good so it boiled down to nuclear (not happening but would totally work) or solar film which is very nearly there in terms of energy density.

>>10238125
one of my materials engineering professors was talking about PVs, and how while we're approaching peak efficiency, there is still a lot to do in regards to panel mass

new pics, hot off the presses

>>10238030
>cucksats
>or going to mars
Hmmmmm

>>10238140
>>10238143
based picman

this thing is deceptively large.
For those of you who've been to the air and space museum in DC and gone inside Skylab (it's pretty cool), here's a comparison for you. It should be accurate within five pixels or so.

BFR is one thick rocket. The running track on the inside of the crew section will be awesome

another comparison, with an image from the inside of Skylab

>>10238201
>>10238222
Let's get F9 in the comparison

>>10238222
is skylab the largest diameter space station every flung?

>>10237488
Hey, cut it some slack. It's just a prototype, okay?

>>10238226
Yes

>>10238229
I'm jealous

>>10238224
should be reasonably accurate, I just took the pixel width of BFR and multiplied it by 6.6/9 & 5.3/9 for Skylab and F9

>>10238246
the landing legs make it a bit misleading, I think

>>10238270
on F9?

>>10238288
yeah, use the top of the graphic with the grid fins

skylab was neat

>>10238229
That's shameful
We've advanced so far technologically and industrially, and that old ass tin can remains the best we've managed
NASA is designed to be as worthless as possible

I wonder though... could SpaceX replace Merlins with a shrunk-down Raptor engine for F9? I know they wont do it since BFR is the next thing and F9/FH has reached the end of the major design cycle, I was just wondering if they could, and what advantages it would bring outside of the obviously increased ISP.

>>10238350
It was considered for the 2nd stage, but it was mostly just the Air Force that it would be useful for

>>10238350
Not a lot, because the most important factor for Falcon 9 is its low cost. Replacing the much simpler gas generator powered Merlins with much more complex FFSC Raptors would add a lot of cost, not to mention the extra development time and effort for making a smaller Raptor and installing all the methane handling equipment into the strongback etc.

>>10238331
skylab sucked, it just had the biggest space in the middle to do dumb space flips, which is cool

>>10238350
>shrunk down
is Raptor significantly larger than Merlin? I figured it wouldn't be, judging on how many of the damn things they're going to slap on Super Heavy

>>10238222
That's going to be a tight fit if you're supposed to have 100+ people in each Starship. Even worse is the trips will last 3-6 months.

>>10238432
I think Raptor is some 30% larger physically than Merlin, although a good chunk of that is the engine bell.

>>10238030
y'know, I would have thought Musk would be all over electric rocket engines, given that he runs Tesla as well.

>>10238436
starship is even bigger than that, and I think 100 people is airliner style

>>10238441
Battery just doesn't scale well for larger rocket engines

>>10238441
I think he said that Raptor needs something like 100k horsepower for each turbopump. An electric motor capable of doing that just for one engine is simply unfeasible. The strongest one in the world so far tops out at just under half that and judging by the images of it is bigger than the test-bed's fuselage (and stupidly fucking heavy on top of that)

And Ion engines present their own problems if you're thinking about that.

Theory time, hold onto your hats. The curved dome is clearly part of the mk 1 hopper. But, the cylinder doesn’t appear to be. It’s clearly not made out of SS. And, it’s seemingly hard fastened to the concrete base it is sitting on.
I think that the cylinder base with legs is a shell of sorts that they will use to weld up the outside skin of the lower part of the hopper. Like a forming guide for the welders. Then, they can lift the entire assembly off of the “mold”. This indicates to me that they expect to do rapid development of BFR, and will need a lot of hoppers. I can’t explain the legs though.
Thoughts?

>>10238455
300 series stainless looks more like the bottom thing being built on the slab than it does the shiny stuff, desu

>>10238466
You think? well they’re different, that’s for sure

>>10238468
Yeah
The stainless pipes I worked on were always dull, never shiny
Cold rolled steel just comes out that way
You can polish it up to get that mirror look but it's extra work

Why is the test mule made from heavy metal?

>>10238496
because the final production rocket will also be made from "heavy" metal (300-series stainless)

>>10237805
hello elon

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1077106553189093376

he's answering alot of questions right now

>>10238818
So mirror finish and 3 Raptors. Anything else? I don't know how you youngsters are using this twatter shit.

