/sci/ - Science & Math

Predictions?

also "it's not a general I swear" edition would have worked I suppose

>>10260918
Friendly reminder, if you don't like spacex and come to spew your illogical hate here you are a confirmed closeted homosexual

>>10260923
one of the more exciting non-SpaceX things I think will be the rapid development of ISRO's manned program. Always good to get more countries in the space game

Reposting from last thread because fuck this has to be known by more anons.

Quotes from the last OIG report on the SLS program
>"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."

>>10260925
Much like Musk himself.

from Roger Holt

>>10260936
Lol, a top tier manly man who camef rom a poor country and is revolutionisanitising the interstellar industry, mars industry, rocket industry launch industry, cars tunnels subways cities solar house roofs and even manufacturing of a new methane powersource himself, the literal tony stark iron man he was based on...

haha}
and hi9m
you call hinm
a not man?
AHHAHASHHSADPFJHASDFPO
desreves the hahas to you

render by Leonidass

Oh shit, the schizo is back...

>>10260945
are those real IRL raptor superior methane engines just sitting on right over on there, like if theyw erent a total discovery of the absolute?

>>10260954
shhhhh, just leave it

>>10260923
I'm excited the most by the in flight abort kaboom. That'll be quite the video

Not much info after the mysterious engine appearance. Some are guessing those are dev versions and not the radically redesigned type elon tweeted about recently.
Oh and there's holes in the shiny segments. Could be RCS or something.

>>10260950
Look at Musk and tell me he doesn't want to get Muilenberg's massive rocket off. The chemistry is electric.

>>10260918
#lols@bottlerockets

Don't worry silly humans, eventually you'll learn it's all electrical.

>>10260963
yeah it’s interesting that there are sometimes big spurts of workers, and then there are lulls in the work like right about now.

Hopefully there will be a lot of activity soon. Lifting the nose, construction at the launch pad, final polishing

>>10261003
>then there are lulls in the work like right about now.
They've finally run out of money guys.

>>10260953
Lmao what is that little thing down there

Can somebody post that image of Elon toking it up please

>>10261135
Jeff Bezos

>>10260953
Is that dingdong from oneyplays?

>>10261156
Wish he would hurry up with Blue Origin. The gigantic feather they plaster on anything is sort of gaudy if you ask me though

>>10261156
Who?

>>10260934
Given a 2.5 mill budget, and spends 300 million ..... welcome to nasa I guess

>>10260934
These people should be strung up.

>>10261213
you just know that they only spend 20 million of that at best, and embezzled the 280 million away

>>10260925
>closeted

>>10261361
But anon don't you know that aerospace grade bolts require such precise manufacturing that each one has to cost at least 5000 dollars?

>>10260934
Literally burn NASA to the ground and start over. Grumpy oldfags clearly cannot be trusted to operate a space program, we need young people willing to slave away until they burn out and get replaced.
I do in fact mean this unironically.

>>10260968
Boeing's current biggest rocket gets shit on by Falcon Heavy, it doesn't get a better C3 energy until you go well past solar escape velocity lol so much for FH being hindered by its low Isp upper stage.

Also even if you think SLS will be launching before BFR, SLS is certainly never going to get anything anywhere NEAR Mars, probably ever but absolutely not before BFR.

>>10261011
>implying all their millwrights aren't just wasted from new years eve last night

>>10261160
>gaudy
>extravagantly bright or showy, typically so as to be tasteless

I concur. They should honestly ditch that stupid design, it doesn't look good and what the fuck does a feather have to do with either the name of the company or the names of the vehicles?

>>10261426
do welders even work on retainer? Lol

>>10261431
here’s blue origin’s official seal as well

>>10261438
It's so bad

>>10260930
>rapid
>takes 10 years to get a man into space

>>10261438
This would be so kino painted on the side of an interstellar cargo vessel. Anybody willing to do this, for the good of the board?

>>10260923
if the US can start getting people back into space then will we finally see the ISS have more than 2-3 crew at a time? the ISS is basically in maintenance mode without a significant crew size.

>>10261529
yeah the plan is to increase it to 7 iirc. Since there are so many fixed maintenance tasks to do, that increases the science output by a whopping 50% or so over 6 people. It’s crazy

>>10261421
Muilenberg isn't the kind of guy to let himself launch before Musk. And no need to talk about current biggest rocket, the guy's a grower. We've seen Musk's current erection, and it's not looking that strong even if it's the biggest we've seen.

>>10261559
Also, I noticed that someone went out of their way to make Muilenberg's features look really stark, they've literally colored in his mouth, around his nose, up at his eyebrow, while also softening Musk a little bit and changing how his suit hangs. Like that line you think is from his lapel on the far side is a straight line that's been drawn in. It's weird af.

>>10261438
Yikes

>>10260953
>Square windows
Does this guy even dehavelin?

>you vs the guy she tells you not to worry about

>>10260923
i think falcon heavy with will be late q1 early q2, and im saying q4 earliest for starlink

>>10261668
The fact that the legs attach at the same place means that the internal structure is likely the same-ish

>>10260981
According to bob lazar, Ayylmaos spacecrafts use an antimatter fuel source with anti gravity propulsion.

>>10260934
Jesus fuck NASA, can you be any more a waste of money. I remember watching some vid rapping about what NASA could do with the military budget. In reality they would piss it away on wingdings and paperwork.

Much like >>10259220 said. If NASA is shown to be that much of a money hole with literally no returns, I can see them being on the block in the next economic dip.

if all the sections were put together they would almost be the height of the full starship

>>10261769
keep in mind only like 35% of NASA’s budget is with SLS. The rest goes towards fantastic aeronautical research, space R&D, running all of the probes they have, funding things like commercial crew, and doing stuff at their research centers. Just look at the NASA knock offs report each year; and the ROI is the highest for NASA vs every other agency.
Kick out SLS, and NASA is fine. And I say that as a free market lolbertarian. Heck, increase their budget. It would be worth it.

