/sci/ - Science & Math

they fit!

>>10282036

>>10282037
Are those aerodynamic wibbles?

>>10282036
Earth is flat

Reminder not to respond to the vatnik.
Reminder you are going to live through the real space age.
Reminder you are witnessing the start of it.

This is just a wire frame covered in aluminum foil right?

>>10282037
Looks like they had to scrunch it down a fair bit.

Here's one of the tank bulkheads

>>10282056
stainless steel.

>>10282057
yes; it has an ever so slight taper I think. Might be by design, since the bottom silo puffs out a bit when full of fuel?

>>10282037
They didn't plan that very well, huh?

>>10282060
It will explode

So is this thing an empty shell?

>>10282060
you're just seeing tricks of the light. It's highly reflective so things like that happen in photos. It's not a crack or gap; other photos confirm this

>>10282069
it has placeholder engines, and probably a whole slew of pluming fixtures and fuel tank equipment. Hardly 'empty'! First flight is sometime in March

>>10282070
Sure Elon, it probably looks great if it wasn't for those photons reflecting into our eyes so we can see it.

>>10282070
It's absolutely a gap. The reflection would keep going beyond the fin, like on the on you're pointing out.

>>10282059
So they think this tin-can they cobbled together can actually hold liquid methane?

>>10282074
>can clearly see the top of the fins are vastly different shapes and heights

>>10282080
of course, that's sort of the point. It's the grasshopper equivalent for Starship.

>>10282083
Two of them are wrapped in shiny steel, one isn't yet.

>>10282083
yes, that's because one of the legs doesn't have the additional cladding yet

>>10282088
>just slap it together, no it doesn't matter what order we stick the foil on
That'll be part of the reason for the massive gap then.>>10282078
>>10282070
>>10282060

This thing is going to make an ultra boom when it explodes

>>10282089
Why are the two in cladding differently shaped?

>>10282095
Oh know! They might have to pay for another water tower and wait another two months.

>>10282096
they look the same to me. Which part?

>>10282041
>>10282050
Seems the thing is actually covered with tinfoil, to hide some details of the rocket...

Or Mr. Musk went mad.

so shiny

This is not how you build a rocket test article.
You need;
>careful study to create a set of requirements and goals to be achieved by the article
>multiple cost-analysis reviews during the design process to reduce associated risk with prototyping work and to make sure it will have net-positive result on main project
>thorough cost-schedule analysis and planning to bring the article into operation in the designed time with sufficient schedule and budget leeway for unanticipated difficulties
Only then you proceed with manufacturing using the most experienced and capable contractors available.

The concept you can just weld one in place in few weeks is insulting. These things take a decade if not more.

>>10282103
I guess they realized the shiny look might become part of their brand in the future and they just want to establish it early.

>>10282107
they hired old fart soviet engineers for this shit, it seems.

>>10282101
The one on the left looks rounder, the one on the right clearly has bits that are pointy and change direction suddenly, which shouldn't be the case if they were the same shape. It looks like righty is full of those dents and things though.

Here's a close up. You can compare the covered leg vs the 'raw' one. Wonder what those connection are. Also, you can clearly see there is no gap, just a very low-light "corner"

>>10282108
10/10

>>10282103
It's well established that psychic beams from satellites cannot penetrate tin foil, so his IP is safe for now.

>>10282114
It's a gap. You can see inside the covering ffs.

JUST

>>10282108
t. seething ula engineer

>>10282126
>no prenup

BO is kill.

>>10282108

>oldspace unironically thinks like this

>>10282137
it’s not like 60 billion is not enough to run blue origin tho, lol

>>10282137
No. Mackenzie will take over and it will become greatest rocket company.

>>10282080
>this tin-can they cobbled together can actually hold liquid methane
This is pretty much just a fairing and legs, and a bit of support structure. There will probably be two separate pressure vessels inside, for liquid oxygen and liquid methane. They might just put a bulkhead in between the two and fill the shell directly, but I doubt it.

It's crude because this is a weight-insensitive test vehicle, so they can use large safety factors instead of shaving off every unnecessary pound. They're not set up to build the real thing yet.

>>10282151
>so they can use large safety factors
Do Americans really still think in terms of "safety factors" for engineering?

>>10282153
Every competent structural engineer does, no matter where they live.

>>10282167
Ha ha ha ha ha. Where did you study?

>>10282167
Actually most of the world works like pic related.

>>10282172
I put "competent" in there for a reason.

>>10282176
Competence is a social construct of the past. Now I recall that one bridge in the US recently...

>>10282170
Go ahead. Explain what you think is wrong with the concept of "safety factor", and I'll explain how you're wrong and stupid.

>>10282108
But only losers and nerds would want to do something that boring. The future is now, gramps

>>10282108
Isn't that how NASA managed to overshoot their budget for the new manned rocket by several billion with decade+ delays making their rocket previous gen by the time it actually gets built?

>>10282186
It's obvious satire

>>10282036
That'll be one of the funniest thing to watch blow up.
Thank Musk for the entertainment.

>>10282180
When I was in my undergrad I had to sit through a bunch of lectures on why FoS are not used anymore because we've moved on to limit state design in most of the world. Yes this was at a top university in Europe for structural engineering.

From my experience, I would guess (if you really have some reason to believe you have a level of expertise) that you're an older person (45ish+) that studied stuff back in the 70s or 80s when FoS was still a thing and got hand held through a remedial course that explained how nobody does that anymore. Those sorts of courses, from what I can tell, tend to explain limit state design ideas like ULS and SLS in terms you're familiar with i.e. FoS. That can lead to some people getting confused over terminology and theory and so on.

>>10282201
>lololol, we still use safety factors, but we call it something else now, get with the times gramps

>>10282214
Again, they're not safety factors...

>>10282060
it gets welded

>>10282180
Now how is >>10282201 wrong and stupid?

>>10282221
then what are they? margins of safety?
I’m a mechE junior at a pretty good uni and I’ve never heard of the things you’re describing. We use FoS.

>>10282243
... that’s not to say it’s bad or anything, but that it’s not entirely necessary

higher res

>>10282259
dammnit anon learn how to save images.

>>10282201
>When I was in my undergrad I had to sit through a bunch of lectures
Translated:
>I am am engineering undergrad, and I just had a lecture by one opinionated professor...

>>10282221
It's just obfuscation and nitpicking.

The point of a safety factor is to deal with unknowns: both known unknowns and unknown unknowns. You can't actually calculate the real probability of failure, any such calculations must be premised on assumptions which themselves can only be assigned probabilities of being truthful by adding more assumptions ad infinitum, so in the end, after you've applied all your most clever techniques to guess at what's needed, you strengthen things up further by some arbitrary amount and hoping that's enough to deal with the inevitable nasty surprises.

You can call it what you like, but that's safety factor. The bigger you make it, the less likely your structure is to fail. If you're refusing to admit that this is what you're doing out of pride and vanity and a desire to appear more competent than reality allows, you're probably not doing a good job, and the future has ugly surprises in store for your customers.

>>10282259

>>10282108
gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8 out of 8 pls don't h8

>>10282243
>I’m a mechE junior
Wow, the comments above are way too arrogant, tone it down.

