/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10258252
Get a life, loser.

>>10258252
Closeup of the obvious discontinuity of the nozzle curve, Raptor dual nozzle confirmed? It's probably to allow for extreme low throttling without limiting the expansion ratio. This way they can get high efficiency at full throttle as well as deep throttle capability without having to pull some bullshit like aerospike engines or some kind of deformable nozzle.

Basically, at full throttle exhaust stays stuck to the nozzle walls and is fully expanded, getting maximum thrust efficiency, at low throttle flow separates cleanly at the discontinuity in the curve and doesn't flap around, providing stable thrust at lower efficiency but allowing for way lower throttle settings than would otherwise be possible.

This is thread SEVEN
Previous: >>10252814

>>10258309
>pic related

>>10258323
>stop talking about this interesting topic just shitpost more about topology!! SPACEX IS NOT MATH OR SCIENCE REEEEE

>>10258336
it’s just important to keep track anon
it’ll be fun to go back to the very first thread when we’re on thread #74 or whatever

>SpaceX
>>>>/g/
>>>>/n/
>>>>/out/

>>10258309
This seems to be correct, and one wonders what the end goal will be when they differentiate between Super Heavy raptors and starship raptors down the road

>>10258340
>>10258270
aren’t you a bucket of fun

>>10258334
Wonder what the writing above the leg says

>>10258347
The hopper is gonna be longer than that

>>10258390
I believe we’re up to 42m or thereabouts with the addition of the new 3-segment dome piece

>>10258342
My guess would be that the landing engines on Starship and all the engines on Super Heavy will always be common and the only change will be the addition of vacuum optimized Raptors on Starship. SpaceX still wants to minimize production costs, which means they will probably avoid having three production models of Raptor at once, especially since two will be pretty much redundant (not really anything to gain by having a non-stepped nozzle for the non-landing engines on Super Heavy, the whole point of a stepped nozzle is to get pretty much the same efficiency at full throttle as a normal engine). Apart from block changes like when SpaceX went from Merlin 1C to Merlin 1D, I don't think we're going to see a huge diversification of engine types, just the addition of vacuum engines once SpaceX decides to build the world's biggest vacuum test stand somewhere and develop that version.

>>10258347
This rocket is going to be so fucking kino man.

>>10258402
Also, until starlink is finished up they’ll be volume limited for most payloads. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see a payload capacity stretch in the first orbital design.

>>10258406
I seriously can't wait to see the real thing. I'm just worried that one is going to blow up and kill a bunch of people because there is no LES.

>>10258406
I don’t think any of us appreciate how immense the flame will be from the 28 raptors or whatever lighting up on Super Heavy.
Those sonic booms will be an earsplitting affair on landing too

>>10258390
this was made when we didn't know about the mid section, just the cone and the base.

>>10258414
In 1908 the wright brothers demonstrated their airplanes to the army. An army officer was killed in a crash during the tests.
A year later, the army had officially adopted the wright brothers plane as their first aircraft.

It’s a bit of a stretch to compare the two, but I think a similar thing could happen and we’d still see massive adoption of this new transportation system. 100 tons anywhere, in an hour, including LEO, for a few million bucks. No amount of high profile deaths can halt the take rate for a service like that.

>>10258426
If the military adopts it, we can assume that spacex will be around for a long, long time. Even given that possibility, the space industry is already heavily regulated and isn't really comparable imo. The government could shut the whole thing down and all it would take is a couple of boomer congressmen to get their panties in a wad.
I'm not opposed to Musk blowing people up on the quest for the space age, but NASA and congress won't allow it if there is a high profile accident too early in the program. Not to mention that the general public is so sensitive to space related deaths now...

Here’s a thought about prices.
-the goal is $7,000,000 per flight. This is fucking insane in how low it is, but doable with the starship architecture.
Scenerios:
>Starship is TEN TIMES more expensive than they think
Result- starship is still ridiculously fucking cheap. People have been fired for price related calculatory fuck ups of less severity.
>Starship is ONE HUNDRED TIMES more expensive than they think
Result- starship is STILL SUBSTANTIALY CHEAPER THAN SLS

It’s kinda hard to lose here

>>10258440
If I had to put money on it, I would say that it will probably be somewhere between the two. The kind of R&D they have to do for this thing is insane, and I can't see it happening in just a few years. But I really hope Musk proves me wrong and sends people to Mars in 2024.

Even so, a super heavy launch vehicle with that kind of price range is unthinkable right now and would probably change the game.

>>10258442
Hopefully someone will squeeze out of Elon if they think the total dev cost is still around 5 billion or if it has gone down/up

>>10258442
>The kind of R&D they have to do for this thing is insane, and I can't see it happening in just a few years.

They're already several years into core systems development; it's not like they're on year zero.

>>10258440
My guess is when Starship fully steps onto the market and starts selling rides to orbit, it starts off priced at $40-50 million per launch for external customers and completely replaces Falcon 9 and Heavy immediately (except for fringe cases where people actually *want* to use a Falcon 9/Heavy for whatever reason). Starship also launches at marginal cost (much cheaper) for Starlink since it's internal to SpaceX anyway. Over time due to launch revenue and Starlink revenue they finish development of the actual Starship manned vehicle (first version are Chompers, cargo only). At this point it will be pretty clear if anyone is going to actually bite on Earth to Earth or not, if that does happen then SpaceX kicks production into high gear to manufacture a fleet of hundreds of Starships and Super Heavies to service that market, if not they continue marking money on Starlink internet and continue to funnel much of that cash into their Mars/Moon goals.

At some point NASA steps up and starts buying flights to the Moon, Mars, Near Earth Asteroids, maybe a flyby of Venus. Blunderfoot also kills himself some point along the way.

>>10258457
>SpaceX kicks production into high gear to manufacture a fleet of hundreds of Starships and Super Heavies
>Blunderfoot also kills himself some point along the way

Best timeline desu

>>10258457
Maybe I'm wrong, but Earth to Earth seems like a dead end except for possible military applications. The ride would not be appealing to civilian passengers because of the intense acceleration and probable nausea.

>>10258442
>The kind of R&D they have to do for this thing is insane
Can we list the big ones?

>Raptor
Seems almost done at this point, they just finished up with a design overhaul that was probably mostly adjusting pump layout and other things to reduce weight/achieve flight ready status.
>Super Heavy
They seem extremely confident that they aren't going to have any significant issue with this part, despite it being the most powerful rocket stage ever by a large margin. I agree with them, though. It's pretty much going to be a stainless steel tube with a thrust plate on the bottom, some internal stringers and battens, a big engine cluster, and the recovery hardware. Biggest challenge is clearly going to be achieving reliable centimeter-scale landing accuracy to allow for launch cradle returns, but since they're adding those beefy control thrusters they say it will not be very difficult. They'll also have far superior throttle range compared to Falcon 9, so if they REALLY need to they can actually hover for a couple seconds to correct for an error.
>Life support
Probably their least known unknown, however I remember Elon saying that they're pretty much just going to scale up Dragon's systems and have enough supplies to last the astronauts the duration of the mission. I'm not sure if Dragon recycles water but I'd bet that's going to be one of the things they'll want, the ability to reduce CO2 will also be highly beneficial for supplying oxygen without needing to dip into the main propellant tank. Closed loop life support is pretty much impossible though especially on a spacecraft with such a high population density, even if you only bring ten people.
>regenerative cooling TPS
Don't know enough to comment in depth but it makes sense in principal so long as carbon soot doesn't form while entering Mars' CO2 atmosphere and cause the vehicle's reflectivity to dramatically drop, overwhelming the active cooling and causing a burn-up.