>>10261778
It's basically the fuel sections plus a nose.

>>10261778
Why don't they just build for the full height

>>10261853
>Why don't they just build for the full height
That's one of the bigger mysteries surrounding this thing.

>>10261853
Then you need a bigger crane/ people lifts, which probably means substantialy more time in general to get this thing flying. Anything to minimize time is the name of the game

>>10261866
Why isn't it shorter then

>>10261866
I don't think that's the reason. Remember that they plan to do tests in March/April optimistically, surely they could solve the crane issue by that time.

>>10261880
because all of the short cranes were sold out

Why not asparagus stage the Starship SuperHeavy with 6/8 Falcon 9s?

>>10262016
because that would be stupid. You then have to keep the F9 production lines going. That alone makes it silly. Also, you now still have to have RP1 infrastructure lying around. The launch platform would need to be complicated as fuck. The manpower to process all of those landed stages would be enormous. And, the payload benefits would likely be negligible anyways.
It’s just stupid

>>10262016
that would be the first real life demonstration of asparagus staging then

it's probably more efficient to build one booster anyway

>>10261431
>>10261438
It's just a clusterfuck of design elements with zero sense of aesthetics corporate identity. Feathers, tortoises, some sort of old-timey scroll, a clusterfuck solar system. Nothing makes any sense. Would you trust the people who approved this to design a flushing toilet, let alone a rocket ship?

>>10260950
>who camef rom a poor country
His dad has a mine.

>>10262078
His dad is also a "contractor" and general troubleshooter. The specifics are a little vague.

>>10261405
>Grumpy oldfags clearly cannot be trusted to operate a space program
They landed a human on another planet and launched dozens of scientific payloads they did more for spaceflight than Musk ever did or will do.
Still waiting for musks first manned flight.
Oh right he did that 2018 with his moon flyby oh wait...

>>10262075
looks fucking wicked mate

>>10262082
REEEEEEEEEE STOP DOING ROCKETS AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10261853
This hopper is probably going to accommodate only engines and fuel tanks (though probably smaller ones than in the final thing), no cargo bay, no manned-cabin module. Only things that are needed to fly, to reduce the cost and cut the time.

>>10262082
Nice, dozens of payloads in sixty years. That's, what, two a decade?

Okay guys so justified cirticism of musk is forbidden but shitting on NASA by ignoring all their achievements and repeating Musks bullshit claims is ok?
You guy are the definition of a cult.

>>10262094
GGGGGGGGGGRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR STOP DOING ROCKETS

>>10262088
Unlike musks cargo launches their payloads carry billion dollar probes and reach other planets.
Are you really comparing the scientific work NASA does with the primitive workhorse launches that SpaceX does?
Musk didn't even launch a human yet so calm down fanboy.

>>10262100
STOP
DOING
ROCKETS

Stop replying to him you fucking morons.

why don't you go to /spacex where you belong.
You are clearly not interested in a conversation you are not even able to argue or proof what you are saying.
You just repeat pr-bullshit and tweets 24/7 and think you are shielded from justified criticism when it comes to lord and saviour musk?
Go to /spacex this is your safe space if you are to insecure to answer simple questions.
What a pathetic group of whiny i-fucking-love-science guys.

>>10262114
He's responding to himself

>>10262150
No I'm not

>>10261789
>35%
Still too fucking much for a porkbarrel piece of shit

>>10262016
Asparagus staging is a meme that only gained traction because of Kerbal Space Program. It has no place here.

>>10262016
>>10262260
This. It's efficiency in ksp is greatly exaggerated by;
>massive fuel tank mass
>massive engine mass
>plumbing is just slapping a hose

Mods that fix some of those things greatly reduce the need for vegetable stages. To say nothing of reality.

>>10262097
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH STOP BURSTING MY BUBBLE THIS IS MY SAFE SPACE

>>10262100
>billion dollar probes
Which would probably cost hundreds of thousands of dollars if they weren't made by Lockmart Grumman

>>10262300
It is like a vicious circle argument. Probe is expensive because there is only one chance of launching it, launch is expensive because payload is very pricey. A blatant rip-off of the taxpayers really. Those probes should have been mass-produced by the lowest bidder long ago.

>>10262088
>Nice, dozens of payloads in sixty years. That's, what, two a decade?
and we are talking unmanned ones here, there ought to be a dozen landers on every body in the system for that money.. NASA is ridiculous no matter how you look at it

>>10262310
>mass producing scientific equipment that often needs to be tailor made for the spacecraft in question.
is this truly the power of muskonomics

>>10262342
Probes should be fully standardised instrument packages.

>>10262342
Most scientific equipment on Earth is mass-produced, the same ought to be true in space. Of course there needs to be an occasional gravity wave detector or 10 meter space telescope and other flagship missions. But where the fuck are less expensive probes? Science would surely greatly benefit from blanketing the solar system with far less expensive and common instruments such as hyperspectral cameras or various radiation detectors. What the fuck is NASA doing? You cant explain that with anything else than gross idiocy and corruption.

>>10262342
remind me again what special aerospace-grade tailor made scientific instrument is New Horizons carrying? oh yes, a fucking camera

There is no corruption in the aerospace sector. Stop spreading false rumors. Space is hard.

>>10262358
elons personal fellatio army have to shill the corruption hard so that people will throw money at their bankrupt memelord.

>>10262358
>>uses aerospace grade ox cart

>When he gets so desperate he literally starts replying to himself

>>10262354
>i-its Just a normal camera bro, anyone could do it

>>10262380
who are you quoting

>>10262375
>it's all corrupt, burn fucking NASA to the ground REEEEEEEEEE
meanwhile
>o-one more government contract p-please? NASA, can we use ur heatshield technology, we really need it for our rocket that's going to b-btfo you

>He is still replying to himself

You must have a pretty sad existence.