No they are not "margins of safety", in a sense you can retroactively calculate whatever of safety by working it out from the final design but the method is too complicated to explain in a simple way to someone with no background. It'd be easier to explain to a social sciences student (take that how you want) due to the amount of stats involved. You take into account a number of different conditions, then using a number of load factors and combination factors you can work out what you have to build to for it to reasonably stand up to usability and serviceability conditions over whatever life cycle (typically 25-100 years).

That's heavily simplified and also a bit backwards way of thinking about it.

>>10282268
>The point of a safety factor is to deal with unknowns: both known unknowns and unknown unknowns. You can't actually calculate the real probability of failure, any such calculations must be premised on assumptions which themselves can only be assigned probabilities of being truthful by adding more assumptions ad infinitum, so in the end, after you've applied all your most clever techniques to guess at what's needed, you strengthen things up further by some arbitrary amount and hoping that's enough to deal with the inevitable nasty surprises.
You don't know what you're talking about. If you had a passing knowledge of the subject you'd understand that you cannot simply talk about "failure" in limit state design, which is part of the point of it to begin with.

a (non-incriminating) image post of the rocket was just deleted before I got a chance to expand it and see it. Anyone know what was in it? Did someone accidentally expose something secret and CIA intervened? Also screenshotting this post in case it gets deleted too

>>10282290
>If you had a passing knowledge of the subject you'd understand that you cannot simply talk about "failure"
Yeah, you're so far up your own ass you can't see reality anymore. The most charitable assumption is that you're in the grip of a stupid fad that has succeeded, not by producing better results, but by sounding better to clueless business managers and regulatory bureaucrats.

>>10282297

>>10282308
that's the one, saved. Can't see anything suspicious?

>>10282302
Again, what's your background? This is standard fare for nearly all civil engineers across nearly all of the developed (and not so developed) world now, and for quite a while. I know the US have been resistant to it, but their engineering programs can be a bit weird and they have a tendency to resist change. Also a lot of them still have to learn this (thank you international treaties).

>>10282315
Look between the fins at the bottom and you can see the reflection of what is clearly a king kong sized gorilla.

>>10282319
Meant for >>10282310

>>10282319
I'm glad Kong is safe in texas taking photos of space rocket

>>10282037
ultimate jank

>>10282319
holy shit cannot unsee

>>10282297
I posted that thinking it was the higher res version of another one that had been posted, but I was mistaken. it's the same as the 3rd image itt but not cropped

>>10282349
I've been on here for so long and never realised you can delete your own post, I thought things just got memory holed left right and centre lol

>>10282315
>This is standard fare for nearly all civil engineers
So this is specifically a civil engineering fad? Tell me some more about how civil engineers laugh up their sleeves at those backwards aerospace engineers.

>I know the US have been resistant to it, but their engineering programs can be a bit weird and they have a tendency to resist change.
That's a funny way to say, "The undisputed world leader in engineering doesn't fall for half as many silly fads."

>>10282384
>So this is specifically a civil engineering fad?
Ah, so you admit no expertise or knowledge then? To say "specifically civil" is a bit weird too, it's like the broadest discipline arguably alongside "military".

Either you've forgotten what you said earlier or haven't realised you're continuing on from >>10282167 so are talking as if you had knowledge of structural engineering.

>>10282400
not him, but I just read through the limit state design wiki page. How is it better than FoS? Seems like more work, and wayyyy more opportunity for a mistake in your calculations to result in a dangerous spec

>>10282036
My DICK is hard seeing this. My PENIS.

My THROBBING ERECTION compels me to drive to Boca Chica and FUCK this beautiful piece of construction.

>>10282410
I want it in my ass

>>10282400
>To say "specifically civil" is a bit weird too
...when we're talking about rocket ships? Jesus, you're worthless.

You come in here with your hair-splitting engineering undergrad snobbery like you've got some point to make, and it turns out that you're basing it on a stupid civil engineering fad in some countries, where they don't like to use standard, basic engineering terms.

>>10282410
BFR (Big F*cking Cock ... I mean Rocket)

>>10282414
It might explode

>>10282414
BFR in Uranus

I have't been keeping up with these threads, but you guys do know that the one in these images is just a statue and isn't meant to be functional right? The real one(s) is being built in another location out of the public eye.

>>10282404
There are always opportunities to make mistakes, but pretty much all design and engineering is done in groups. You also get better at reading and sight judging structures and members with experience. And on top of that, while computers and complex models are used, civil engineers are taught methods to assess what the results at the end are by simplifying models to a degree. In general, if you're doing something very new you need to think about it more but it's not an issue as much as you might think.

The LSD codes allow for better regionalisation and international understanding because the framework that builds the codes remains the same, but the factors can be changed as needed (factors for snow loading, for example, are not needed in some parts of the world, but are obviously required in others) depending on where you are. There are also combination factors (this is something I find a lot of people misunderstand that should know better) where you don't go adding together every possible worst case scenario all at once (what if a hurricane and earthquake hit just as torrential rain came down on top of an avalanche ALL WHILE a crew of morbidly obese contractors were doing maintenance???), it gives a more reasonable value. So you have better access to international expertise and also better thought out designs.

The main impetus is maintenance though. Buildings have to last a long time and many are usable well past their expected service life. Having a ULS and SLS means you have to consider what it would take for a structure to no longer be fixable as well as what it would take to no longer be usable. This changes some of the economics of buildings and proposals, as well as just resulting in better construction.

>>10282451
are you so sure?

>>10282415
Don't get upset buddy, if it's you I've been talking to all along you gave in to hubris. Otherwise, try not to stress so much? It's no big deal, you thought you knew more than you did.

>>10282466
>keep your eyes here
>don't look anywhere else

Yeah, I'm sure.

>>10282477
where the fuck are you going to hide a nine meter wide rocket?

>>10282480
Probably the same place you'd hide a submarine.

>>10282050
Ribbed for its own pleasure

>>10282054
there is a vatnik in here?

>>10282108
I trust you over a space agency with years of experience and dozens if not hundreds of engineers with degrees and work experience every day

>>10282480
VAB at Kennedy Space Center?

>The VAB is the largest single-story building in the world,[3] was the tallest building (160.3 meters, 526 ft) in Florida until 1974,[4] and is still the tallest building in the United States outside an urban area.[4]

Well, I'm sure a shorter, but wider building could be used.

>>10282492
Inside a cave

>>10282523
That's a vagina

>>10282451
why would you build a statue that's all wrinkled? Why does it have tank bulkheads?

>>10282557
Specifically to make you ask those questions instead of finding the real rocket for your Chinese overlords.

>>10282308
I wonder if they're going to do anything to smooth out the skin before launch. I know the reflective surface makes it look more wavy than it probably is, but even so that looks really really wavy.

>>10282596
I still think it’ll ‘inflate’ when they fill it with fuel. That and some polishing should make it unwrinkly

>>10282596
Reflections of nearby objects exaggerate the wrinkles a bit.

with the new SS design it is much easier to shift to a larger diameter rocket down the road. No huge carbon fiber tooling to upscale; you just set your sheet metal machine to a larger diameter curve. We might be back to ITS sized starships in a few years.