Anything else?

Let’s see, 1U is 0.001m3. Starship can hold 1000m3.
That’s a MILLION 1U cubesats. SSO-A a shit, when we making scisat

>>10258468
>The ride would not be appealing to civilian passengers because of the intense acceleration and probable nausea.
I agree, roller coasters will never catch on.

>>10258478
>when we making scisat
Shitpost satellites will rapidly become a real concern and regulators are going to step in to ruin the fun.

>>10258479
>it's another "retards think rockets will be cheaper than planes" episode

>>10258478
How many 1U cubesats do even fly anymore? Whenever I hear about a small group building one it's at least in a 2U form

>>10258477
These are all interesting points. Maybe Elon's 2020 comments actually make sense this time.

>life support
I bet NASA will get on board with the development of the spacecraft systems at some point when they realize Musk is serious about it. Some government funding couldn't hurt the timeline, either.

>>10258486
Fine, half a million cubesats.

>>10258477
Life support will be the real kicker I think. The airflow and filtration need to get beefier according to the cube of the size increase, after all. Luckily things like urine reclamation becomes more efficient when scaled up.

>>10258482
A round trip around the world in a subsonic jet can be made once a day at best. A suborbital rocket launch can make that round trip in two hours, if the rocket propelled vehicle is reliable enough.

>>10258492
I'm just a piece of shit retard in boxer shorts but if I was in charge I'd be gunning for Starship Super Heavy Chomper version ASAP in order to get Starlink happening quickly, to light a fire under not only NASA but the entire world of space launch's collective ass, and to prove to everyone that "Yes, BFR is ACTUALLY happening for real and we actually DO plan on taking it to Mars". The manned version needed for a Moon flyby is cool but really if that slips it doesn't matter at all, what matters is getting that return on investment into Raptor and SSH development and setting up that large revenue stream quickly.

>>10258503
yes and?
you do know why we don't use supersonic jets despite them being faster? travel time is not the top priority of passengers.

Elon said a while ago that when the Dragon 2 design team wraps up, they’re all moving to BFR. They’re now battle hardened after surviving years of NASA reviews, 3X safety margin design specifications, retarded MMOD and LOC requirements, & other mind numming technical hurdles. Wouldn’t be surprised if starship is now a walk in the park - no agency to answer to, huge mass and volume budgets, plus the freedom to get potentially useful but new ideas approved by Elon and Co.

>>10258495
Life support I can see being a snag that holds up interplanetary manned flights for a while, first it will be capable of several weeks on orbit with humans, enough for quick Moon missions, but iterating on life support V1.0 up to interplanetary life support with all the reliability and capacity needed is simply gonna take a while. There's still plenty of shit to do in space within a three week round trip tho, lots of room for Moon base construction and supply contracts and everything between here and there.

>>10258468
Also the safety factor. More than 1% of rocket launches nowadays fail. If I were a company sending employees across the Pacific or something, I wouldn't want a 1% chance of them dying.

>>10258506
>you do know why we don't use supersonic jets despite them being faster?
Sonic booms breaking windows making the most economical flights out of Europe impossible.
It's a fact no one can deny that if the first super sonic airliner had been developed by Japan for flights across the Pacific they would still be in service today on their fifth generation of design optimization.

>>10258506
>you do know why we don't use supersonic jets despite them being faster? travel time is not the top priority of passengers.

The reason why we don't use supersonic jets is because the economics of the routes available to the Concorde weren't available, it took engineering miracles to make it work in its era, and it hardly seated anyone, used an enormous amount of fuel, and suffered from high prices as a result.

>>10258492
Musk seems to be expecting NASA support for the BFR eventually. While the rocket itself is looking more and more likely, SpaceX couldn't pull off a Mars mission without them. NASA probably won't adopt the BFR architecture for a Mars mission until it's actually flying though.

>>10258508
>plus the freedom to get potentially useful but new ideas approved by Elon and Co
I do believe the new actively-cooled TPS design owes itself to this. No way would NASA even consider an actively cooled system on a manned spacecraft nowadays, whereas if SpaceX had the idea earlier and no NASA to shoot it down I'd bet Dragon 2 would have had a mirror polish stainless steel finish with a water cooled bottom. It'd make the capsule much easier to reuse and much more reusable after a dunk in the ocean, after all.

>>10258309
Is it not for sea level/vacuum operation?

>>10258520
This is correct. Elon has repeated multiple times that SpaceX would gladly be the railroad to the east of space if everyone else did the hardware you needed when you get there. He’s said to some extent that SpaceX can be the transportation side of colonization, but anything else and it gets iffy timeline and cost wise.

Someone stop the mad lad before he hurts himself https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1079895177970372608

>>10258528
*railroad to the west

>>10258523
The expansion ratio is already too low for vacuum. It's almost certainly for deep throttling.

>>10258513
>used an enormous amount of fuel, and suffered from high prices as a result.
Apparently Concorde was actually making money for a while though, it was that one crash just after takeoff that led to it being retired.

A new supersonic jet aircraft with a wider body and modern engines would be wonderful for bringing nations across the pacific closer together. Flying from America to Australia or from either place to Japan would no longer be a nightmare. Hell with the market over the Pacific you could probably support cheaper fights across the Atlantic as well, much cheaper than Concorde ever was anyway.

Of course that market pretty much goes away if you have a point-to-point 7 km/s transport option available.

>>10258546
there’s plenty of research in the area. Just no money to bring it to market.

>>10258546
You're right about the economics of air transport, which is why there are ongoing design studies to bring supersonic air travel back into service - especially now that there's a path towards quieting sonic booms enough to permit overland flight.

>>10258523
Definitely not for vacuum VS sea level regimes. The nozzle exit area of the second step is actually only a little over-expanded from what you'd expect for a sea-level optimized engine. The smaller step is clearly way too small to be for Raptor at full thrust at sea level, it's probably for something like 30% throttle or less.

Raptor will probably operate in two modes, Full Thrust (where the exhaust is high pressure enough to completely fill the entire nozzle and the engine can throttle back by twenty percent or so), and Partial Thrust (where the chamber pressure is reduced so much that the exhaust flow separates on the first step and allows a throttle range between 30% and 20%, roughly). Full thrust mode would be used for all launch burns and deep space maneuvers, and Partial thrust mode would be used for all landing burns. This explains why Starship can use three engines to land, they all ignite in Partial thrust mode at a low throttle setting for the landing burn, and if one fails the other two throttle up to compensate. If two engines fail at once the remaining engine can gun it up to Full thrust mode (not necessarily 100% thrust but probably close to it) and still land the vehicle safely on its own.