>>10238818
why is it so small lmao

>>10238818
YES

>>10238866
MAXIMUM SHINY

>>10238864
It's a shortened version for hop tests. Diameter is the same but it's not as tall.

>>10238864
It's the 1/3rd size version.

>>10238866
Only a monster would consider painting the shiny.

>>10238881
aka the actual size version

This is a size comparison between it and the Falcon 9

>>10238897
related

>>10238888
I think that's right. With this new stainless steel material its next to impossible to change stage size because all new tooling will be needed and they are stuck. Shouldn't have moved away from carbon fiber nano structures I guess.

>>10238902
forgot to add bfr 2019
>>10238897

>>10238441
Electron disposes its spent batteries. That‘s antithesis to anything BFR is supposed to do.

>>10238866
>inb4 all astronomers everywhere go blind whenever BFR passes

>>10238916
>yfw humanity's star that caused so much butthurt was ~1m diameter

Hitpieces after the first shiny flights. Called it here first.

>>10238897
And that‘s just the second stage + payload. And it‘s shorter than the final version too.

>>10238904
Elon himself said it was a shorter version. It's basically a bigger version of grasshopper.
I doubt this model will even do suborbital hops, it will probably just be used for hover tests and such.

>>10238919
>muh hitpieces

>>10238924
I was shitposting, anon. Hopper now. Booster in spring. Upper stage? LA tent?

>>10238928
>finally some oc
Now that's more like it fellow redditor. Saving that one for historical reasons.

Mars colonization is musk's hobby, the real money is in this Starlink thing. If they can get low-latency satellite internet built into a vertically integrated corporate model, they can make a LOT of money. The big monopolistic ISPs could get raped hard if ol Musky offers people high-speed internet for half the cost with only minor downsides.

>>10238938
>minor downsides
kek
get ready waiting 2hrs for a website because the shitty satellite doesn't have the capacity to sustain the entire population of a metropolitan area

>>10238941
nigger this isn't a satellite it's a swarm, an almost innumerable cloud of them. The main difficulty is weather, but I gather there's ways of working around that. Shit could print money if it works.

>>10238953
Not innumerable, just several thousand. In reality, that translates to about five satellites overhead at any one time.

>>10238970
>several thousand
12,000+

>>10238976
Earth is relatively big, especially at low altitude.

>>10238953
It is also theoretically lower latency than fiber. It will be popular among wealthy stock traders which should help it in the early adoption phase.

>>10238976
that equates to a satellite above an area of 42000 square kilometers, assuming they are equally distributed.
the entire state of New York would fit about 3 satellites directly above it, and if you include satellites in the visibility range surrounding New York that would be around 10-15 satellites.
now assuming all of those satellites have to provide the internet for New York city and ignoring all the other inhabitants of the state of New York, these 15 satellites have to handle a throughput of the entire city. Now I'm too lazy to calculate this, but it certainly is not enough lmao

>>10239001
it really wouldn't because all you are considering is the direct path, ignoring queues and routing/coordination calculations.
Basically the idea becomes impractical
and the connection is slower as soon as the population hub using the satellite rises above 50-100k

>>10239017
Entire cities aren't going to switch to it overnight, and I doubt landlines will disappear entirely.
Replacing the satellites will be an ongoing operation anyway, so there will be plenty of opportunity to upgrade the constellation over time as demand grows.

>>10237488
this is the upper stage only

>Polished stainless steel rocket

Just came in my pants, fucking glorious.

>>10239020
i literally calculated with the maximum capacity, assuming all satellites are already deployed
how are you going to "upgrade it"

>>10239017
>it really wouldn't because all you are considering is the direct path, ignoring queues and routing/coordination calculations.

Same applies to fiber connections. Starlink will be lower latency than fiber for connections in excess of ~3000km. The reason is that is is using the shortest path and the signal moves at the speed of light through vacuum, which is roughly a third faster than in fiber optics. There are simulations to show this.

>>10239038
De-orbit older satellites and launch upgraded ones to replace them; it's what Iridium have done and the Airforce are doing with their new GPS 3 constellation.