>>10282617
Assuming they build sizeable sea launch infrastructure we'll instantly know if its meant for 12m, or even larger diameters down the line.

>>10282036
Looks like someone covered it with a big Coghlan's emergency blanket.

>>10282573
so you're a step ahead of the /entire/ Chinese state?

>>10282667
They stuck a bunch of shiny stickers to the bottom portion
Presumably for appearances, although maybe it affects the guidance sensors somehow

>>10282617
>>10282649
What I always asked myself is, what is the point in building big rockets if they are aiming for reusability?

>>10282669
Seems absolutely everyone is already in everything except trampling human rights. So, yeah anon is most likely ahead of them.

>>10282683
rocket equation
bigger mass budgets
larger singular payloads
more use cases

Why not build a space mountain? Then you can drive up into space. No rocket needed.

>>10282673
might be for thermals. Doesn’t allow the sun to heat up the methane or lox as much

>>10282686
Well, my whole point is, when you have a reusable rocket (and I mean truley reusable) payload cost is marginal anyways, and with big rockets you have much bigger fixed costs (for example, should a launch or a landing fail you obviously lose more money if it was a big, expensive rocket vs a smaller one). A larger payload bay surely is an advantage, but how often is that big payload pay going to be used? You are essentially taking up all these disadvantages for some very few, very specific missions that require large payload bays.

Bulkhead action

>>10282703
You’re approaching this from the wrong perspective. as Elon says, this starship will seem like a rowboat compared to later rockets.
Step back and look at the bigger picture. Small rockets suck

>>10282703
You are correct. This is known as a diseconomy of scale, nobody thus far has heard reason on this front.

>>10282703
t. oldspace boomer
Supply creates its own demand. If there is affordable access to larger rockets, of course people will take advantage of it. Stop thinking like it’s still the fucking ‘90s.
The future is here, nigger.

>>10282703
>>10282712
Are you two daft? Colonizing mars doesn’t take a couple small shipments. It takes millions of tons of equipment.
Plus, E2E benefits from more passengers per flight

>>10282690
you don't understand how space works, just being at that height doesn't put you in orbit

>>10282717
Ask yourself: do things ever go wrong? Do they ever go wrong when sending things into space? Do they ever go wrong when sending things to Mars? Are there any concerns with anything maybe failing at all in this endeavour?

>>10282719
But you don't need orbit to be in space with the mountain genius.

>>10282721
The size of the individual rockets doesn't matter.
If you're sending a million people and 0.1% of the rockets blow up, 1000 people die, regardless if you send them on 1000 rockets or 10 000.

>>10282716
Not really the point. If there is a company that produces medium sized rockets, and another company that produces large sized rockets, and they are on equal footing when it comes to reusability, than the company with the medium sized rockets will be cheaper and get the whole market, while the large rocket company will only get the niche market that require large payload bays.

>>10282717
Well, for colonization it just makes way more sense to build a spaceship in space that taxis between Earth orbit and Mars orbit (like an ISS, but a bit smaller and with engines attached), than to go from surface to surface in one rocket.

>>10282721
I don’t see your point. Your idea that smaller rockets are better is just laughable by the way.
Elon says that Starship will seem like a “rowboat” compared to future megarockets, you know.

>>10282722
being on your hypothetical mountain is not much better than being in Texas with regards to getting to the moon or mars
therefore it is better to pursue orbital rockets, not megastructures

>>10282730
t. Doesn’t understand economics or engineering at all
Boats are reusable. Why don’t the smaller cargo ships have all the market for shipping stuff to China and back? After all, if one sinks it’s a smaller monetary loss :^)

I can’t tell if you’re just superbly dumb or really baiting us all here

>>10282730
cyclers are a meme

Behold! These tiny boats will take over the entire global shipping market. After all, most things to be shipped arent bigger than a single cargo container.
Wait, what’s that? It’s a stupid idea? No, I refuse to believe so!

>>10282728
>the rate of failure never changes!
>stochastic events are also spread out evenly!
You have a weird viewpoint my man. Not 100% on where to begin on that.

>>10282731
If that's the route Musk and SpaceX are taking, I can't do anything about it apart from think it's dumb.

I wonder if it might end up as this century's Titanic?

>>10282740
honestly a good solution for moving things across the river
not a good solution for pan-pacific shipping

>>10282736
Why don't they build much much larger ships for cargo because they can and it's better?

>>10282736
The difference is that cargo ships have a huge market for large payloads, rockets don't.

>>10282746
Diminishing returns, moron

>>10282737
This is true

>>10282742
?????? your logic is honestly baffling. Why the fuck do you think China, and Blue Origin have massive rockets in the works?

>>10282749
In fact they rely on fairly large payloads and size to stay comptetitive with faster air packets.

>>10282749
“Large payloads”. No idiot, they ship dinky little cargo containers. See: >>10282740
That is you. You’re dumb.

>>10282752
This is false.

>>10282703
With all transportation systems there is upper size limit beyond which things become impractical but 9m is nowhere near those limits for rockets. Most rockets are much smaller not because it is optimal in any way (on the contrary), but because of transportation requirements and being derived from ICBM designs. The russians are essentially hard limited by trains. So were the shuttle SRBs. If SpaceX weren't budget limited and in a hurry to get this thing working 12m was the better option offering much more mass to play with both for payloads, and structure.

Simply imagine the opposite - a small reusable rocket. You'll find the amount of flights required and payload capabilities quite ridiculous for anything noticeably smaller than SS/SH. Efficiency would also drop due to atmospheric and other scaling effects. Yet the R&D costs and probably even production costs would not be lower but likely even higher as there will be more demand for expensive light weight or otherwise exotic alloys in order to retain acceptable mass fractions. Also note F9 upper stage re-usability turned out to be impractical after all and that's a big rocket.

>>10282757
Cycles are a waste of time and money, add numerous failure modes, extend the time it takes to ship shit from mars to earth and back, and stifle fleet upgrades since now you have a large money sink to care for

>>10282756
This, huge payloads on ships are niche af

>>10282746
>Why don't they build much much larger ships for cargo because they can and it's better?

The scale of cargo to justify large scale cargo delivery like we see with superfreighters and containerization doesn't exist. Every payload put into space right now is bespoke.

>>10282740
By god, you are a moron. Large container ships do actually have a very niche market, and that is the longest distances around the globe. There are only a few dozen large container ships that work non-stop. Small ships are indeed way more cost effective, since they don't need to sit in a harbour for weeks until they are fully loaded, but you can't deliever anything heavy across the pacific on a small ship.

>>10282765
And, I’d expect that mars hardware will also be packaged in standard “boxes” (or cylinders, probably) so only a single sort of stuff-transporter on the surface is needed / offloading things is easier

>>10282761
Some people think cyclers are simply big ocean liners but in space. Mars Express arrives to Earth and you hop on with a little push from high altitude balloon or spaceplane.

>>10282774
>Some people think cyclers are simply big ocean liners but in space. Mars Express arrives to Earth and you hop on with a little push from high altitude balloon or spaceplane.