Also for an otherwise vacuum optimized engine that can still fire at sea level you'd be looking at the RS-25 solution, where the nozzle step happens right at the nozzle exist and actually steps IN slightly, discouraging boundary separation. This works well for an engine with an expansion ratio so high that at seal level it would otherwise tear itself apart; however it ONLY works when that engine is firing at full thrust. Since we know Raptor is going to be capable of deep throttling that can't be the case; having a stepped nozzle simply recovers some of the thrust performance while still retaining the ability to throttle far lower than that expansion ratio would otherwise support in atmosphere.

>>10258555
trips confirm

>>10258553
Isn't that plane just a wide body sub sonic aircraft though?

>>10258574
that’s sort of the point. Airliners want the easy way out. Cutting fuel costs is the one cost that isn’t fixed or out of their reach

>>10258570
This seems quite different than the current BE-4 configuration. Does blue origin’s design have any advantages?

>>10258593
AFAIK they land with one engine only all the time, it's really the fact that Starship needs to land using three engines at once that necessitates the stepped nozzle (maybe, if my speculation is correct). Since only one BE-4 fires for landing of New Glenn it doesn't have to throttle back as far.

>>10258347
Quinoa as fuck

>>10258761
probably the sexiest rocket ever designed

>>10258770
the windows and canards are unironically ugly as fuck

>>10258795
The windows will probably not be in the final version, it's just a massive engineering problem for what can be done with cameras and screens.

>>10258795
we don't know what the final design will look like though. gotta wait for the technical overview in three months by Musk

>>10258798
the "hopper" in that render literally looks better than the "final version" simply because it doesn't have those tacky as fuck windows

>>10258834
>>10258839
Thats neat as fuck

What would a Cargo Starship look like? The renders posted post what appears to be the crewed Starship.

>>10258854
no windows, large hinged cargo door.

Put bfr in title next time you little coffee sucking of a meatless chilly mess.
Also interesting debate in NSF if Boca chica gal is even really real

>>10259110
link it you maniac

>>10259116
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47022.720
Check next pages too

>>10259121
Looks like it's just autism, photos are legit.

>>10258347
It's directly out of the 1950s. The fact that the final design even has the potential to be real is fucking insane. I'm not sure my body can withstand this sustained level of hype.

>>10259148
I prefer the original ITS design desu but this is also extremely kino.

When can we expect copycats? From history we know ussr and now china tend to focus espionage and reverse engineering efforts on what is perceived as leaders in given field in the west. With the advent of BFR we can safely assume eyes will shift to them. Give it about 10 years and the chinese will whip out a semi-functional copy similar to how the russians managed to build a shuttle, attempted recreating ibm microprocessor architectures and so on. What about the US though? BO finds more tolerance from oldspace than spacex, so could we expect some unified effort under the guise of preventing monopolies?

>>10259148
It looks like this steel starship could have been built with 60s level technology. Including Raptors since methane is easier to work with than hydrogen, even tough their design would have to be simplified. I swear if it turns out NASA wasted 50 years when we could have been flying these, I will figuratively kill myself right there and then.

>>10259216
Chinks already do more launches than SpaceX and no doubt have some international students interns doing casual industrial espionage in SpaceX.

>>10258521
>we find this particular design unnecessarily increases the risk of LOC
>how about a minor redesign?
>here's some suggestions

>>10259220
That's not too far off the mark. The problem really boils down to the fact that NASA is a big complicated rat's nest that also has to constantly bend to the fickle will of Congress.

>>10259220
Look into the early shuttle proposals and prepare a rope.
Though admittedly they offered higher price per kg than falcon heavy.

>>10259224

I thought you needed a green card to work at spaceX?

>>10259220
>>10259229
Early flyback booster STS concept. Essentially what SpaceX is building but both stages manned, winged, and horizontally landing. And limited to LEO cargo only where a large spacestation-dock would await with separate nuclear deep space ferries, landers, and so on. BFR instead combines the entire infrastructure into one vehicle capable of all tasks like a true starship.

Some claim this reduces efficiency and separate roles would be better. But imagine what happens if the BFR is split into various "optimal" vehicles and given to different contractors, NASA oversight, and financed by Congress. You don't have to. It happened.

To understand why they are doing this in a seemingly low-tech way like this, you have to keep in mind that this is a fucking Mars rocket. There are no launch facilities on Mars. This will not be your usual delicate launch vehicle.

This entire thing will be launched by a crew of a dozen men working over a few days. There will be no launch pad, it will be done from an uneven ground, with dirt in the nozzle and dirt in the fuel tank. Mueller is known for feeding nuts into Merlin intake, what do you think he will do to Raptors?

Then after it is launched to 5 km, it will land on dirt, again be refueled by the same handful of people over one day, and launch again. And then again.

Mars demands nothing less.

>>10259224
What if I told you that the Chinese making a Starship knock-off is not only possible but inevitable?

>>10259335
New videos of gigantic explosions are always cool. I welcome their efforts.

>>10259342
Considering how much technology they've stolen and successfully re-implemented I wouldn't expect there to be too many explosions tbhon. It would be great for launch industry too.

>>10259335
they only copy things that work, so no

>>10258426

The difference is that DARPA already has Boeing's XS-1 coming soon, no reason to commit to SpaceX's vehicle now unless they can prove it's a better system than the XS-1. Ditto for the Stratolaunch, both of which threaten the market SpaceX currently inhabits. Both are capable of putting more things into orbit yearly since their turnaround times are so much shorter.

Video from local news:

http://www.krgv.com/videos/rocket-prototype-takes-shape-at-spacex-site

>>10259335
They won't, because the BFR has no market.

>>10258653
>not in metric
anon please

>>10259417
>>10259362
You fools. Screencap that post because you will be proven wrong.
Also remember that the Chinese are already trying to copy Falcon 9, which hasn't even been reused more than 2 times. They know where the wind is blowing.

>>10259335
Not until NASA accepts it.
Can you imagine reporting to the great party leaders your long term espionage campaign fundamental to the state's space program was worthless because you picked the wrong target?

>>10259388
>xs-1
>stratolunch

>>10259437
Lel what else are they going to espionage? Literally the only other people worth stealing shit from is BO and they haven't send a payload to orbit.

>yfw
>https://spaceflighthistory.blogspot.com/2016/12/energy-from-space-department-of.html

>>10259443

Both are theoretically capable of launching a rocket every working day of the year, while Boeing wants XS-1 to be somewhat mass produced (at least 50-100 units) while Stratolunch could do more than one launch per day. Dollar for dollar both would be able to beat out SpaceX except for large payloads. And if Boeing were to make a bigger XS-1 or figure out how to do their own Stratolaunch (aka, what the Space Shuttle was originally going to be) they're crash prices into the ground.

Time will tell if it pans out though, but my point is that SpaceX will be operating in a competitive market which they haven't so far.

>>10259451
>Boeing
>Crash prices into the ground

Yeah right.

>>10259459

They can if they want, and eliminating a potential competitor would be a good enough reason for them to try. Lockheed is another factor too, because they got all the patents to their Venturestar/X-33 which only failed because they hadn't figured out composite fuel tanks yet (a problem solved during the F-35's development). Figure if either were to build some sort of fully reusable dual stage or single stage to orbit system with a sub 12 hour turnaround time, SpaceX would be in some serious hot water.