>>10262400
>FUCKING BILLIONAIRE CONTRACTORS, PROBABLY OIL SHILLS TOO, STEALING OUR TAXES TO BE CORRUPT
meanwhile
>dude elon is based, he loves anime, smokes weed and wet dreams about space lmao like me, nasa should give this billionaire more money to bail ou-... i mean feed his pipe dream

>>10262406
the fuck are you talking about schizo

>>10262406
see >>10262392

>>10262400
It seems like they wont be using PICA in the end, if the whole stainless steel starship thing pans out. So much for muh heatshield..

>>10262409
>>10262400
>>10262358
>>10262342
>>10262280

>>10262400
Heatshields are for queers. Stainless steel or fuck off.

>Still farming for (you) s

Go outside and get a hobby.

it is truly going to be fun seeing the entire meme fall apart as soon as they start testing/the funds start drying up because they pulled everything into bfr

literally win/win: if musk manages it to achieve it, big props to him, we have a fucking mars colony
if he doesn't, imagine the fucking memes and the massive C O P E

>>10261695
>Ayylmaos spacecrafts use an antimatter fuel source
No wonder there's no aliens around for us to find.

>>10262414
It's good idea to save images like this for future reference.

>>10262414
someone pls add a galaxy wide civilization based on expendable rockets in there

>>10262465
Can't feature Venus and Mercury because I'm pretty sure they'd be converted entirely into expendable launch vehicles.

>>10262414
somehow still more realistic than the big falcon pipe dream

NASA+Roscosmos should work together and use the VASIMR drive to get to Mars before spacex. Our capitalism free future depends on it. We can't let the pigs take over space.

>>10261617
S-steel can t-take that s-sort of stress r-right bros?

>>10262392
>>>/jp/
Shoo

Will we always be using chemical rockets to escape Earth's gravity until either space elevator is built or we figure out how to make anti gravity ships?

>>10262488
depends on how deep youve fallen for the plasma propulsion meme.
i have personally fallen pretty deep.

>>10262490
Literal pipe dream

>>10262488
Yes.

>>10262402
So the final version is pretty much gonna be exactly as high as STS?
Can't wait to see that shit rigged on top of Super Heavy.

>>10262488
Launch loops are an option, though not much easier than building a space elevator.

>>10262491
probably.

>>10262490
Is it expendable plasma propulsion?

>>10262490
Well even a plasma engine would need to launch on a chemical rocket to escape the atmosphere first.

>>10262495
It's possible we'll see it before the not-made-from-shuttle-scrap rocket too. I'll make a prediction now.
>NASA will defend the need for SLS by stating it can push more mass to solar escape trajectory in a single launch configuration which is the proven traditional method of doing things

>>10262504
yes? escaping atmosphere != "escaping" earths gravity.
>>10262502
no, i intend to hoverslam it on a barge off the east coast.

>>10262502
Of course. Every single bit of performance must be used.

>>10262494
>>10262496
That's a bummer. Only if we could somehow make radiation-free nuclear rockets.

>>10262509
Nuclear propulsion might have a chance only in the future.

On the bright side if the thing spacex is making works out it's cheaper and more capable than the magical orbital elevator so feel free to imagine the potential. And we'll know in a few years rather than decades.

>>10261011
>lulls

>>10262506
Meanwhile they'll have no plans for any such missions.

>>10262525
They are just one step ahead and have fully embraced the "build it and they'll come" philosophy.

>>10262414
>3 gorillion disposable rockets gonna get us wakanda in space dawg

>fuck yall on earth now

wew lad

That shit will never fly.
Looking forward to the explosion though.

>>10262519
Lol. Even unobtainium tier carbon nanotubes isn’t strong enough to build a space elevator that is as long as the height of objects in GEO. Space elevators was never going to make Space accessible for the average person nor is it possible to build with even materials verging on having magical properties. Orbital rings are one of the few meme space megastructures that is realistic to build with technologies being developed in the next 20 years and that will require cheap super heavy reusable rockets to set up. Musk and Bezos both know that the end game is setting up a space megastructure like an orbital ring that’ll cut the cost of access to space by another order of magnitude and which will make space mining and space industry viable. Who ever build some it first will own space, just like whoever built the railways during the western expansion of the US pretty much owned the small towns and industrial centres which relied on its tracks. It’s why I think Bezos is okay with Musk monopolising the global constellation satellite market because he has his eye on building on what is the equivalent of the railway to space. I’m willing to bet that in the 2020s, Blue Origin and Space will start patenting the complex mechanism in space megastructures like orbital rings. Rockets are just the beginning. Bezos has always said he wants to industrialise space and you can’t industrialise space with rockets.

>>10261695
According to QM, Quantum computers and particle accelerators are powered using something-something "quantum" and not fucking electricity.

>>10262624
>you can’t industrialise space with rockets
*ahem* may I direct your attention to >>10262414

>>10262075
I kinda like it. It's as if Discworld had a space programme. We need fewer slick, meaningless corporate logos in the world.

from SPI life

>>10262654
>>10262085
>>10262075
It looks like something that'd be an awesome tattoo. It's very traditional. I don't like the overly corporate logos tbqhwy.

>>10262654
Discworld does have a space program, if you're prepared to consider Last Hero as canon. I don't, of course. Nothing without a Josh Kirby cover is valid.

>>10262664
I didn't think the nose cone and mid section were that different in diameter, or would fit together like that. Is that even aerodynamic? And is that like a random yellow viewing balcony on the other side?

Oh well, I guess they know what they're doing.

>>10262667
There's a space program in the first book.

Now is the time to fund UN space elevator project and pool the worlds resources into it. Otherwise we risk a private company to monopolize space access using dangerous expensive chemical rockets. Even without carbon nanotubes we can do it there's even one Japanese that says they can build it if given the money.
We've got no time to waste.

>>10262668
one hopes! It’s exciting.

>>10262664
They put another piece on the Concrete Assembly Platform?

>>10262668
>And is that like a random yellow viewing balcony on the other side?
Looks like a part of the crane to me.