Cyclers are justifiable if they have artificial gravity and in-space assembly becomes cost-effective.

>>10282778
>>10282774
Yeah, “cyclers” is a pretty broad description. Some ideas to implement them are better than others

>>10282766
>The scale of cargo to justify large scale cargo delivery like we see with superfreighters and containerization doesn't exist.
I think you tried to make a point there but it's not clear what it is. What do you mean by the "scale of cargo"? On almost every front I can think of you're wrong.

You're not alone, I think some other anons are under the impression you pack the container and are scoffing at the impracticality, when it's not like that at all.

>>10282778
No. The infrastructure needed to make cyclers work also makes them redundant.

>>10282784
>What do you mean by the "scale of cargo"? On almost every front I can think of you're wrong.

There are not enough things that need to go into space.

>>10282774
>with a little push from high altitude balloon
Whatever that means it's almost certainly completely impractical.

>>10282735
>>10282722
Eh, the crust would sink down in that area and make the mountain too short to reach it anyway.

>>10282788
I agree. There's a lot of demand for ocean transport (although in the last couple of years it's way more expensive and the time lag is fucking annoying).

I think the responses you'll get back will insist there's demand because Mars Colony or some shit. Not good reasoning imo.

>>10282787
>No. The infrastructure needed to make cyclers work also makes them redundant.

I disagree. Cyclers that are worthwhile present an engineering conundrum that doesn't make sense to optimize for in a surface-to-space vehicle: Being able to keep the occupants healthy. To that end, the single largest advancement you can make is artificial gravity; it lets aerosols settle, feces and urine to sink down in toilets, and all those other, awful particulates we deal with are generally easier to handle when they settle on something.

>>10282793
So get a step ladder genius.

>>10282799
By claiming a mars colony is not good reasoning you’re invalidating your arguments. That the whole POINT of spacex’s existence

>>10282801
There is no need to tie spin gravity to the terrible cycler idea. Simple rotating larger diameter vehicle will produce sufficient artificial g to settle liquids. I haven't done the math but I think even the Starship could be rotated slightly to that effect. Otherwise tethers may be employed for longer journeys, which contrary to intuition are impractical with cyclers because the nature of their "cycle" trajectories means "slow" orbits. For Mars you don't need artificial gravity or massive shielding. For Jupiter and beyond you need to cut the travel times by using aggressive high speed transfers so you don't spend decades or more in space with all that implies to health and radiation exposure.

>>10282824
>Otherwise tethers may be employed for longer journeys, which contrary to intuition are impractical with cyclers because the nature of their "cycle" trajectories means "slow" orbits.

That's nothing more than a sign of not being aggressive enough with the amount of thrust, specific impulse, and fuel capacity of the cycler. The rest isn't spectacularly relevant to the point. You can probably just rotate your ship with very slow speeds to settle liquids, but there's probably going to be some interesting adventures in figuring out how much you need to make a more normal toilet do what you want in a fully enclosed space.

>>10282703
They want to build a Mars space ship first and a useful rocket second.

>>10282841
>sign of not being aggressive enough with the amount of thrust, specific impulse, and fuel capacity of the cycler
Then what you are imagining simply isn't a cycler. Maybe a large shuttle, ferry, starship. In that case we might be in some agreement. But cycler is deceptive terminology as it implies a very specific architecture that has numerous drawbacks and no meaningful benefits.

>>10282142
more like 30 billion...

>>10282892
It would seem I was misusing terminology. Yeah, a cycler would suck. I was thinking a permanently in-space ferry that had large fuel tanks and efficient engines to do large burns to and from Mars.

bzzzzzt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DM6WqjJCKQo

>>10282929
>22 minutes long
oooooooof

>>10282841
>thinks "cycler" means a space ship that spins for artificial gravity
Anon, a cycler is just a spaceship that stays in a regular interplanetary orbit, like a city bus going around its route. That has nothing to do with the configuration of the ship itself.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
>A Mars cycler (or Earth–Mars cycler) is a kind of spacecraft trajectory that encounters Earth and Mars on a regular basis. The term Mars cycler may also refer to a ...

>>10282938
>Anon, a cycler is just a spaceship that stays in a regular interplanetary orbit, like a city bus going around its route. That has nothing to do with the configuration of the ship itself.

The part that is "cycley" is the ship using low energy, low velocity transfer maneuvers to move between planets. I was tying artificial gravity to vehicles that are 100% space craft.

>>10282929
There needs to be a separate soi tier just for him

>>10282036
>>10282037
HYPE

>>10282060
I'm guessing it doesn't matter for a hopper test

>>10282137
There goes SpaceX's biggest competition

>>10282971
>>10282137
>>10282126
OH NO NO NO NO NO NO NO

Slow and steady wins the race, except when your wife divorces you and takes your shit.

>>10282988
All for the sake of fucking a 49 year old news reporter. Was it worth it Jim?

>>10283004
I mean "Jeff". I have disgraced myself.

>>10282126
CROWN HIM

>>10282145
I hope so
BO is important for ensuring SpaceX never becomes complacent

>tfw disney beat musk by 50 years

>>10282746
Shipping companies are limited by the size of port infrastructure, depth of shipping channels and canals. Cargo ships are classed by the largest key chokepoint they can fit through, eg panamax for the Panama canal or malaccamax for the straight of Malacca. If the ships are larger then they have to take much longer routes, eliminating the operating savings from upscaling.

>>10282793
This guy isostacies.

>>10283029
>Cargo ships are classed by the largest key chokepoint they can fit through, eg panamax for the Panama canal or malaccamax for the straight of Malacca.
That's much less of an issue than you might imagine.

>>10283039
>>10283039
Is that similar to isochads?

>>10283004
Jim Who?

>>10283044
Or should I say that's not something that imposes a significant limit for most cargo ships vis a vis cost.

>>10283046
Lol it is now.

>>10283029
>Cargo ships are classed by the largest key chokepoint they can fit through, eg panamax for the Panama canal or malaccamax for the straight of Malacca.

The narrowest point of the channel in the Straits of Malacca is about a mile and a half -- I don't think there are many ships that not be able to fit.

Kek imagine being the water tower company guys who are welding that shit up

>What's the next job boss?
>We are building a spaceship Jimmy
>Fuck off cunt
>His face when he plugs in the address his boss gives him and it's fucking SpaceX Boca Chica

>>10283096
It's depth of canal, the bigger ship and the heavier the cargo, the deeper the bottom sinks in the water. It reads like that guy is confused but the general point is correct.

The tendency now is to unload and go cross country by rail, sometimes by truck if that works out more convenient, rather than ship via canals. You don't get anywhere near the cheapest rates if you go for ships on canal routes.

>>10282036
I'm going to be very interested in seeing it fly. I am strongly in favor of all things space-flight-related, while being neither a Musk fanboi nor a hater -- I hope as many space firms succeed as possible.

But that rocket just looks fucking fake (not saying it IS fake) it looks like a cheap FX model from a Buck Rogers movie, down to the poorly-finished-looking wrinkly exterior. Seeing it actually in flight will be very entertaining and surreal.