>>10259446
Judging by their SHLV promises I'd say its SLS.
>>10259451
The only competition to SpaceX will be the propped up Vulcan from ULA and whatever BO makes because the US government don't wants monopoly unless its from "good" companies.
If you unironically believe xs-1 has any potential for realization you are one hopeful fellow. However, believing it's going to be cheap and somehow beat SpaceX reaches trampoline to the moon levels of crazy. Stratolaunch might find some military use though.

As the other anon said
>boeing aerospace division
>cheap

>>10259470
>Literal pipe dreams and paper projects

>>10259474

The X-33 was in the process of being built when it was cancelled, and the reason for it's cancellation was rectified with the F-35. Whether or not Lockheed bothers is another question, but if they were to they'd certainly be competitive.

>>10259470
I actually thought you were serious and we finally got someone to argue with here instead of the resident shitposter. I'll pretend resurrecting venturestar was a joke.

Do entertain.

How will these "spacex killer" projects be funded?
If it is the government tell why. And explain why they will turn out differently than than the simple shuttle derived heavy lifter.

>>10259482
>Hydrogen tanks, lines, pumps and engines
>Cheaply reusable

There is a reason everyone who is actually serious about reusability tossed Hydrogen into the bin. Also remind me what is the proposed payload capacity for the X-33?

>>10259397
So we know the engine config

Those are some strong and unsupported claims.

How did F35 solve cryogenic liquid hydrogen storage in complex shaped composite fuel tank meant for reusable SSTO?
How will Venturestar be competitive with SpaceX's vehicles?
How will LM fund a Venturestar's on its own?
If the US gov is to finance such project why would they do it?

Most of these questions apply to other paper rocket designs as well.

No more (you)'s for you and if there aren't any interesting answers further boeing posting will be considered mandatory shillhour slave labor from that one intern that pops up occasionally.

>>10259482
X-33 was a bad design all around, fuel tanks were not the only problem. Hydrogen SSTO spaceplanes are a meme, period.

Can one of you nerds explain to me how they will unload large earth moving equipment on mars if it stands up right

>>10259560
With a small crane. There will also be cargo pods near the engines.

>>10259560
A large portion of the weight of earth moving equipment is ballast, and can be acquired on-site
Everything weighs less than half as much on mars as it does on earth
They'll need to bring a crane

Perhaps you bring one BFR that has the capability to
-be wheeled around
-have all of the engine and tank hardware removed
-have a 8m diameter elevator installed right down the middle

Then you can wheel it up to new cargo ship arrivals and directly transfer everything to its platform from the cargo ship cargo doors, wheel it over to the mars base, and lower everything down on the elevator

Hold on, lemme sketch this

>>10259809
Here's the sketch, hope it makes sense:

/\
!!!
!!!---
!!! !
!!! !
!!! !!!

>>10259814
An Uzi?

>>10259815
Read >>10259809

>>10259281
That's the gayest design I've ever seen. Literally a rocket having anal sex right there.

>>10259809
It'd surely be easier to bring an elevator that can be assembled on site.

>>10259809
>Wheeled around
So much thought goes into wheeling a glorified go kart like curiosity.
Now bfr is like a sky scraper with 150 storeys.

>>10259835
Yes. The moon is a better choice though.

>>10259835
How would you assemble on site when you need an elevator to go on site?

>>10259840
Isn't it closer to 40 or 50

>>10259841
Why would you want to bring the moon to Mars though? Is such a thing even possible with current technology?
I take it you listen to Issac Arthur?

>>10259845
My bad meant to type 50

>>10259842
You have a small elevator built into the first vehicle to get the parts down, then you can assemble the second one. How are you planning on making one out of a spaceship?

>>10259845
>Isn't it closer to 40 or 50
150 for Mars jellybabies

>>10259855
I wasn't the skyscraper transformer anon but all this talk of huge infrastructure seems really daunting.
Can we really do all this in the next decade?

>>10259855
oh hey look it's the redditor who has been spamming "spacex is a bankrupt scam" for the past three weeks

>>10259849
Sort of, my ex was very into that shit so I'm familiar with his work.

I don't mind him, but I think it used to annoy her when I'd occasionally scoff at something he was saying. The thing that really annoys me about him is when he slips into talking as if he's speaking from a position of authority on the subject rather than as a random guy with a youtube account. It's nice that people are interested in this sort of thing though.

>>10259531
Except if Elon would announe the BFR to be exactly that, then all of sudden it would be the best thing ever and you would literally kill yourself that the space industry was sleeping on that tech since decades.

>>10259849
Also, the Moon gets a bit of a shit for landing from orbit energy wise, any structure that can reduce that cost would benefit the Moon cheese industry greatly.

>>10259868
whataboutery

>>10259861
If you think it can be done, you have to accept a whole bunch of pretty nasty ideas in a moral sense.

The answer is no btw, if this isn't a bunch of idiots with too much money being idiots and doing idiotic things with that too much money, then it's an attempt to kickstart US space industry stuff by funding a bunch of companies that are going to fail.

"They were hammering on the middle section yesterday. It makes a great kettle drum."

>>10258834
>>10258839
The new change to steel sure captured people's imagination.

>>10259877
t. Wallace

>>10258866
Surely they will be able to come up with something better than this. This looks weird and inefficient.

>>10259946
that's an old render anyways. The new design will be simple and elegant, I'd assume

>>10259946
How is it weird and inefficient?

>>10259946
they're dragging a lot of mass up with them, for sure
they're banking on the full reusability thing to offset the individual launch payload loss by not discarding a payload fairing
should be entertaining either way

>>10259978
On a bigger rocket the mass fraction of the fairing will be reduced

>>10258334
>>10258347
>>10258392

Holy fuck, these thing look like something cobbled together in the Victorian era out of pig iron.

This is never going to work, is it?

>>10260023
this increases my belief that it will work, since they’re confident enough with the design that it can be quickly thrown together and still get flights out of it

>>10260023
I'm looking forward to seeing how the stainless welds hold up to vacuums. It's not looking promising desu, it'll be depressingly hilarious if we get more of that paint outgassing problem again.

https://forum.millerwelds.com/forum/welding-discussions/21413-uhv-ultra-high-vacuum-welding

>>10260068
you'd think that they would have looked into that when making the switch. I'm sure there's some magic sauce you can use with the filler or temperature or treatment etc that makes it perfectly fine

>>10260068
That's a different problem, those guys are worried about tiny leaks of a couple of molecules per unit time (I dunno, probably hours) so that they can maintain a vacuum. When you're containing high pressure you don't care about those sorts of leaks at all

>>10260023
>tfw no hard scifi about victorian era rocketry

photos

>>10260138
steam rocket engines are hard on Earth...

>>10260157
Me on th left

>>10260153
So they are in a line

>>10260164
Its the only subscale engine arrangement with axial symmetry.

The nozzles are 1.3m in diameter, according to pixel counting estimates.

>>10259946
If you are looking for efficiency look no further, citizen!

>titanic sized rocket that can never sink or get cancelled
>ecologically friendly Hydrogen fuel
>mighty earth shattering Solid Rocket Boosters
>equipped with the latest largest most capable deep space spacecraft capsule (toilet not included)
>All American Made(tm)

Remember to contact your local representatives and voice your support for the Space Launch System!