>>10238933
Looks like the Wallace and Gromit moon rocket

>>10239038
Newer/better hardware, more relays per satellite, more satellites, etc.
This thread is about Starship though, let's not get too off topic.

>>10239045
>Same applies to fiber connections
stop embarassing yourself, anon

>>10239056
>15 satellites
>for a population of 8 million
I think you don't really understand what that means

>>10239106
>I think you don't really understand what that means

I think you don't understand the modus operendi of SpaceX's business model. If the service grows and revenues reach the potential that they're looking at, they'll be able to aim future low-orbital constellation launches at those major metro areas, with greater bandwidth and link coverage, with future iterations of the communications satellites. Since each one is expected to have a short operational life, they'll be launching plenty of replacements, and the constellation's capabilities should only grow with time as the technology improves.

>>10239118
>he still doesn't get it
let me explain it to you the simpleton way:
satellites are extremely inefficient because they have only a few major population points in their orbit path. most of the time it is literally water below them
how long do you imagine a signal in a centralised connection hub (satellites), compared to our, decentralised node tree system would take?

it's literally a system that doesn't scale, or does so very shittily to say the least.

>>10239130
don't forget
>it starts raining
>internet connection gone

>>10238933
>>10238902
>>10238897
>>10239051

>>10239143
kek

>>10239143
I like this.

>>10239130
Nice to know that your detraction points are only there to speak past the point I was making. They will inevitably scale the satellite constellation for revenues as it makes sense to do so, and that includes increasing the amount of bandwidth servicing metro areas with lots of customers.

>>10239143
Wait, they scaled down the circumference again?

>>10239143

>>10239118
Isn't the whole point that there's going to be internet EVERYWHERE? Why complain that the ocean is getting coverage?
Metropolitan areas aren't the main target demographic of this anyway.

The virgin Saturn V
The chad BFR

>>10239181
No one is complaining about Ocean Coverage. My entire point is that because of the way this architecture works, they can hypothetically set up an orbital inclination's worth of satellites that do nothing but service one or two metropolitan areas with a number of high bandwidth satellites, in addition to all the other coverage they already offer.

>>10239157
No, it's still 9M, the scaling is just off in this picture.
>>10239143
Mr photoshop wizard, could I humbly request that you edit this so the width of the BFR matches the hopper.

>>10239190
>this is somehow more efficient, cheaper and more appealing what we currently have
have fun waiting 2 minutes for your picture since you are in the normal queue and don't have the Premium Package™

>>10239222
>satellite internet is impossible

>>10239225
>brainlet doesn't get the point once again

>>10239222
We're just going around in circles.
>It will never be fast
>they will add more bandwidth to their low latency constellation
>It will never be fast

>>10239227
>literal dunning kruger never lived outside a city

>>10239233
>more complexity
>lower latency
pick fucking one in a decentralised satellite system you mongoloid

>>10239243
>another brainlet not even getting what we are arguing about

>>10239246
>autistic screeching

>>10239245
>pick fucking one in a decentralised satellite system you mongoloid

>What is low physical distance and the speed of light in a vacuum

>>10239254
do you even understand what I meant by complexity
do you know what the complications of a growing peer to peer network are?

>>10239260
>do you know what the complications of a growing peer to peer network are?

Latency is not one of those complications. Case in point: the Internet. An extremely complex peer to peer network with low latency.

>>10239245
oh yes, because routing through a handful of satellites is oh so complex, you retard

>>10239264
>>10239267
muskfags don't even know how the internet works, why am I even surprised lmao

>>10239007
Big cities are not the target market for starlink also fuck cities

>>10239269
The professional network engineers I know trust that it will work. Why should anyone listen to you?

>>10239271
>the deflection begins

>>10239272
>musk literally claims Starlink won't use ipv6 and a "peer to peer network"
>anons imaginary engineer friends already somehow know all about it and assure him that it will work

>>10239276
>won't use ipv6
Enjoy running out of address space LOSER

>>10239276
Here's your last you; you really shouldn't waste your time spouting nonsense.

>>10239280
>nonsense
https://www.alphr.com/space/1008632/Elon-Musk-SpaceX-Starlink-internet

>>10238866
IT BEGINS

>>10239143
>>10239196
I did the thing

>>10239317
That hopper design and shape looks awful familiar...