>>10283096
The limit in Malacca is depth actually. The minimum depth is 82 feet and malacca max ships are limited to 67 feet of draft.

>>10282103
Might just be there for insulation against solar heating? You don;t care, then, if it shreds on launch. Hell, if it rains glitter it might even make the launch more eye (and funds) catching.

>>10282122

>>10282080
Probably would be worth your time to go look at some of the pics before they started attaching the tinfoil.

>>10283133
>>10283096
>>10283044
This shit is so not fucking relevant, please contain your autism.

>>10283157
No, I insist, please contain yours.

>>10283157
>>10283162
If 4chan posters contained their autism, we'd be slower than... well, you used to get banned for mentioning them, but another chan that is really slow.

>>10283012
Naw. We need some new players. Blue Origin is never going to be serious SpaceX competition.

Look at it: it's older than SpaceX, but still basically offers no service and has no customers. They've done a few test flights of a suborbital rocket, and are selling their engines to a corporate welfare case. SpaceX has been flying to orbit for over a decade and already dominates the global launch market.

New Glenn is going to fly after BFR, if it ever flies at all, and won't even be cost-competitive with Falcon Heavy. What is their plan to ever compete? How many tens of billions of dollars are they going to burn through to get there?

I never see them putting pressure on SpaceX. At most, I just see them possibly being a fallback if SpaceX fails and goes out of business, and a very inferior fallback at that. It's more likely that a new company will come out of nowhere and challenge SpaceX than that Blue Origin will catch up.

>>10282290
>>10282302
>>10282268

Not any of you, I also studied at the top univeristy in my continent, only im probably the only one here who did it for real and aced it while maybe you two are probably first year students larping.

There are different aproaches, but basically all structural design is the same.

The gist is simply determining at which amount of force the structure will experience plastic deformations, aka, deformations from which there is no going back and to stay back away from that point.

If you do it by using a safety factor or by using LSD it doesnt change much, it's basically the same. LSD is a bit more precise but also a bit more needlesly complicated, for most application you can use safety factors and be done with it.

Also, i hope youre a retarded nationalist and just now learn from me that LSD is a soviet invention that you are defending like if it was your own mother, keep on sucking the soviet cock.

>>10283267
Also no one would want to launch a serious payload on one of those gay feather rockets.

>>10282771
>Large container ships do actually have a very niche market

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ship

Today, about 90% of non-bulk cargo worldwide is transported by container ships.


I love being superior with facts and logics, i mean its very easy to do.

Le search
Le anal destroybuttmad of an uneducated
jjajahaha

Butt Destructoneited galores

>>10282893
haha right in the feels. Who is the 28 year old roastie thats gonna go for the remaining 15 bilion?

>>10282929
>No, this isn't some clickbait headline
Fuck off

>>10283292
Hopefully Grimes.

>>10283267
How much money do you think you'd need to start your a profitable or hopefully profitable space company?
I want to start one but i have no capital nor degree so I'm thinking for the long term

>>10283373
>Turns out her break up with Musk was a front so she could gold dig Bezos for BFR funding

Sasuga

So elon is going to put a giant compressed air tank and SpaceX cold gas thrusters into the next Tesla Roadster.

Sounds like he has been hitting the ambien again.

>>10283403
that's been the plan for a while

>>10283273
>The gist is simply determining at which amount of force the structure will experience plastic deformations, aka, deformations from which there is no going back and to stay back away from that point.
Jesus, must have been a shitty continent. LSD is code in most of the developed world, it's no longer a choice. No it isn't just "avoiding plastic deformation", even as far as that is a sensical comment, and even as far as just talking about how materials can deform, there's crap like concrete creep that's a major part of common building material design consideration. Probably moreso, as it's piss easy to avoid plastic deformation in many cases, most designs are concerned with improving rigidity.

Some fucking LARPers.

>>10283383
Really the only option without gigga nigga capital is some kind of small sat deal, lot of competition though.

>>10283383
Define what you mean. Do you mean the money you'd contribute yourself? Or total funding? A lot depends on the idea really.

>>10283267
>what is RocketLab
In all seriousness, you’re completely right. I wish that oldspace would hurry up and die so there was money moving around to incentivize new rocket companies. Sucks that BO can’t make good on their ‘step by step, ferociously’ promise

>>10283413
Rocket lab is pretty cool and I like the approach, however without better batteries they can't recover vehicles or scale them which would seem to preclude competition in the age of reusable vehicles.

>>10283425
There are some excellent non-rechargeable battery technologies out there right now. I doubt it's an issue.

>>10283383
The investment market is awash in capital. The absolute dumbest shit is getting funded, and space stuff is "in" with investors.

>>10283433
Where's this at?

>>10283434
Poopstreet City, Sanctuarystate.

>>10283447
Hmmm...

>>10283431
It very much is an issue, the amount of power required for any large turbopumps is off the fucking charts.

>>10282719
It makes it a hell of a lot easier though

>>10283457
it's only mildly easier

>>10283463
Massive drag reduction and farthr out of the gravity well. Having something like this makes all this aerospace stuff look like peanuts

>>10283433
time to create a gofund me to get myself out of this shithole,had to sacrifice 3 years of not going to college,Hopefully i can do all the meme shit i want

>>10283468
100km is fuck all further into orbit, for reference, GTO is 26,000km. The amount of fuel this would save is negligible.

>>10283472
Yeah, gofundme isn't how you raise money from investors.

>>10283478
It can be.

>>10283454
>It very much is an issue, the amount of power required for any large turbopumps is off the fucking charts.
About 100,000 horsepower for Raptor.

>>10283490
How long for?

>>10283477
For air drag it's actually pretty significant.

>>10282108
Watch it work perfectly first try.

>>10283478
Someone had a goal for making potato salad and raised 55.5K if i make it sound nice

>>10283490
That would be around 75,000kw per engine, so for 31 engines about 2.3 gigawatt load, lel.

>>10282523
...out of a box of scraps!

>>10282929
Does /sci/ like Scott Manley or not?

>>10283349
Yea that was a little ridiculous, just because you claim your video title isn't clickbait doesn't mean your video title isn't clickbait.

>>10283546
he plays bad video games and talks about things everybody already knows but he's an edutainment science communicator for the modern age
I like him

>>10283546
I like him desu, good information and speculation. KSP stuff is kinda gay but that's ok.

>>10282103
>>10282109
>>10283138
Pretty sure it's because they want it to flare very brightly all around the world as a global PR move.

>>10283546
helluva improvement over everyday soistronaut

Hey anon's im working at a HVAC warehouse and they'll pay for my schooling after a year,is HVAC worth it if i want to go into everything regarding space?

>>10283409
>LSD is code in most of the developed world
Not in the us. I wonder what your "top tier european university" taught you the developed world was. Please stop kid,it's embarasing

>>10283431
Bullshit, the theoretical maximum energy densitynon nuclear batteries can reach is not even 1/4 of what would be needed.

>>10283546
you cant not love him because of his HULLO

The cringy fly safe im weirdly also ok with.