>>10260183
Triangle is also symmetrical, no?

>>10260192
Only when all 3 engines are running.

>>10260192
>Triangle is also symmetrical, no?
The nodes of a triangle are not axially symmetrical. Triangular arrangements have no fault tolerance.

>>10260192
Can’t test as many landing scenarios with that

Thanks for replies
>>10260199
What do you mean by "nodes not symmetrical"?
Sorry I'm not /sci/

>>10260152
Not steam rockets obviously. For the setting to work some discoveries must happen sooner (Tsiolkovsky equations at the very least).

I find the idea of early industrial space rush before even flight very interesting. Primitive mechanical control devices and calculation machines. Poor mass ratios. Lots stylish gentlemen with suicidal tendencies and bankrupting colonial powers. No idea how communication even in LEO could work aside from focused astronomers with good eyes, telescopes, and some creative use of mirror from the brave adventurer in the sky above.

>>10260214
I mean that if you draw a shape that connects a number of them together, you want to keep being able to draw a line or shape through them that runs through the middle of the rocket, no matter which one you lose.

>>10260220
> For the setting to work some discoveries must happen sooner (Tsiolkovsky equations at the very least).

"The equation had been derived earlier by the British mathematician William Moore in 1813"

Those equations are obvious if you know Newton's laws of motion.

The lifts they’re using won’t be long enough for work on the top piece once they attach it all. Will they build scaffolding?

>>10260023
it's obviously a mockup
i can't believe there are people who think this is an actual rocket

>>10260242
They'll use jet packs.

>>10260258
it's a hopper

>>10260242
At least credit the person you copied the image from?

>>10260242
What are those holes in the middle section?

>>10260265
every single photo here is from someone else. Why’d you pick on this pic of all them? All of the renders, everything in these threads is not OC for the most part

>>10260272
Actually I took and posted all the other pictures

>>10260272
Just joined the thread now.
A single word credit wouldn't hurt!

>>10260277
No no I did

>>10260267
The fact that they’re not spaced 90 or 45 degrees apart make me think they’re for accessing something or fueling

>>10260280
>No no I did
I AM SPARTACUS

>>10260279
Would you like it in APA or MLA Mr. Brainbit?

>>10260265
if someone cares they should do this >>10258834 and stick their name in the photo like a smart person.

>>10260265
You can only pull that card if they're using a name, he's posting as anonymous

I don’t think those raptors have ever been fired. The McGregor people would have noticed.

>>10259912
It unironically looks better in this configuration than it does with the dildo-tier length "full size" version with those ugly as fuck canards and windows.

>>10260316
Not really. Lots of stuff gets missed unless its some catastrophic event.

>>10260100
I mean the outgassing of contaminants like the issue they had with the dragon paint job that came out last month. Every external welded spot will have a tendency to outgas, probably quite a lot, although there are sort of ways to stop it doing it as much. It'll be interesting to see if it's a problem in the long term, and it's interesting to see that double sided welds are really shit for outgassing in a vacuum.

You're right on keeping the internal pressure/leaks it's just not what I was getting at m80.

>>10260076
They had to outgas the tunnels for those massive gravity wave detectors, so you can do large structures it's just weird. Linus Tech Tips did a video recently about them, it was actually pretty good and interesting.

The important part is heating it up for a while, also with stainless it's the precipitating out of some of the alloys/phases and resulting porosity that cause the welds to be particular gassy. It might be that they have to modify how they produce the ship eventually too, which isn't impossible but would be a big hit to development and require a lot of R&D.

>>10260335
wonder if the extreme polishing would help. Does exposed, flat, bare metal outgas? Does SS filler outgas even? They could just use butt joints on the inside to minimize the exposure.

>>10260344
Outgassingis one of those irrelevant makework things NASA complains about
There is no real purpose to intruments is sensitive that some paint out gassing is an issue

>>10260344
Polishing gets rid of the worst bit of the weld. Even if it is a problem, it might be something that is a problem for like a couple of months or something before it goes away. It'll be interesting to see what comes up with this design anyway.

>>10259485

>How will these "spacex killer" projects be funded?

With investor money? Both Boeing and Lockheed have every reason to not let SpaceX get large enough where they are a serious competitor. Both companies spent the past thirty years consolidating into a duopoly, they have no intention of just giving up and letting someone undercut them so easily. Right now we know for a fact that both Stratolaunch (which is from a completely different company, even) and the XS-1 will be operating by 2022, the same year the BFR will ideally start having it's first commercial payloads. This means SpaceX will have to improve on it's BFR design, in particular it's turnaround times, to stay competitive.

This has been the plan by Congress all along, by the way. They killed Ares I to give SpaceX enough room to move in and shake things up. But by the same token, they gave Boeing just enough space in the XS-1 (and others via various grants given by NASA) to ensure they don't get too far behind. Remember that all along this game was rigged by the government to lower *their* costs, and they'll continue doing it until they are no longer able to.

On a side note another thing happens in 2021: New Start expires. When this happens the Pentagon won't have constraints on the amount of nukes they can have, this makes more exotic ideas like a 747 ICBM launcher more realistic that have major knock-on affects to the civilian rocket market. But again likewise, in 2022 the Minuteman replacement program begins and the SpaceX will likely submit a bid just to undercut Boeing - this alone is a big enough concern for Boeing where they already began lobbying for their side here.

>>10260356
Why do you think that?

>>10260356
>There is no real purpose to intruments is sensitive that some paint out gassing is an issue

Outgassed fumes can be noxious or toxic for human passengers. A lot of historic missions have been lost due to trace contamination in the systems. It's not for nothing, but it's a little less horrible now that it's possible to engineer in a greater degree of fault tolerance.

>>10260360
none of those things, even when operational, can be competitive if starship is as cheap and has a high cadence as SpaceX predicts. The costs and capabilities will just be too far beyond that of dinky SSTO spaceplanes or novel sky launched rockets

>>10260372
I don't believe it's that far ahead. Musk's understanding of business focuses a lot on having a "monopoly" (same for how Thiel views things incidentally), so I think he thinks he has to convince everyone they are that far ahead, or even be that far ahead.

>>10260372

efficiency > payload

This is what caused the FH to win out over Ares I in the first place. It's why Congress was so happy to kill one of their own pork programs because SpaceX demonstrated a clearly superior vehicle. XS-1, Stratolaunch, and the Venturestar (if built) can all operate on a much faster schedule than BFR, at least in the BFR's current design. At the very least this means the BFR itself isn't enough, and SpaceX will have to improve on it's design further. Again this is the goal Congress rigged in advance ten years ago when all of this was set into motion by them killing Ares I.

I mention Minuteman replacement (aka the GBSD) because that's another huge expenditure, roughly ten times larger than SLS, up for review. Congress doesn't want to pay Boeing's price and would happily entertain a SpaceX bid, however Boeing could also try and poison the well by also selling Congress on an MC747 that could potentially tamper their willingness to spend over $100bn on ground-based missiles. SpaceX could theoretically counter this by partnering with someone like Bombardier or Northrop to offer a competing bid especially considering the AF will begin some sort of hybrid wing body C-5 replacement around 2023 as well.