>>10239233
Of course, that's a shills job

>>10239326
>muh shills
muskfags are unironically the biggest shills anywhere

>>10239328
You seem to have a whole lot of time to shit on spacex for no reason regardless of if you get paid for it.
Every single fucking thread you come into and shit up, claiming a rocket doesn't exist while looking at pictures of it.

>>10239337
>claiming a rocket doesn't exist
muskfags are so desperate they even start producing claims people critical of him never made

>>10239337
why are you responding

>>10239343
>Amerishits are utterly delusional and believe this is real.

first post of the last thread

>>10237471
>Boca Chica.
Texas? My dad lives a few miles south.

>>10239353
isn't that in fucking mexico at that point

>>10239350
link it

>>10239343
t. Roscosmos engineer with a drill....

>>10239337
>shit on spacex for no reason
People like to talk about things to assess if their knowledge is well thought out or accurate. No need to feel threatened by criticism of something you like.

>>10238866
SHINY AND CHROME

>>10239372
shill

>>10239317
Thx, let me give you a shiny render as payment.

>>10237527
>no jello babies

I am disappoint.

>>10239233
>>10239222
Current satellite internet isn't too bad right now. But, that shit is super far away so there's a shit ton of latency. However, the one Musk will be doing is extremely close to the Earth so the latency won't be very much at all, in fact it will be faster than most of what we use right now.

>Hughesnet uses 2 main sats now; which has increased their bandwidth and speed a great deal, but they still cap data and bandwidth like hungry Jews. The last one launched last year, "EchoStar XIX" operates in geostationary orbit, at a longitude of 97.1 degrees west.

>EchoStar XIX
>35,783.80km altitude
>http://www.n2yo.com/?s=41893

>EchoStar XVII
>35,782.19km altitude
>http://www.n2yo.com/?s=38551

>Their old one,

>Spaceway-3
>35786.80km altitude
>http://www.n2yo.com/?s=32018

>Since SpaceX's Starlink will have 12,000 satellites (fug) as its network they must be very very close to the Earth. Officially between, "1,110km and 1,325km." Compare that to the ISS at 422km and Iridium-104 at 780km. The air travel (bird fly) shortest distance from United States to Europe is 7,895.1 km. Total round trip distance for Starlink communications would be 2,220km to 2,650km.

>Geo orbit lag time is 240ms - 279ms for the round trip.
>Starlink lag time would be less than 10ms round trip.

>>10239383
thicc

So, steelfags won?

I expected rare titanium alloy or something.

>>10239407
Elon claims that stainless would be stronger at cryo and heat than carbon fiber, which is what he's comparing against
titanium is too expensive unless you're building on the moon, I think, in which case it's your best bet

>>10239405
>Iridium lower than starlink
>still more actual latency
umm I wonder whether he pulled the number out of his ass by doing napkin calculations

>>10239413
Latency for Iridium isn't listed but the latency numbers were dependent on distance latency, not on actual hardware latency. You can be right next to a wifi router and get insane levels of latency if the hardware is shit or they are throttling it. There's a shit load of throttling going on for most satellite use simply due to queuing and jood. I think that info was posted last year in October.

>>10239413
>>10239434
>Iridium operates at only 2.2 to 3.8 kbit/s, which requires very aggressive voice compression[45] and decompression algorithms.[46] (By comparison, AMR used in 3G phones requires a minimum of 4.75 kbit/s, G.729 requires 6.4 kbit/s, and iLBC requires 13.33 kbit/s.) Latency for data connections averages 1800 ms round-trip, with a mode of 1300 to 1400 ms and a minimum around 980 ms.[47] Latency is highly variable depending on the path data takes through the satellite constellation as well the need for retransmissions due to errors, which may be around 2 to 3% for mobile originated packets under good conditions.

>>10239413
>>10239434
>>10239441
Latency will depend on how it is routed and will change with each connection depending on that. With more satellites there will be less problems with latency since routing will be more direct. Point-to-point distance latency will always be super fast, but hardware latency is always super slow.

>>10239446
>With more satellites there will be less problems with latency since routing will be more direct.
lol

>>10237890
>there's no differences in the relative velocities or anything like that in those two situations.
Do you think the lunar lander came onto the surface at interplanetary velocity or something? It deorbited, slowed down and landed. It would literally hover over the surface and look for a place to land. The falcon booster comes in and does a suicide burn.