What i like most about him is that he always takes great pleasure in being pessimistic and showing the bad side of things, if you take a close looks at his videos he will ALWAYS say something bad about what he's analyzing and he seems to take great pleasure in doing so.

Take a look at the videos he did about the EM drive, at first hes super skeptic but his attitude is kinda "yeah.. no probably you didnt reinvent physics you retard" and the one after it was debunked he seems to find the moment so fucking delicious.

>>10283632
Uh... it's just to run the pumps. The amount of energy needed for that is a range starting at zero, with a purely pressure-fed engine. The higher the pressure difference the pumps can provide, the better engine performance you'll get, but there's no minimum.

>>10283004
I don't know Dwight

>>10283644
Pray tell what batteries you have capable of peaking at multi gigawatt levels. Remember we are talking about future large vehicles here, not small sat launchers.

>>10283546
He does a good job

>>10283644
>The amount of energy needed for that is a range starting at zero, with a purely pressure-fed engine.

Nobody uses pressure fed engines because the ullage pressure needed would make most pressure vessels explode if you're asking for a large vehicle's worth of thrust.

>>10283651
>>there's no minimum.
>Pray tell what batteries you have capable of peaking at multi gigawatt levels.
Do you have to wear a helmet to leave your padded bedroom?

They're already launching stuff with battery-powered turbopumps. This is a thing already established to work.

>>10283658
No, nobody uses pressure-fed engines because they get lower specific impulse due to the low chamber pressure.

>large vehicle
There's no scaling factor that makes them worse for large vehicles.

>>10283660
You are talking about a pressure fed system which no one fucking uses, you need peak power to drive massive pumps for any kind of large vehicle. A baby rocket is not even remotely comparable.

>>10282110
>old fart soviet engineers
Laughs in: first in space, first satellite

>>10283644
Yes there is.

Delta V for a rocket is a function of initial mass end mass and ISP.

That means that the bigger the amount of fuel ejected compared to the remaining weight of the vehicle the farthest you can go.

Say you have a mass of 10.000 tons (5 times more than the Saturn V)and 95% of that is fuel (more efficiency than the most efficient rocket).

For convenience sake, lets say that we wont have the industrial capacity to launch a rocket thats 5 times heavier than a saturn v.

Once you have htat you have the isp

Isp depends on the engines

Engines depend basically on the width amount and chamber pressure of the engines.

Make the smallest amount of engines 1 ginormous one

Assume the bell of the diameter is as big as possible.

Calculate the chamber pressure needed for that

Calculate the power needed for that

Assume the remaining 5% weight of the rocket is ENTIRELY batteries which is the most favourable scenario.

You can try reducing by 1 ton (which would reduce the total cost but also decrease the amount of batteries) constnatly until you reach 0 tons and find out that tehres literally no way it will work.

>>10283666
>peak power
>massive
You don't know what those words mean, do you?

>>10283672
>Delta V for a rocket is a function of initial mass end mass and ISP.
It's the ratio of the initial mass to the final mass that matters. Just looking at the rocket equation, if you scale the rocket up ten times, you can scale the payload up ten times.

Look at your incoherent babble. You're just looking up enough details you don't understand to confuse yourself.

>>10283695
>Just looking at the rocket equation, if you scale the rocket up ten times, you can scale the payload up ten times.

So long as your dry mass to fuel ratio and specific impulse doesn't change.

>>10283695
Ok so you don't know what you are talking about. Good to know, now we can ignore you and move on.

>>10283695
>Look at your incoherent babble. You're just looking up enough details you don't understand to confuse yourself.
Im sorry that you dont know objective laws. It doesnt change according to your emotions.

>>10283698
Of course, the real world's more complicated. There are some scaling factors, but the need for pump power or energy doesn't scale non-linearly with the mass of a rocket. I don't know how you can get confused enough about it to think it would.

>>10283700
>>10283701
So yeah, you need to wear a helmet to be let out of your room.

>>10283711
>So yeah, you need to wear a helmet to be let out of your room.
It's so delicious that you think youre replying to different people.

>>10283711
>hurf durf look at me I'm fucking retarded

>>10283672
>You can try reducing by 1 ton (which would reduce the total cost but also decrease the amount of batteries) constnatly until you reach 0 tons and find out that tehres literally no way it will work.
So why does it work then? Do you think it's Bee Movie rules?

>>10283750
Why does what work? Electron uses electric powered turbopumps which only work because of the relatively low power required which scales massively as the pumps get bigger. Please show me a functional pressure fed rocket.

>>10283755
>Electron uses electric powered turbopumps which only work because of the relatively low power required which scales massively as the pumps get bigger.
How fucking stupid can you be? Seriously.

It's linear. The power you need for the pumps, at the same specific impulse, scales linearly with the thrust. You don't need better specific impulse to launch a larger rocket.

How do you not understand this? You put ten of the same engines on a rocket, you get ten times as much thrust. You only need ten times as much of everything. It's so obvious. What is wrong with your brain that you don't get this?

>>10283768
>Durr I am retarded

>>10283755
>which scales massively as the pumps get bigger
Oh right, you can only design a shitty big rocket that shares no design elements with Electron so it doesn't work.

>>10283771
Is this Musk's defense force developing their own "I was merely pretending" tactic?

>>10282036
>>10282037
>>10282074
>>10282259
>>10282308

>>10282271
WHO'S GONNA FEAST ON EARTH'S SKY AND DRINK THEIR RIVERS DRY?

>>10282037
Jesus what a piece of crap, who designed this buckling rust bucket?

>>10283971
>rust

>>10282667
kek

>>10282690
Because Disneyland holds the rights

>>10284059
True, wouldn't want them having access to space

>>10282126
People cry when they lose 300k at bitcoin
This sucker just lost 69 billion to some woman
J U S T

>>10282036
not to be the negative sally, is the completed version of this really going to be what humans goto mars in. Youre telling me once the fuel tanks is in, there is enough space for oxygen to breath, food, shit recycling for a 9 month journey in that cramped tin can millions of miles to mars
Nothing this size is going to mars without a major accompanying vehicle like pic shown

>>10284156
No, this version is much shorter. The real thing will be 50% taller therefore have twice as much space for living quarters. No need for your senate welfare shitmobile

>>10282137
Prenup included a clause stipulating Jeff not fucking any middle aged thots.

>>10283132
Turns out 40s pulp scifi was the hardest scifi of all.

>>10282126
>>10282137
Don't worry guys Blue Origin is not for profit company it's Jeff's hobby. Targeting it is pointless it'll be like a wife divorcing her husband and taking the dog he loves and then euthanizing it just to make him miserable. No way something like this could happen in reality.

>>10284160
even then where do you plan to put a martian rover for the crew to travel around mars

>>10284170
In the cargo hold along with all the other crap. It's pretty big.

>>10284156
The thing in that pic looks so incredibly lame and oldspace.

>>10284166
honestly it would have been better to just kill her, crash the car have her not wear the seat belt. I actually have an inheritance and in no way am i getting married

>>10284173
>honestly it would have been better to just kill her, crash the car have her not wear the seat belt. I actually have an inheritance and in no way am i getting married

And people wonder why birth rates in the West are declining.