All of this comes back to one thing: competition. This is exactly what Congress wants and will tamper with the market in order to obtain it.

>>10260395

>SpaceX could theoretically counter this by partnering with someone like Bombardier or Northrop to offer a competing bid especially considering the AF will begin some sort of hybrid wing body C-5 replacement around 2023 as well.

FYI this is relevant since the 747 was designed to be the C-5 in the first place, so the company that replaces the C-5 with a hybrid wing body stands a good chance of building the thing that replaces 747 freighters currently in service. This makes for some interesting arguments if SpaceX partners to also offer it as their rocket platform from the start.

>>10260395
I don’t think you understand. starship will be quite quick to launch. That’s the whole point. Land, fuel, launch again. Plus you get where you want to go quicker once you’re “airborne” as well.
From a non-government-decisions point of view it still wins in all of the categories.

>>10260395
Reusable always wins.

What is that silly shit youre proposing, does it have any discarded stage? well teh cost of one of those engines youre throwing away its enough to refurbish a full bfr

sorry little boy, the futer is are we now spacex wins

>>10260424
the futer is are we now, I couldn’t agree more

>>10260334
It will still be the first multi-raptor firing, however

>>10260399
Winged body airplanes are a giant meme and there is a reason no one builds them

>>10260356
>Outgassingis one of those irrelevant makework things NASA complains about
true

>>10260424
>Reusable always wins
Wrong, the only reason for reusability could be a economically advantage and SpaceX has not demonstrated that it actually saves money.
Reusability is not really a feasible option if reliability is priority n1 e.g. condoms.
I guess this is your first day here, you can go back to /futurology now.
Reusability like SpaceX does is a pr-stunt and a dead end.

>>10258414
Don't worry stoner-space-jesus will never launch humans.

>>10258426
>It’s a bit of a stretch to compare the two
So don't.

>>10260471
Shure little buddier. I guess the actual urk denosntraterded cost reductor of falcons hat literally irl were reused literalky ib front of tv camerss. Gonna claim photoahop???????!?!? If do my hahas to you laugher. So ita confirmed little votsh. Dont anoy more. Adults superior are rejoicing in greatness

>>10260502
This is Elon Musk getting so mad on /sci/ that he literally has a stroke.

>>10260471
>>>10260484
oh here we go again..

>reminder to not respond to that troll from reddit

>>10260502
>Talks like a 10 year old after a stroke
Great argument son, I never denied that they reused a stage I denied that it saves money.
If they would save as much as they claim they wouldnt have tried to loan 750million a few weeks ago.

>>10260514
>I don't have a argument what do?
ad-hominem will do
The absolute state of SpaceX drones that have no background in engineering.
Everything reusable lmao future now old man 420 lmao mars next year damn.

>>10260520
wow, so not only do you not know anything about rocketry, you also don’t know anything about the economics of running a corporation

>>10260471
probably the lowest-quality bait post I’ve seen in a while ngl. It seems to be working though

>>10260514
it’s so tiresome sometimes

>>10260532
I have a degree and work in the field what do you have other than the next ad hominem?
There is 0 evidence so far that reusing the first stage saves any money believing pr-claims is something you might do but I want evidence.
I guess you are dumb enough to think that SpaceX just has to refill the stage and laumch it again, well you clearly have no clue how complex a rocket engine is.
Again, provide an argument or source that provides evidence for reusability.
Or you can stick to insults I guess that's more your thing little dropout neet.

>>10260537
great argument do you haveany evdience for the economic feasibility of the F9 first stage?
Shit I guess you kids don't really care if you are right all of you rely on ad-hominem to avoid answering the bitter truth that you have no good reason to repeat Elons claims as if they were true.
Enjoy sucking Elons south african cock and now back to /futurology

>>10260556
>I have a degree
lol. How on earth am I supposed to convince you if you can brush aside any SpaceX claims as “PR”? They’re the only ones re-using boosters.
Imagine being this insecure and petulant. Go back to >>>/idiotville/

>>10260567
>complains about ad-hominem
>jumps right into name-calling
I can’t tell if he has a 10-second memory or is just a really bad troll

>>10260369
Yeah but that's not the concern for stainless welds
The issue is that they leak whatever is inside the container, the weld itself isn't producing any gas.

Imagine being so petty that you trash thread after thread because people keep talking about an aerospace company you dislike.

>>10260578
>The issue is that they leak whatever is inside the container, the weld itself isn't producing any gas.

What garbage tier welding are we talking about here, then? Leak proof welding isn't impossible and unreachable black magic; they've done it for many decades now.

Isn’t the whole reason outgassing is an issue is because the ISS has delicate earth sensors and other scientific instruments on the outer structure? If you’re not docking to a floating national lab I don’t think anyone will care

>>10260568
>you can brush aside any SpaceX claims
Because they are nothing but claims they are a private company so nobody knows their financial details.
Also Musk is known to lie a lot and the fact that a known liar "revolutionizes" everything he touches doesn't make you suspicious?
Hyperloop? Oh yeah that was ehmmm
Solar roof? Ehmm yeah we lied sorry
420 funding secured? Yep lied again
Tesla 35k? Again lied
Btw launch costs make 1/3-1/5 of the whole launch +(sat & insurance)so there is not that much benefit in saving 50m on the kaunch vehicle.
Launching on time and trust are very important as well and that's where SapceX fails.
How do you explain that SpaceX didn't anihilate all the other LSP's yet?
You should stop getting your news from "I fucking love science" sources.
The Market is not blown away by the F9 and reusability will probably never be feasible for chemical rockets just accept it, we are using technology from the 60s-70s to launch satellites because the technology is perfected for 40 years now there is just not much room for improvements.
Stop with the sensationalist emotional silicon valley change the world bullshit.
Look at the facts and stop with your immature responses you guys behave like a cult of uneducated morons.

>>10260502
>shit, they aren't responding
>better make my own post pretending to be the opposition and type like a retard
>now for the final step of my master plan
>"ha you type like a retard! #destroyed|

>>10260604
lol I got you to write a reply

You sure don’t have anything better to do today? Heh

>>10260574
No need to keep talking to you, you derailed the conversation and avoided answering/providing evidence you deserve to be insulted since you are no longer part of this conversation.

I guess we’re /cult of uneducated morons/ now, better pack it up boys. This dude with a DEGREE told us use

>>10260604
Are you unable to structure english into any unit larger than a sentence?
Sounds like a schizophrenic talking to himself.

>>10260593
>>10260596
Leak from the welds isn't the same as outgassing.

High vacuums are weird, metals are able to evaporate away a little bit, that works in a similar way to corrosion as well with welds being in a state where it's more likely than amywhere else. Welds often contain other contaminants like whatever gases happened to be used in the welding process. They're also somewhat porous esp in the case of SS, but that isn't necessarily a problem with the right techniques/processes in place.

I guess we’re /cult of uneducated morons/ now, better pack it up boys. This dude with a DEGREE told us so, oh jeez.
Now, when’s the next ULA launch again?

>>10260616
great argument still waiting for the evidence

>>10260618
nah I’m good

>>10260614
Great argument is that all you have?
I am not a native english speaker, let me guess you only speak one fucking language right?
patheit
Please guys more ad-hominem it makes you look like the desperate losers that you really are.