>>10239450
He's comparing it to landlines, retard.

>"There are L2 photos that show the “water tower” plates end on.
anyone have em?

>>10239469
no shit, doesnt make it any less false

MEANWHILE ON THE NASASPACEFLIGHT FORUM

>>10239485
It is the difference of bouncing the signal 2 satellites one directing having it emit from one that is further away than emitting from one that is bounce to 6 satellites and ends up directly overhead.

>>10239494
>inb4 anon gets banned
I assure you I tried shitposting but "no u" "fake" and "gtfo nigger" doesn't get you far the mods there are absolute despots.

>>10239494
What does, "FUD," mean in that context? Also, what does 4chan have to do with anything? This is 4channel.

>>10239534
fear, uncertainty, doubt

>>10239484
Also some info on that methane rcs talk.

>>10239536
Ah, seems like they don't know who they are dealing with. It should be "hard headed, stalwart, opinionated." Just what you'd except from actual fudds.

>>10239548
>muh .45

>>10239494
>muskfags butthurt every time someone doubts their god
>literally resort to making fun of other Forums

>>10239584
>but this is why elon musk is so awesome!

>>10239584
*welding your mars colony ship on Christmas eve-eve
it's wacky how frantically they're putting this thing together, working nights etc

>>10239591
/ourguy/ Chris G doesn't deserve that label anon

>>10239494
>virgin 4channeler musk fanboy gets banned for FUD
>meanwhile chad Boeing ex navy spec ops test pilot guy who owns sub orbital capable 777 casino equipped jet liner shitposts every single spacex thread there and wins all discussions using personal experience insider info and airplane anecdotes and analogies

NSF is the best place for spaceflight discussion and quite positive of musk which is surprising when you compare how popsci garbage centers tends to view his work. L2 is a tempting offer.

>>10239592
The faster they finish, the faster the literal infinite shekels come in
The workers are probably gonna get a massive bonus from Musk if they can finish BFR by 2020
Thry probably wont do that but by god they'll try

>>10239542
so no separate cold gas thrusters? they siphon off of the big CH4 tank?

I put together a quick text file with what we know so far, should I pop it in a new thread? This one just got 'talicized and has a big ugly tumor in the middle of it

>>10239617
>muh infinite shekels
from what lmao
>inb4 starlink

>>10239626
no, spacex threads should die. popsci has no place on /sci/

>>10239620
That was always the plan for the BFR. I'm not even sure why I'm surprised they might be added to the hopper. It just doesn't feel real.

>>10239641
there don't appear to be any orifices in the ship body to accommodate thrusters. perhaps they drill holes out for them after the fact

>>10239596
Chris G is a basedboy, Chris B on the other hand is the real OG.

Let's talk about our retro future, all shiny and chrome please

>>10239660
(and gold)

>>10239658
>defending a literal company cock slurping basedboy

>>10239584
based

>>10239658
Foust > pbdes > The Chrises > Messier = Dean = Seemangal >>> Grush > Ralph > Berger

>>10239551
Thanks, I appreciated that

>>10239592
They're welders, they get antsy if you don't work them weekends and nights
They'll think business isn't good because you're trying to avoid overtime and go elsewhere

I'm literally laughing my ass off.
Can't wait for this horrible thing to lift off the ground and check all the benchmarks 1 by 1, against all odds, and logic.
It's gonna be glorious, for sure.

>>10239551
I have no clue what that means.

>>10239626
I'll be looking forward to it

>>10239733
>against all odds
again this meme from muskfags that somehow everyone thinks it's impossible what they do

I made a may may

>>10239699
>Foust
The undisputed champion of space reporting
>pbdes
Great, if you like massive paywalls...
>The Chrises
G a shuttlefag, B a cute.
>Dean
Bland, but nothing necessarily bad about him...
>Seemangal
Way too political...
>Grush
Token semi-attractive women who uses click bait
>Ralph
Basedboy who writes articles about literally anything remotely SpaceX, no matter how insignificant. Also, way too political but at least he has good photographers.
> Berger
The man who publishes legendary 'bombshell' articles, writing is often obscured by bias and opinion; Ars Technica is quintessential basedboy media.