>>10262666
inb4 crane accident
ive seen too many of those
shits gonna go sideways
>oh no my imaginary benis building is brok

>>10262685
>not shooping a nekid reflection
out the airlock you go

>>10262687
hello scissor lift

>>10262684
One of my structural profs at uni kept a "blooper reel", it's just incredible to see like 20 mins of cranes falling over and over and over. No doubt he's ready in anticipation for the fuck up.

>>10262666
You can't make aerospace grade hardware like that on the outside. You need special buildings. Special clean rooms. Special suits. Special equipment.

>>10262707
if these things are to be used on mars with little maintenance, then I’d hope that they’re resilient to a bit of dust and dirt.

>>10262692
its amazing how people think these cranes can handle retard shit
there are no requirements to owning huge machines even if you are full retard
ironic

And that’s it for my morning dump. I’ll scour the usually places again in a bit and see if anything else has popped up

>>10262678
That’s been there for a few days. There is probably some good reason as to why they split the dome into multiple subsections for assembly later. Might just be a limitation of the equipment they have at the moment.

>>10262691
>that patch job
The more I look at this thing, the more it looks like a giant Las Vegas sign than something that will fly. I'm betting that it will end up with the big words "Boca Chica Spaceport" painted on the side and set up at the site entrance. The nozzles on the bottom are probably prototype builds that are left over from engineering tests and no longer flight worthy.

>>10262746
The only important bits seem to be the lower silo, and the internal structure we can’t see. I wouldn’t be worried about the workmanship of the top part. To my novice mechanical engineer eye it doesn’t look like it holds much of the load or would act as a path for stress in flight

one more photo.
Launch pad construction equipment

>>10262274
And the fact you can’t custom size your fuel tank appropriately

>>10262793
I haven’t played KSP in forever. Like 6 years forever. Is it more realistic now?

>>10262794
Dead botnet probably with buttcoin miners built in.

>>10262461
>>10262465

>>10262794
>Is it more realistic now?

No but there's a total overhaul modpack called RP-1 that makes things as realistic as the engine allows. Ullage, real engines, limited avionic, procedural fuel tanks, correct mass ratios, real propellants, etc.

Its the only way to make the game actually fun, otherwise it's fucking trash.
Pic is my early lunar impactor with its spin stabilised aerobee kick stage.

>>10262822
neat. I remember when they added the moon, and even when they added map view back before that. There wasn’t a speed up function, so I had to leave my computer running for like an hour to actually know if I was in orbit or not. Fun times

>>10262822
>>10262832
RP-1 just changes the science, if I recall, and bases itself on RSS/RO.
It's a great mod for reliving the first few hours of KSP, where the game feels expansive and you don't know shit, compared to the actual checklist the game is when you get good. Add Principia, a mod which adds working n-body into the mix, to feel like even more of a retard.

>>10262840
RP-0 was the one that just changed the science.
RP-1 is the new experimental version that also adds in a bunch of other shit like astronaut training, part tooling and so on.
But yeah, both are based on on RSS and RO.

>>10262846
Ah thanks. Never played RP-0 much, and not RP-1 at all.
The only times I ever tried RP-0, I got stuck making 1950s prop planes which always exploded on the Syrian highway which is the first tier runway. Has that been fixed yet?

>>10262857
The Tier-1 runway is concrete now but planes are still boring as fuck.
One i get past the first few altitude contracts i just streamline everything into the VAB.

hopper render by tea monster

>>10262857
For a moment I thought you were talking about physically playing with them.

>>10262082
>They landed a human on another planet
Moon not a planet also the average age of NASA employees during the Apollo era was mid 20's so thank you for proving my point.

>>10262488
>Will we always be using chemical rockets
I can't look a thousand years into the future but probably yes.

>But muh ridiculously expensive to build AND maintain clunky mega structure that'll probably end up being more expensive and a pain to use than conventional rockets. And probably also requires materials that don't even exist.
>But muh sci-fi enjins

If anything, Elon proved that there is still room for improvement on chemical rockets.

>>10263196
STOP

BUILDING

ROCKETS

>>10262846
what's RSS and RO?

>>10262864
yo what is that an actual mapped earth? damn I've been OOTL for a while

Methane on Ultima & Thule is now quite possible.
starship visit when?

>>10260918
>let's not go full autism this time

>>10263273
Basically never. It takes way too much delta-v to get there without the right planetary slingshot, and then you're going with so much velocity that you can't turn around. By the time you could even wait for a decent slingshot, BFR/Starship would already be obsolete. Hohmann transfer could take a century easy.

>>10263234
Real Solar System and Realism Overhaul.
It's wonky google-maps-like textures pasted onto roughly where cities should be but yeah its the earth.

Fully refilled Starship in Earth orbit with small payload can do hohmann transfer to any solar system object, the problem is actually travel time for the most part. Hohmann just to Uranus is already decades of coasting.

Any guesses whose ship that is and why its parked there the last few days?

Free marine traffic gives no info.

>>10262685
h0le

>>10263347
It’s my ship
Am I blocking you in?

>>10263337
Outer solar system needs nuclear power anyway so some specialization for the ships has to happen.
Jupiter's nicer moons are reachable though especially if refueling is available on Mars though power generation is going to painful and extremely limiting. No colonies there until private nuclear reactors.

>>10263358
it's a porthole, clearly. for the engine room.

>>10263364
>>10263337
there could be a future starship variant for only vacuum tugging, with a better mass fraction. you're right that it's really not that efficient for anything past mars currently

>>10262691
>>10262696
>>10262685
Something doesn't add up here - I work with stainless steel everyday and it's typically dull with an almost matt finish

The cladding material shown in these pics is far too shiny to be stainless steel. It looks more akin to an aluminium foil laminate...