This is not how you build a rocket test article.
You need;
>careful study to create a set of requirements and goals to be achieved by the article
>multiple cost-analysis reviews during the design process to reduce associated risk with prototyping work and to make sure it will have net-positive result on main project
>thorough cost-schedule analysis and planning to bring the article into operation in the designed time with sufficient schedule and budget leeway for unanticipated difficulties
Only then you proceed with manufacturing using the most experienced and capable contractors available.

The concept you can just weld one in place in few weeks is insulting. These things take a decade if not more.

It's insulting to see Elon Musk rush through and think it's a good idea.

>>10284188
lol k. He's doing it anyway.

>>10284188

>>10284183
nobody actually wonders though, it's all right out in front of everyone

>>10284200
>nobody actually wonders though, it's all right out in front of everyone
That doesn't seem to stop people from adding 2 and 2 together and getting salad.

The gov needs to regulate the starship and make it go through multiple safety and efficacy reviews. This hotshot knowitall and rush attitude is going to lead to mistakes.

Really don't understand how NASA and the Airforce don't ground the starship program for at least a decade for appropriate review and oversight. With China doing more in space we need to make sure we have our space efforts under proper control and guidance or we will surely lose. Musk is a fraud criminal and they need to stop him before he can try this zany ill-thought idea.

>>10283546
He is one of the few science youtubers who is actually more or less a scientist with a masters in astrophysics and almost a phd. Dont care for elite stuff but the old kerbal series were great.

>>10284197
420

>>10284226
Unfortunately, it will only happen after the first fatality or super expensive military payload loss.

>>10284226
>The gov needs to regulate the starship and make it go through multiple safety and efficacy reviews. This hotshot knowitall and rush attitude is going to lead to mistakes.

lol oh no, mistakes with a test vehicle developed with private dollars and already expected to explode by its own builders, stop the presses

>>10283493
It takes about 8 to 10 minutes to achieve orbit, depending on stage thrust to weight ratios. How that's divided up among stages depends on the vehicle architecture as well (Falcon 9 has a beefy upper stage and the booster shuts down very early compared to Atlas IV which takes its itty-bitty Centaur upper stage most of the way to orbit).

Just use Electron as an example, since it actually has battery powered pumps. The weight of the batteries is significant enough that they have to stage away a pair of depleted ones during the 2nd stage burn or they wouldn't achieve orbit with significant payload. The problems gets much MUCH worse if you design a bigger rocket, specifically a taller rocket. You simply can't supply the power required to pump high flow rates of propellant into a high chamber pressure engine. That being said, a spacecraft with a small electrically pump-driven engine could actually be viable, because controlling an electric pump is literally babby tier engineering compared to an expander cycle or staged combustion engine, yet you actually get pretty comparable Isp due to the entirely closed cycle.

>>10284188
Old space the post

>>10284173
Have no doubt she's not alone in this takeover. (((someone))) has to run all that money.

>>10284250
Electric turbopumps are so great, it eliminates a huge amount of engineering bullshit, in fact traditional turbopumps are probably the single most shitty and complicated part of any rocket. Better batteries fucking WHEN?

What do you guys think: Could a small (15kg-ish) lunar lander thats spherical and equipped with mechanical dampeners land purely through friction, ie lowering the periapsis to just below the surface to bounce off the surface a few times and thus lose enough energy to deorbit from a low circular orbit, or would it be torn to shreds immediately upon first impact?
Energy for a 15 kg lander in an orbit 20 km above the surface is around 20GJ according to my back of the envelope calculation. I dont really know how how much energy could maximally be lost with each impact without destroying the vessel (if one is even technically feasible with current accuracy in setting up the perilapsis properly within a range of a few cm probably. And then if there is a part of the moon thats flat enough to accommodate the entire landing without a crater getting in the way...

Also does anyone know why there arent any rovers or landers of this size at all even considered? Even the israeli one meant for google x prize is a few hundred kg or something. Is it just feature creep or is there any physical reason that I cant think of?

>>10284268
>Better batteries fucking WHEN?
never, batteries can't get even as good as chemical fuels and a rocket turbopump using those dumps them overboard one way or the other so you don't even need to worry about the mass.

>>10284271
Even freefall from 20km gives you hundreds of m/s on impact and that's brutal. Orbital velocity easily adds a few km/s to this. You are looking at an impactor.

Interestingly, free fall drops from about 100 meters can be used and some suggest that method for deploying equipment in early starship launches to the Moon, to avoid the need to land and risk of damage due to unprepared surface. The rocket does everything it would do to land but hovers for a moment some distance away, throws out the cargo, and lifts off. There are no gains in this other than avoiding potential damage from actually landing - no fuel was saved.

>>10284271
20GJ is the equivalent force of 20,000 stick of dynamite, no way man.

>>10284302
>>10284306
Well I mean the destructive force depends on the amount of time that it takes the (crash)lander to dissipate the energy, so really the question would be if the orbit could be constructed so carefully and if the moon has a large enough patch of almost perfectly even ground to make this possible, which Im already guess especially the latter it does not...
Could you realistically then land a rover of that size with an ion engine? Really Im just trying to figure out a way to get a really small mission going that could easily be launched on an electron rocket or in a batch of cubesats to save costs, then make the lunar injection with an ion engine and a bunch of time and then ideally land without needing any chemical engine whatsoever.

>>10284317
Its not happening, no matter what you try. There's simply too much velocity and too much energy that has to be dissipated for an intact landing to occur that way.

At minimum you're talking about several thousand Gs of deceleration. At that point even solid metal will deform and flow like liquid. In the end, all you will get is an extremely expensive crater on the surface of the Moon.

>>10284327
Thousands of Gs is not really that much when you are not talking about meat bags. Military electronics can withstand more than 10,000 g.

>>10284284
Metal oxides can do as well as and better than fuels easily.

>>10284317
Ion engine can provide the delta v to decelerate, it just can't do it in the short time before impact. Remember once you go suborbital you don't have much time before you hit the ground. Why not just use chemical propulsion to land the cargo? For 15kg you need about 30kg worth of hypergolic propellant and rocket to land with plenty of margin. Entering Lunar orbit not included of course.

>>10284346
Lots of potential, also lots of problems to be solved. Get back to us when there are some real world products.

>>10284365
Sorry meant for
>>10284343

>>10284339
>Thousands of Gs is not really that much when you are not talking about meat bags.
this nigga serious
https://www.medicaldaily.com/breaking-point-whats-strongest-g-force-humans-can-tolerate-369246

>>10284375
>Thousands of Gs is not really that much when you are NOT talking about meat bags.
fuck me.

>>10284375
>I have no reading comprehension

>>10284365
There are decent enough aluminium ones in hearing aids rn.

>>10283672
ISP depends on the fuel first

>>10284346
>For 15kg you need about 30kg worth of hypergolic propellant
Im in germany, not sure how easy it is to get access to them since we dont have ICBMs. But I will definitely keep it in mind. Is pressure fed enough for these things? Maybe have a small ion engine to get into lunar orbit and then use some of the remaining gas to pressure feed the hypergolic engine for landing?
I kinda wanna actually plan this thing, since right now the bavarian minister president is a huge sucker for prestigious science projects (hes also a massive faggot, pic related is what he used during a presentation that launched a big new investment into hyperloop and aerospace technologies), so I figure right now is the best time to get a project like this going through my university...