You've missed a few good ones out like Michael Baylor, Sandra Erwin and Marcia Smith.

>>10239764
yeah I'll update it. >>10239758
I also forgot Ken Kremer

>>10239755
How many levels of salty are you?
Did they refuse your internship or something?

>>10239769
>implying anyone same in the industry wants to go to spacex for anything else than a quick pump and dump

>>10239772
Well what's your problem, then?
We're all curious what's going on with this shit and formulating ideas.
All you do is go at everyone's throat calling them a muskfag just for showing interest.

alright how is it now

>>10239745
it's a /k/ thing
fudds (after Elmer Fudd, the OG Fudd) carry around 1911 handguns because it shoots a forty-five caliber bullet ("fuddy-five")

>>10238432
It's significantly bigger and it has over 3x the thrust.

>>10238904

>>10239800
WON TWO WORLD WARS

>>10239785
you spout retarded things diminishing all other accomplishments and think landing a fucking booster is the most difficult thing there is

>>10239827
Guys, seriously, what's wrong with that person?
He's like a broken record.

>>10239826
*3
>>>/k/40000000

What are the chances BFR actually turns out to be profitable? It seems like Spacex is just digging a money pit because Elon wants to go to Mars. How will they pay to develop the most complicated space vehicle ever built?

>>10239817
Cool. How many are under Super Heavy?

>>10239846
31

>>10239848
Jesus Christ

>>10239837
Personally, I think he's a bot from an artificial intelligence experiment ran by Boeing.

>>10239843
HERRO THERE

>>10239850
ITS had 42. At least the
>but you can't have a rocket with that many engines!1!11! / muh N1
people were shut up by Falcon "27 merlins" Heavy

>>10239859
This
# of engines doesn't matter if you can actually test them and can test fire the stage.

>>10239837
He’s another pathological hater. Just like people who feel the need to shit on a daily basis on popular things like apple products. It’s a combination of sour grapes and a coping machanism for their own shortcommings. They can’t just love their own things, they constantly need to shit on certain things and remind others how crap their enjoyments are. These guys hate hate with passion because it’s the only thing they do with passion.

>>10239859
I don't think it's impossible, but we shouldn't use Falcon Heavy as a proof of concept for BFR; as 27 engines split between 3 cores, is not the same as 31 on a single core. The vibration dynamics and plumbing is vastly different.

If anything, this will serve as a testbed for the Raptor engine.
I fully expect this thing to blow up one or two times before they move to real Starship production.
What's encouraging is that making it out of steel should shorten building time by a lot.

Now there's also this part of my mind that keeps thinking this is just a giant trolling event.

>>10239837
Autism and ocd.

>>10239877
I agree, the super heavy testing will make or break starship

>>10239896
>giant stainless starship shaped water tower
Pls no

>>10239877
Don't forget it plays both ways
>3 cores 3x separate plumbing + complicated booster connections and load spread and separation events
The engine count's probably fine. The engine though... At least we'll see how it behaves soon.

>>10237792
He's probably stoned

>>10239903
One way or the other I hope we get to see some kabooms

Terran Trade Authority when

there are a bunch of trucks still over at the assembly area, so we might see integration today

>>10239935
Every time I see an image of old scifi rockets I get butthurt thinking about the spaceplane craze and what it did. Not fair.

>>10239958
At least we're now shifting to big, fat, shiny rockets. Hopefully New Armstrong will also be big and fat and shiny

>>10239963
Well, coincidentally New Glenn went from a big, fat and shiny lipstick looking thing, to an ugly dildo that looks like a Falcon 9 ripoff. BFR on the other hand, did the same aesthetic transformation just vice-versa...

>>10240046
*sinks your boat*

>>10240104
Jesus christ are they seriously planning on having people on the ship?

>>10240112
>>10240104
>program and build stage landing system
>it works
>make more rockets
>it fails
>you die

>>10240112
not sure, actually. blue origin has bought the boat to convert - it's called Stena freighter

>>10237527
holy kek

>>10239793
where is scott manley?

>>10240241
>HULLO tier

>>10240250
Is that above or below or in the middle

>>10240267
it's separate

This thing is going to be ready in a week at this rate holy shit.

new >>10240388

>>10239354
Practically.

>>10240267
It just is.