There is more going on here than meets the eye

>>10263394
Do you polish ur steel

>>10262690
is there a picture of elon naked or scantily clad. Asking for porn reasons certainly not to make memes

>>10263394
I think those sections are pre-polished maybe? https://youtu.be/GTJmlXSCD0A

>>10263370
Not sure if vacuum optimizing starship is even possible The saving is few tons dry mass from heatshield, engines, winglets and legs, but then you've lost the ability to aerocapture and do maintenance outside of space. Is there a point in doing this instead of just going bigger?

I think if this works it'll set the baseline for most future designs just like aircraft all look similar now.

>>10263421
>Is there a point in doing this instead of just going bigger?
There's a HUGE POINT.

once you have a space infrastructure for LEO and mars made up of these normal starships you send a couple which are optimized but not only in mass also in engines. That means NERVA nuclear engines.

or you just build a totally unaerodinamical craft in orbit out of modules or even 3d printed raw material.

>>10263421
>I think if this works it'll set the baseline for most future designs just like aircraft all look similar no

Maybe for going to LEO. but this is like a raft, a full spaceship will be like the titanic. You can use a raft to go from polynesia to south america(which is what early pacific ocean indians did) but it's absolutely insane.

Most likely in the future youll have starships ferrying people from the ground to a retardedly fuck huge craft that has landind craft of its own

>>10260918
This is literally the only good thing coming out of nowaday life.
Science is stuck.
SJWs taking over all over the place.
Climate Warming will soon make Earth Onions Green tier planet.
I have no hopes, anon.
Some find it in scriptures from millenias ago. I find it in the future.

>>10263196
>If anything, Elon proved that there is still room for improvement on chemical rockets.
he improved just about everything BUT the chemical motor part of the rocket. you could take all the re-use and landing advances and apply them to any other kind of rocket you wanted.

>>10263452
What a retardedly unscientifically nitpicking comment of no value.

He improved CHEMICAL ROCKETS as a whole, not one specific part of them. I think you forgot to take the chemical pills that keep you from interacting with anyone else so that we dont have to suffer you

>>10263452
He has substantially improved engines too

new render from nsf

>>10263479
do we know if they're gonna be filling in the "wings"?

>>10263448
If you are talking about cyclers I don't really find those practical. They might save shielding mass and artificial gravity mass by essentially launching it once, but then they extend the journey time by the very nature of their trajectories. They also drastically complicate the procedure by demanding massive infrastructure already in place including ferries to and from them as well as constant maintenance and massive upfront costs. Frankly I believe that effort is better spent on depots for exploiting high speed transfers with smaller sized vehicles. NTR is good but it's roughly doubling payload. Not that revolutionary in a reality where reusable rockets and multiple launches+refueling is common. You need more to make a difference and be worth the hassle.

>>10263482
In one of the drone images triangular shaped sheets that should fit nicely on the legs can be seen next to the tent.

>>10263482
yes, you can see the triangle parts in the flyover video

>>10263482
there are steel triangular sections on the ground that look like they will fit there, and also older BFR designs all had filled wings

>>10263467
then why specify chemical rockets unless you meant the rocket motors?

>>10263483
Forgot to mention NTR "roughly doubles" the payload only if hydrogen is used. Other fuels reduce efficiency. Usable life hours are also very limited unless efficiency reducing engineering changes are made.

It might sound funny but I think NTR shines in its ability to use... water.

>>10262685
dont get why the sheets are so warped and dented especially if they are 6mm thick

>>10263517
Prolly made it cheap

>>10263517
they probably didn’t use a sheet roller to bend them consistently. Bends like that are often from hand-forming & hammering (and they have been hammering)

>>10263502
by water you mean CH4

>>10260918
Is this timeline even real.
I'm starting to loose grips with reality.
If that thing actually flies, I'm gonna have a fucking seizure.

>>10263530
>>10263526

could be, i wouldn't want to be the guy doing the hammering though haha

>>10263482
So wait, the wings are only there to do sweet backflips in almost orbit, right?
So do they land with nothing but engine gimbals and thrusters? Why doesn't this need some sort of grid fin equivalent?

>>10263546
Super Heavy has grid fins, starship does a belly flop. The wings don’t provide any lift or control authority, just a wider surface area.
It’ll also have massive RCS as well

>>10263546
Because higher mass actually increases you inertia squared.
F9 is still at a point where it somewhat matters.
BFR is all about thrust vectoring this shit.

>>10263555
That's a cute trips.

>>10263557
It’ll have flaps for aero control

>>10263564
Sure, to make it stable in higher athmo, belly front.
But they'll stop doing anything 10 km up.

>>10263570
Uh it’ll be a lot lower before they hit the braking burn

>>10263570
In the simulation they showed at dear moon it belly flops all the way down to like a kilometre.
The whole point of the wings is to lower terminal velocity so they don't have to use as much fuel.

>>10263581
Really?
At what altitude did this F9 start thrust vecoring?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EzQpkQ1etdA

>>10263536
No no no just plain water. Very abundant further out from the sun. Nearly 400 isp from the NERVA so not super impressive but... you know, a lot of icy rocks out there.
Interestingly, CH4 is not much better - about ~600.

>>10263591
bfr is not falcon 9.

https://youtu.be/zu7WJD8vpAQ?t=2478

SpaceX's simulation shows it bellyflopping until about 800 meters.
You might have to copy the link, i'm not sure if the t = thing works with embedding.

>>10263517
>dont get why the sheets are so warped and dented especially if they are 6mm thick

Where the heck did you get that number?

>>10263591
Bfr won’t be doing a reentry burn, and will have a lower terminal velocity
And the f9 landing burn clearly started at 3 km

>>10263616
Well, at least, they won't have much time to realize they're dead.

>>10263617
people got some side-on shots of the panels. The lower silo sections are beefty, like 18mm

>>10263616

>>10263629
Yeah, I'm sorry, but I don't believe it.
You're not gonna control your landing point from 800m up, going barely under sound speed.
That not even 4 seconds to crash.
Good fucking luck boarding this shit.

>>10263641
SpaceX has plenty of experience with falcon 9. And this thing is designed from the start to do this- F9 was sort of retrofitted.