>>10260618
Do you have a source on that?
Source?
A source. I need a source.

Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.

No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.

Do you have a degree in that field?
A college degree? In that field?

Then your arguments are invalid.

No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
Correlation does not equal causation.
CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
Nope, still haven't.

>>10260616
The Delta 4 launch has been indefinitely delayed...

>>10260607
>makes up conspiracy to protect his cultish friends from looking like morons
Sorry to disappoint you my dear friend.

>>10260618
You see if I actually give you evidence, then it only furthers your raging quest for pat-on-the-pack “discourse”.

No, it’s more fun for the rest of us to leave you dangling on your own desire to leave a fat dump on this thread in the form of convincing all of us wrong (which probably feels good, doesn’t it)

>>10260622
>i learnt what ad-hominem means haha i'm so smart
>>10260628
the posts don't have to be both from the same person

>>10260632
I would be quite surprised if they aren’t

>>10260624
Lol didn’t read

>>10260630
Nice way of avoiding to answwr/providinf evidence.
You guys are really pathetic, you can not even answer/disprove the simplest criticism with evidence/arguments and you guy really think you are not part of a cultish fanboy hivemind?
So you admit that you have 0 evidence ghat's a start.
So what about the FHmoo flyby?
Waiting for the next ad-hominem.

>>10260639
hearty chuckle

>lol didn't read
>ad-hominem
>I could answer your question buuuuut......
You guys are awesome I knew that musks fanboys are uneducated and lack any sceptical thinking ability but you guys are comically immature and unable to argue as well.
Thank you guys you really demonstrated how retarded Musks fanbase is.
See you guys on /futurology.

>>10260643
>muh evidence
fucking reddit i swear, imagine living in a world where you can't have a conversation without explicitly linking a source to back up every word of what you said

>>10260656
anon...
those all came from anti-musk posts.

>>10260639
I am not mad at all
You guys all look like retards because non of you could argue or provide evidence to debunk my claims.
Enjoy sucking space-jesus fraud's cock.
See you on mars next year.

>>10260657
You got a source for me imagining that world buddy?

>>10260663
“I am not mad”
-quote from mad man

>>10260663
just fuck off, nobody wants you here

>>10260657
Well a single argument would have been a start but you guys were insulting me from the get go.
I guess thinking and bein sceptical on twitter claims is not your thing.
I will continue to talk to smarter people I guess.
You guys keep repeating tweets and talk about pictures ok?
You did a great job demonstrating the mindset of Musks fanbase.
Thank you! bye

>>10260663
Buddy, you probably have Aspergers. You can’t see anything from anyone else’s perspective.
You see, YOU see us as dumb, retarded, etc. However, what does that amount to? Consider how everyone else’s views. Do they think you’re contributing to this thread?

I'M MAD THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING ROCKETS

GRRRRR STOP DOING ROCKETS

>>10260596
Yeah, those guys are talking about maintaining a vacuum chamber being leakproof, which isn't relevant to making starship leakproof. Different standards, starship doesn't need to be as absolutely perfect as a vacuum chamber does.

>>10260672
>I will continue to talk to smarter people I guess
Cool, keep watch for new episodes of your favourite show

>>10260675
>simcity 2000 transportation advisor meme.jpg

pppplease leave us alone we don't like to think we don't like scepticism leave us aloneeee in our circlejerk.
You are the most pathetic group of people I have ever met on this board go to /spacex and jerk there.
This is a place for scientific discussions not a safe space for your fantasies.

>>10260681
STOP DOING ROCKETS AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10260677
Has spacex said if they’re aiming for a pure oxygen or mixed environment or what? I don’t recall even seeing what crew dragons’ cabin pressure or mixture is

>>10260681
>""""scepticism""""
>logical fallacies
>keep talking about own intelligence

>>10260673
>You can’t see anything from anyone else’s perspective.
You are right because arguments and facts do not have perspectives.
They rely on evidence.
I guess you do not care if the things you accept are true or not but I do.
Stop with the emotional bullshit we are talking about rocket science here, science has no "perspective"
You have no clue how science works right?
Some people care about facts other people just accept what they are told, I am not suprised that Musks fanbase acted like it does right now.
ps: Stop with the armchair psychology you are not only wrong, it makes you look desperate and immature.

>>10259814
Oh, I know! It's the Eiffel Tower

>>10260663
Get a job thunderf00t

>>10260694
Nothing wrong with any of these, sorry that you are so insecure that you have to rely on a meme to distract you from the fact that none of you has the brain to argue or the evidence to support your claims.

>>10260686
I haven't heard anything
The only thing I know about dragon 2 even is that the space suits are swank and it has two sizes of hypergolic thruster, one of which will never be used for its intended purpose but seems to be working great as a launch escape system

>getting this butt-mad
>on 4chan

>>10260673
So is gullibility and lack of critical thinking. I hear that's also an issue with cluster B disorders, I guess it's what happens when empathy gets fucked somehow.

Anyway, I don't believe a lot of Musk's claims, and I think he has shown himself to be untrustworthy plus a couple of other character flaws. Which is a real shame, it'd be nice if we had more nice rich people doing futuristic and nice things.

>>10260709
>realizing that you are part of a cultish following and smart people laugh at you

>>10260709
we’re approaching Lee-levels, which is fascinating.

>>10260708
Hopefully they can produce the suits quick enough for the future. They had a handful of spacesuit seamstress positions open not too long ago

this guy is really fucking insecure about his intelligence

>>10260677
No, OUTGASSING. It's important in high vacuum setups because they're often involved in ultra clean environments like chip fabbing and mass spec.

I fucking hate it. The link posted above, if you read through to the end you see it goes from leaky welds to outgassing.

Musk will pay for BFR by living in everyone's heads rent free.

>>10260695
NOOOOOOOOOOOOO STOP DOING ROCKETS

>>10260720
I guess believing everything if it sounds good is better?
Sorry for being rational and being proud of the fact that I am not gullible and mentally retarded like you guys.
So keep jerking off with the insults if it makes you feel better i already won.

sure is science and math in here

>>10260732
if you won then why are you so glum? if you tell us you won that doesn’t automatically mean you won, just a reminder.

So, what are your 2019 predictions?

>>10260737
Not a single argument not a single piece of evidence to debunk my claims.
Lot of personal insults.
Gee who was in the right here?

>>10260738
>DM-1 gets pushed to 2019-2-1X, but is flawless
>inflight abort goes without a hitch
>announcement of more starlink investment
>Starship hoppers blow up a few times
>starlink factory takes a long time to get up and running
>DM-2 gets pushed back a lot due to “abnormal data” from DM-1 or something dumb
>~25 launches overall
>first orbital starship launch is slated for before 2020 but delays push it slightly over to 1Q 2020

>>10260738
Musk accidentally kills some people with a rocket and looks like a weird psycho when he tries to pretend like it's nothing.

>>10260747
He’s been pretty up front with the fact that people -will- die eventually

>>10260723
so be it

getting to Mars is the only reason for being

>>10260744
everyone who had more willpower than me to avoid engaging with you, to be honest. I’ll try and ignore you next time, sorry

>>10260749
Normal people will have a problem when it actually happens. I don't think Musk has the right mindset or skills to defuse such a situation.