My only worry is how will the seats work? Maybe they’ll rotate?

>>10263641
that's just like, your opinion man

>>10263646
No, this is entirely new design.
Some people are gonna splat onto the ground is what I predict.
And if they don't, they're gonna take so much Gs, they're gonna break a few bones coming back from Mars.

>>10263646
>Maybe they’ll rotate?
You're gonna be lying down on your back for launch, so when its re-entering and falling before the landing burn you'll be sitting like in a normal chair, i don't see the problem.

>>10263654
>they're gonna take so much Gs
The whole point of this system is to reduce g loads.

With a surface area like that it can come in really gently.
I doubt it'll be past 3, and people can handle that.

>>10263661
Round me up how much Gs they'll take going from terminal velocity to 0 in a less than 10 seconds, from 800m up.
I'd say 5, but there's also the rotation to account for.
I mean, yeah, people can survive that.
But people that have been on a mission to Mars for 3 years?

>>10263654
On the contrary the G loads are much lower than blunt capsule reentry. An actual advantage of lifting body vehicles.

>>10263673
>3 years to Mars

What the fuck are you talking about.

>>10263656
Makes sense

>>10263678
SpaceX might be powerful, but they can't make the Planets go faster.

>>10263678
2 1/2 to 3 years is a good estimate for a chemical round trip.

>>10263682
A hohhman transfer is 6 months, read a book.

>>10263673
6.86 m/s^2 or 0.7 g
Sitting on your chair you're experiencing 9.8.

>>10263678
>>10263684
Don't give further responses. It's the resident retard or someone who thinks imitating him is funny.

>>10263674
Am I fucking talking in nothingness?
The whole initial descent will be comfy as fuck.
The landing, however will be as tough as you can imagine.
Good luck making it an intercontinental transport system.

>>10263682
>>10263683
nigger its 6 months

>>10263684
Holy fuck, you're beyond retarded.

>>10263686
You're estimating BFS velocity to be 68.7m/s at engine ignition.
OK.

>>10263688

Its not even 1 g.
You're decelerating 100m/s (mach 0.3) in 15 second.

>>10263688
I thought the whole thing wouldn’t ever get above like 3g according to Elon

>>10263691
right.
here's the (you)

>>10263605
>>CH4 is not much better - about ~600
Thats a ~50% increase in isp so its a lot better
I agree lots of icy rocks there and to make CH4 you just need one C for 4 H Water is a great source and you can use O2 for your life support. If you have a cheat source of fluid with C you get a decent boost to efficiency if not you are right water is a great propellant.

>>10263692
it's just a misunderstanding, people are thinking you're talking about coming into mars entry not back to earth.

>>10263694
I'm not estimating, it tells you mach 0.3 on the fucking graph.

it takes 15 seconds to landing.

>future earth
>E2E is a common mode of transportation
>a cheap ticket gets you 6g re-entry and shitty hard chairs to lay in
>expensive tickets get you a smooth 1g re-entry and plush comfy chairs

>>10263701
I guess?
>>10263696
Well maybe it does its flip higher, and you don't throw up.
>>10263705
>15s.
Yeah, I see.
I don't believe it.
Just look at how soon they start landing burn on F9.
And there's no one to take the Gs hit.

>>10263714
>I don't believe it
So you think spacex is lying with their simulation or what?

the burn starts at 42:18, ends at 42:35

15 seconds

>>10263479
This looks like somebody made it in his garage.

>>10263700
Overly complicated. CH4 requires massive power source for and bunch of other stuff. And why bother with CH4 when you already have hydrogen with 1000isp at that point? Water on the other side is the simplest propellant to acquire short of throwing rocks. Melt and filter. In fact, unlike even hydrogen, it might be possible to have a reusable nuclear thermal rocket do it alone since the waste heat of the engine could be utilized for the melting.

>>10263722
800 m up? Is BFS a feather, or what?
Last I heard, it ended up weighing more.

>>10263712
>entry and shitty hard chairs to lay in>expensive tickets get you a smooth
>>10263714
>Well maybe it does its flip higher
>>10263714
>Just look at how soon they start landing

>>10263728
terminal velocity is like 50 m/s for a bellyflopping BFR

>>10263728
you're physics illiterate

>>10263732
Implying it won't instantly pick up speed doing its flip.

>>10263726
>And why bother with CH4 when you already have hydrogen with 1000isp at that point?

Because Hydrogen is a total piece of shit to store and ruins all the equipment it runs through.

>>10263732
it's 100m/s, look at the graph in the simulation.
But yeah its enough to slow itself down to landing at 0.7 g, don't listen to this retard.

>>10263736
this is true; I’d rather have complex ISRU stuff and simple tanks than complex storage and simple refining

>>10263734
I'll let you know that I've logged over 9000 hours in Kerbal Space Program.
No, really, I did.
This doesn't sound any real, even in KSP.

>>10263712
Why would E2E be common?
Supersonic passenger transport was experimented with, but as it turns out people prefer comfort and low cost to saving time since air travel isn't common.
E2E would be to supersonic flight as supersonic flight is to subsonic. So if supersonic flight isn't favourable, then E2E definitely wouldn't be.

>>10263745
common as in it suppliemnts a large part of the 1st class airplane market, according to shotwell. Many flights a day sort of thing

>>10263726
Where you are going its not a problem to store liquid methane so I would use the wasted heat to split the water and get carbon if possible. H2 is a bitch to work with and you know the melting temps of it. As I said if you dont have access to carbon water is great

>>10263736
Should be the last problem for a nuclear thermal rocket. Nonetheless I stick with water and even co2 for those engines. Using them with methane seems utterly pointless.

>>10263735
Why are you retards fucking speculating when you have a velocity against altitude graph spoonfed to you?
You don't need to imply anything, it does pick up speed, it doesn't fucking matter, we've already established its mach 0.3 when it starts the burn.

>>10263744
bait

>>10263751
Well, because I don't believe it?
Stage is gonna make up all the speed it lost doing the flip maneuver, and get back to normal terminal velocity for it's back end first profile in a few seconds, before lighting engines.
If it ever lands, I guess it will be known as the throw up maneuver.

whatever you believe, we’ll see some 5km hops with this thing being built. If the mass is similar it’ll clear up any of these potential misconceptions at least for some parts of EDL

>>10263762
I sorta trust SpaceX’s models more than your hand waving ngl. But, I wouldnt be entirely surprised if the final EDL profile is quite different.

>>10263555

>>10263750
>>CO2
please no ...... ~3,306 m/s Exhaust velocity
You only use it if you have it directly available from dry ice or atmosphere

>>10263744
One of the things they nerfed in that game to compensate for the piss easy delta v requirements is they made the tanks have ridiculously high dry masses. The dry mass of Starship on the other hand will be very low by comparison giving it a slow terminal velocity.

Also if you are using stock aerodynamics as your reference point you need to kill yourself as soon as possible.

Calm down people, the answer has been in front of us this whole time

>>10263762
the fucking arrogance

>>10263773
Tell me something I don't know.
All I'm saying is, this thing has to turn engines first at some point.
And it's gonna pick a hell of a lot of speed doing this.

>>10263749
The issue is splitting the water is very power intensive and waste heat from NTR can't do it. You need 50kw or so electricity for 1kg hydrogen. This means large nuclear powered base or colony, and time. Not, as I imagine, self reliant icy rock transport capable of making use of whatever is available. NTR is essentially the only thing that offers such mobility simply because it can make use of "dumb" volatiles and turn them into respectable propellants with isps ranging from mid to high level chemical rockets. Without complex manufacturing (infrastructure) involved.
>>10263769
>dry ice
That's what I'm thinking. And it's not really THAT low anyway... Saturn V's first stages were around that number, and the sea level merlins aren't much higher. I might be wrong but it could be easier to filter out than the possibly salty water so less strain on the NERVA?

At any rate it's getting late so goodnight. Have fun with the shitposters.

>>10263750
>Using them with methane seems utterly pointless.
...
>increasing specific impulse from ~350 to ~600 is pointless

dumb.

You'd only ever use straight up water or CO2 or anything else as propellant in an NTR if that engine was being used on a vehicle that never went very far away from a source of those chemicals. A few examples would be a hopper on Mars using liquefied atmosphere as propellant, a cargo shuttle transporting things from the surface of any of the ice moons of the gas giants to orbit and back, etc. For anything interplanetary if you aren't using hydrogen NTR you're using methane NTR and if you aren't using methane NTR you're using chemical propulsion. That's assuming you even have NTR on the table of course.

>>10263785
It does, up to mach 0.3.
CAN YOU NOT FUCKING READ?

>>10263785
>>10263821
LOOK

>>10263795
Hopefully there will be some nice new progress pics in the morning. I’ll post em if I find them

>>10263785
In the four seconds it will take to perform the flip and light the engines it will accelerate <40 m/s. Quick maths.

>>10263795
night annon
Too bad we are born too early and miss out on shoveling frozen volatiles in the fuel tank of our NTR powered FedX transport ship...

>>10263830
I’d rather melt down my cutlery ala rocket ship Galileo

>>10263821
>>10263824
It's almost as if it weighted 5 kg for 100 tons to LEO.
Sorry, but I'm having a hard time believing this.
Let's hope I'm proved wrong.

>>10263795
>Saturn V's first stages were around that number
The F-1 engine is notorious for being big and powerful but inefficient. For hoppers and transport to orbit vehicles around low gravity worlds, CO2 NTR and water NTR are fine. As soon as you start to consider interplanetary trips however you need to either look at methane and hydrogen propellants for NTR or if you're for some reason unwilling to do that then switch back to the more efficient chemical options.

>>10263840
>Let's hope I'm proved wrong.
No need to hope, you're wrong.

>>10263840
>but I'm having a hard time believing this.

imagine thinking shit you pull out from your ass is more accurate than physics simulations.

>>10263846
Really makes you think why nobody ever thought of blunt body re-entry before.

>>10263850
not exactly, every spaceplane is fat and blunt.

>>10263853
I meant expose all available surface, and then deploy a parachute at nothing speed, because it's so easy.

it’s basically a brick

>>10263795
If you're a real old-timey space prospector living off the land you'd use a solar thermal rocket with water ice or whatever ice you can find. You'd load it in the hopper with a shovel.

>>10263855
parschutes a shit, you already have engines so why not use them?

This thread is moving really fast for a non launch thread on /sci/

>>10263840
nigger you gotta go back to middle school.
things accelerate at 9.8m/s^2 regardless of their weight, or less because of air resistance.
>>10263855
exactly what a capsule does

>>10263856
was like 80% finished, they were even building the launch site.
Fucking politicians.
Pieces of shit.

>>10263863
we’re only 2,500 posts into this discussion, buckle up dudeo

>>10263872
kek

>>10262675
Starlink is a series of tubes.

I've read people claiming that thing is being done by SpaceX but I haven't seen any logos around here. I need concrete proof.

>>10263943
Nevermind.
>austinbarnand45
>asking for donations for a new camera and equipment
This is a scam.

>>10263865
NO ALUMINIUM TANKS REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

>>10263943
>>10263949
are you actually retarded?

>>10262675
What if - What if we built tunnels under the cities?
So you could have sweet races with toy cars in them?

>>10263959
t.austinbarnand45
I'm not falling for your trickery. You won't get a cent from me for your shitty camera.

>>10263959
>>10263949
>>10263943
on the other hand ignorance can look the same.
1) spacex entered an agreement with Texas to build a launch facility in Boca Chica back in 2014.
2) there is extensive documentation and news about the groundbreaking ceremony, the specific land ownership transfers to spacex for certain things (this plot is for solar, this is for the launchpad)
3) there are probably a dozen SpaceX signs at the facility
4) SpaceX has partnered with a university to create the STARGATE facility across the street
5) Elon musk was actually at this location tweeting photos earlier this week
6) WHY WOULD SOMEONE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON CONSTRUCTING THIS THING TO SCAM PEOPLE OUT OF A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS
so yeah you’re retarded

>>10263972
Source?