>>10260749
but I bet he's an absolute autist when he has to make a statement on it

he /is/ right of course

>>10260722
what sort of evaporation do you get out of SS?

>>10260757
>>10260755
100% someone in SpaceX has prepared a statement if commcrew missions end up with dead astronauts. It’s something they just have done some planning for.

>>10260745
>Starship hoppers blow up a few times
I'm really looking forward to this part, footage of a massive building falling out of the sky into a field. You know that they know it will happen too, judging by the pictures we're getting (if that is actually a hopper that will fly).

>>10260732
it's not about believing in it or not, nobody here gives a fuck
we're just watching
are you so mad about rockets that you don't want us to watch?

>>10260767
*something they must have done planning for

>>10260768
no better way to verify your models than seeing if something fails when you think it should

>>10260768
it will probably have a self-destruct like the grasshopper, so just a bigger aerial boom

>>10260775
the path of least resistance is probably to blow through the top dome. Might have a slight shaped charge effect

>>10260738
>SpaceX runs out of money
>Tesla too
>Elon goes full maniac and shaves his head bald like Britney Spears back then

>>10260767
How do they keep Musk off twitter? Somebody prepared that apology about the pedo guy incident for him, and that kept him from being an idiot for like 2 weeks wasn't it?

SpaceX is inexperienced company owned by an eccentric.

Boeing.

Boeing rocket will take Americans to Mars and beyond.

Reusability is a meme.

Get it through your thick cultist skulls.

It never worked and never will.

>>10260395
>Ares
>FH
Are you schizophrenic?

>>10260829
A. he probably is
B. don't respond
C. why did you respond

there is clearly a ratio of photos to posts, where you exceed it we get off track. Anyways where are the largest pics? I’m starving. Can’t wait for this thing to light up

>>10260190
Has block 2 been officially canned?

>>10260837
*latest pics

>>10260839
There aren’t any payloads in the works for it besides some theoretical big telescopes, so yeah for all intents and purposes its dead. Block 1 has barely 2 missions assigned to it even

>>10260841
The only thing I see SLS being used for is launching components for new space stations or interplanetary manned craft.

>>10260832
He is easy to identify by the long posts and the obvious bullshit contained so no more (you)'s. I was just curious how something like that can be conjured.
>>10260839
Not officially but it's dead unless more money and time(tm).

>>10260867
>Not officially but it's dead unless more money and time(tm).

It's amazing if you consider all the money spent on the SLS and all programs that came before it its an insane amount of money. By the time block 2 flies and if there are no extra budget requirements (big if) it will have costed like 100 billion dollars, thats almost the whole apollo program. And bare in mind 2 things, until it gets to block two its literally useless since it has no capacity that cant already be provided by other rocket at much less expense. And also, MOST OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE VEHICLE WERE ALREADY DEVELOPED, let that sink in. Engines and fuel tanks were NOT INCLUDED in this budget, these are by far the most expensive parts of a rocket...

so what the fuck were they doing with all that money? how corrupt can they be? did the fucking buy a mansion for each fucking ula employee?

>>10260898
desu the solid boosters are actually quite different, and the SSME went through a substantial upgrade program. still not an excuse for the time and money this is taking.
And even IF it does launch, it's a minimum of like 10 months between launches

new thread before this one is close to dying because fuck you I'm impatient

>>10260918
>>10260918
>>10260918

>>10260898
That last OIG report is interesting. Some /priceless/ quotes
>"From 2009 to 2016, a contracting officer exceeded his $2.5 million warrant by making multiple unauthorized commitments in the amount of $318 million for contracts for Michoud operations, Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage production, and advanced booster development. This individual was also the primary contracting officer for the Boeing Stages contract."
>"NASA attempted to obtain a lower cost for the SLS by removing reporting requirements such as not having EUS cost to be separately reported. The annual award fee, instead of every 6 months, was another attempt to reduce cost. The observed contractor performance showed that this approach, although it reduced contract value, did not allow the insight needed into contractor performance. If the contractor performance would have been better, this approach would have reduced cost to the Government."
>"Based on Boeing’s current expenditure rate, NASA will need to increase the contract value by approximately $800 million to complete the first Core Stage for delivery to the Kennedy Space Center in December 2019. If the EM-1 launch takes place in June 2020, more than $400 million—for a total of $1.2 billion—would need to be added to the contract. This amount would only ensure delivery of Core Stage 1 and would not include the billions more required to complete work
on Core Stage 2 and the EUS."

>>10260926
it really is pathetic. there was a whole thread about that OIG report when it came out, jfc there's a lot of somewhat intentional incompetence out there with... certain contractors

>>10260220
>Not steam rockets obviously.
The Space Shuttle main engines are unironically steam powered.

>>10260395
>XS-1, Stratolaunch, and the Venturestar (if built) can all operate on a much faster schedule than BFR
SpaceX is targeting several hours between flights of BFR. In fact the rate at which they can reuse the upper stage is actually limited by waiting for the orbital plane to pass over the landing site, a problem any reusable launch vehicle shares. The Booster is not limited in this way because you could have ten Starships for every one Booster, allowing you to launch 24 times a day.

>>10258334
Those are some incredibly shitty welds.

>>10260604
>How do you explain that SpaceX didn't anihilate all the other LSP's yet?
You're a shitty troll but I have to mention that they are in the process of doing so. Roscosmos is circling the drain and Arianespace is literally shaking in a figurative sense.

>>10260625
lol get fucked, shouldn't have designed a rocket that fully engulfs itself in a hydrogen fireball at t-3 seconds then trigger an abort at t-1 second I guess, got a little toasty

>>10258433
>Not to mention that the general public is so sensitive to space related deaths now...

I don't think the general public (tm) is sensitive to anything about space at all.

But I'd be curious as to why you say they are particularly sensitive to deaths now. Most recent more-or-less space related death was in 2014 when Spaceship 2 shredded itself -- now if you asked 100 random members of the public, do you think 1 would be able to name that? Or zero?

>>10260839
AFAIK it was never officially happening anyway.

>>10261348
And I sincerely and literally wish them every success, and hope they pull it off.

But targets and projections are not always realized. (pic related)

That's why I don't get into fanboi-ing any of the different space ventures. I'd like them all to be successful, find their niches, push each other to do better. And if one doesn't accomplish what it tries for, maybe some other will figure it out.

>>10261379
I think most people would remember "that virgin galactic one", yes. It was all over the news, and a lot of that is to do with Richard Branson being pretty famous. I would say now, for a lot of Americans, Elon Musk is VERY famous.

>>10261406
>But targets and projections are not always realized
The engineers knew before the design was even finalized that Shuttle would never achieve its goals of rapid turnaround and low cost. Development continued in that direction because the administration refused to accept reality and either switch to a very different design or drop the idea of a reusable space plane altogether and instead optimize expendable vehicle production for lowest possible cost. BFR on the other hand is merely an evolution of an already proven-effective design, bigger an with better engines, and designed to be reusable to begin with rather than developed into a reusable design from a non reusable vehicle (like the transition between the first Falcon 9 to Block 5).