>>10263641
BACK ONCE AGAIN

IT'S THE LAD MAD THAT MADLADS ARE MAKING MAD ROCKETS

>>10263714
>adonbilivit
you "argue" like a flat earther

>>10263975
no I refuse to believe that you’re this ignorant. Do your own research.

>>10264000
The burden of proof is in the one who makes the claim. Welp, good luck with your scam, bro.

Threadly reminder to not reply to him.

>>10263775
Hmmmm, I can see it

new
>>10264102
>>10264102
>>10264102

>>10263972
>6) WHY WOULD SOMEONE SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON CONSTRUCTING THIS THING TO SCAM PEOPLE OUT OF A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS
Need to spend money to make money, dude. Econ 101.

>>10263629

They're all going to die, aren't they?

>>10264173
>And then they're gonna die me . . . OHHHH MYY GOOOOOOOD!

>>10264173
at those speeds an ejection seat might work, you know

>>10263394
If you spend an hour or so with a grinder you can make it look like that

>>10263546
It does a belly flop
It has winglets in the front that wiggle, and it can wiggle the landing legs/wings to adjust itself
Once it goes butt down, it immediately starts burning, then it's gimbal time

>>10264439
plus, the butt-down action happens by itself - the CoG shoves everything into that orientation without user input anyways

>>10263620
It looks fucking terrifying, doesn't it
>>10264443
They wiggle for it, but I bet if the wiggler jammed at exactly the wrong time you could eject
Will this suffer the same problem that sts did, where there's no real launch escape system?

>>10264485
a LES would add more failure modes than it solves.
Consider: starship will HAVE to work on takeoff and landing from mars. Thus, they will design it to be inherently robust and reliable for that must-work sort of engineering requirement. A LES in the traditional sense would only save you in a small sliver of mission events: earth takeoff, up to a point. In exchange, you give up mass, volume, and add in components that—could—cause failures elsewhere.
It wouldn't save you for earth orbit problems, for interplanet coast problems, for MDL problems, or for mars takeoff problems.

It will just be extremely reliable from the get-go, and that's the right way to do it.

>>10264522
That worked so fucking well for shuttle

>>10264538
keep in mind that one of the two shuttle losses wouldn't have been saved by a LES.

>>10264542
Hmmmm
Was it Columbia that the crew compartment was intact until it hit the water?

>>10264608
yes, they were certainly still alive when it impacted as well.

>>10264132
>Need to spend money to make money, dude.
Well you are right but:
We are talking about someone who never made money with his companies and relies solely on scamming taxpayers and investors.
Remember Solar Roof ? It was a scam
Remember 420 funding secured? A scam to push the stock
Remember sending people around the moon in 2017-2018? Also a lie
Elon Musk is known for lying, there is no reason to trust him this time, just look how many times they "redesigned" the BFR yet.
Since I am not american I don't really care since it's your money if you want to support a South African drug addict you are free to do so but just know that you are retarded and naive for falling for all his sensational claims.
/futurology might be a place for you check it out.

>>10263811
>increasing specific impulse from ~350 to ~600 is pointless
600 lmao
It is not possible for methane to have a higher isp than LH you realize that don't you?
Why are SpaceX fanboys always uninformed naive I-fucking-love-science hipsters?
LH is superior to Methane because it is equally difficult to handle but has a way higher isp.

>>10264818
you don't even know what we're talking about here, do you?

>>10264831
You clearly don't know what you are talking about.
The specific impulse is determined by the velocity of exhaust gasses (now what might be a very light and therefore hight velocity exhaust gas? Let's try Hydrogen?)
LH has the highest isp of all chemical rocket fuels.
If you really think you can change physics please enlighten me and provide a link for a chemical rocket engine with an isp of 600.
Because my sources say the Raptor has a vacuum isp of 380.
SHIT the Rl-10 a 56 year old engine: vacuum isp 465
Looks like you have no clue what you are talking about, do your homework kid.
Start with the basics before you talk to me again.

>>10264858
you don't know what we're talking about, because you said "chemical rocket fuels"
that is explicitly not what we are talking about here

>>10264858
here, let me help you
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket
both NASA and the Soviets were working on these in the 60s and 70s

>>10264879
We were talking about methane aAND chemical engines.
Nice shifting the goalpast.
So you agree that methane does not have a isp of 600 that LH is superior and that you were wrong?
Good.

>>10264904
no, we were talking about using methane as the inert propellant in your nuclear thermal engine, and comparing it against other inert propellants, such as carbon dioxide and hydrogen
if you can't follow such a simple thread of conversation I see no reason to continue talking with you, good day

>>10264860
Oh so the Raptor is not a chemical rocket engine?
btw hydrogen does provide a higher isp used in nuclear engines than methane.
You know how isp is calculated? No you don't because if, you would know that LH will ALWAYS have a higher isp than Methane. Something something mass something something velocity....

>>10264913
the topic of conversation was not about raptor, or any other chemical engine, in the post that he was criticizing
the topic of conversation was nuclear thermal engines
hydrogen would have a higher ISP than methane, water, or carbon dioxide, but would be significantly harder to handle and source, because hydrogen a shit
but I'm literally repeating what has already been said in the thread

>>10264904
>>10264858

>hurr durr isp is everything

learn some rocket science you retard and then post

>>10261789
>keep in mind only like 35% of NASA’s budget is with SLS
That's 35% (or higher) since 1990.

Totally wasted money. Thats a baseline for corruption. From starters 35% is wasted, you think nothing else is ogin on?

>>10265396
This. If they are goofing this hard on the Rockets god only knows what is going on in the smaller and less publically known projects.