>>10284562
>pic related

>>10284170
The payload bay is like 20 meters long and 9 meters in diameter. There's plenty of space.
The real limiting factor will be the cargo bay but you can just make everything ikea style.

>>10284562
You can get a lot of the fuels and materals via Russia. It's importing them that's the real shit. But you'd be surprises what you can get through with the right paperwork in the EU.

>>10284706
>There's plenty of space.
You'd be surprised how big the gap os between what some sources say people need and what they really need. I think Musk is the komd of person that is not going to understand something like that.

>>10283595
>soistronaut
>not estronaut

>>10284711
You don't HAVE to send 100 people at a time.
If you're sending your proposed massive rover you could have it completely automated and have another crew unload it once it gets there.

>>10284722
No, 100 or don't bother. 100 is optimal number.

>>10284172
gotta start small so you can have a place to put equipment and personnel when building larger stations

>>10284200
the common goy is not particularly bright

>>10284156

>>10284843
How can Rivals bois even compete with the BFC (Big Fucking Cock)

No crane

>>10284250
>The problems gets much MUCH worse if you design a bigger rocket, specifically a taller rocket. You simply can't supply the power required to pump high flow rates of propellant into a high chamber pressure engine.
Is this retard still repeating this idiocy? The problem doesn't get any worse when you build a bigger rocket. You don't need a special "high chamber pressure engine" on a big rocket any more than you need it on a small one, and the Rocket Lab electric engines already operate at quite respectable specific impulse figures, basically equivalent to the SpaceX Merlin (which is higher than the Saturn V's first stage F-1 engines - 311 vacuum specific impulse for Merlin or Rutherford, 304 for F-1).

The amount of batteries required for a bigger pump working at the same pressure differential is going to scale linearly with the volume to be pumped. A rocket ten times as big, with ten times the payload will need ten times the batteries. There is no problem scaling this up.

If you look at the Sea Dragon design (pretty much the biggest chemical-fuelled rocket seriously proposed), it would have used pressure-fed engines at only about 20 atmospheres of pressure maximum. No actually competent person would claim that this low chamber pressure was a fatal flaw which would stop it from working. It's simply reduced efficiency.

>>10284125
How the hell does she have such a significant claim on his wealth? Musk has been through 3 separations and never really got fucked hard in any of them.

>>10284892
>Is this retard still repeating this idiocy? The problem doesn't get any worse when you build a bigger rocket.
He said "taller rocket". Which might make some sense if engines were on top of the rocket, but the pressure is only needed for the engine, not fighting gravity + inertia to get to the engine.

>>10284900
They've been married 25 years, since before he became a billionaire, so it's not like some thot getting picked up by an already rich guy.

>>10284170
>>10284156
there are cargo variants of the starship. those will probably carry the big items while the passenger ships will carry personal items and smaller stuff.

>>10284906
If anything, a taller rocket is going to provide a higher inlet pressure, reducing the pressure differential the pump needs to produce.

SpaceX launch thread going up in a jiffy. Last iridium launch!

>>10285016
>>10285016
>>10285016
Launch thread is up

>>10284156
What I see in this image is a spacecraft launched mostly in small parts, like they had to fit it into space shuttle bays, and a few larger pieces like it was a special expense to use a larger rocket like the Space Launch System.

The design makes no sense otherwise. It's a structurally-weak jumble of parts like ISS, full of extraneous mass. Very poorly suited to an interplanetary voyage. Something like that definitely can't aerobrake, nor could it use a high-acceleration departure. This would greatly increase the delta-v requirements for the mission.

The little planes are nonsense. While getting off of Mars is much easier than getting off of Earth, the wings are too big and the tanks are too small for them to serve as surface shuttles. I like the concept of having a mothership and shuttles, but they have to be realistic, productive designs.

The artificial gravity ring is a nice idea, but the same purpose can be achieved far more efficiently by just running a tether between two Starships.

OH NO OH NONONONOON
can Blue Origin even function now?

>>10285102
At least he doesnt call peopñe who slightly disagree with him pedofiles

>>10285154
Dude, what do you think people move to Thailand for? The climate?

>>10285154
Google "White Pedo Sex tourists in Thailand"
and the 1st link showing up is this

Southeast Asia a Haven for Pedophiles
https://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=2325416&page=1

>>10284754
100 people in Starship is literally airline seating, pretty sure
not suitable for even a lunar mission

>>10285231
it’s enough to cycle everyone through the exercise and viewing area periodically for a 3 day moon trip though.
And sleeping pills are a thing...

>>10285231
>100 people in Starship is literally airline seating
No it isn't. Starship has more cabin volume than a 747. There's easily room for 1,000 people in it, packed in like airline passengers. They may in fact use it to launch a thousand people to low Earth orbit.

100 people in Starship leaves room for bunks and common areas, like riding a train rather than an airliner.

>>10283546
He's very liberal and lives in California, plus hates Brexit/Trump etc.

To be expected of popular science youtubers but he more than makes up for it with his detailed videos and often accurate speculation, often a good source if you have missed out on something/want to cut through a load of bullshit that gets spewed on forums.

>>10285204
Do you think Musk has a lot of experience googling stuff like that then?

>>10284188
In other words, 500 layers of unnecessary bureaucracy to slow everything to a crawl and leech money away from R&D.

>>10284156
If you're going to do something that large with artificial gravity, you might as well do it right and just build two copies of Island 1 and put them on alternating cycler orbits.
>500m diameter
>1.9 RPM for one full g at equator of the ring with a gradual taper as you move toward the "poles"
>capable of supporting up to 10,000 people at any given time

>>10285698
why bother with a sphere and have fucky gravity being a nuisance
just make a proper cylinder or torus and be done with it
tapering gravity a shit

>>10285053
I wonder how a large ship or space station constructed in orbit could look if it were built of segments roughly the size and weight of BFS and launched into orbit with Super Heavy.

Doing that, you could have something makes the ISS look like a tuna can in just 2-3 launches. With the number of launches it took to build the ISS (40) you could have an orbiting space palace.

>>10285740
Structural strength. Also stability against tumbling. However torus is best for that. Bernal sphere is an Oneill cylinder that is so short that the endcaps collide.

>>10285756
If BFR actually happens then this is probably what saudis will start doing with their dollars. Towers in the desert are so 20th century.

>>10285755
>Bernal sphere is an Oneill cylinder that is so short that the endcaps collide.
and that's precisely why it's terrible, since the drum potion is the primary useful part, the sphere just gets you the shitty curvy tapering gravity that would be fucking miserable to deal with in any building of decent size

>>10285761
I look forward to this
sand people used to be the spearhead for science, hopefully they'll stop being exploding retards and get their shit together to do that once again

>>10285756
Thinking even bigger, one could put huge wall sections inside a thin aerodynamic faring on top of Super Heavy to be snapped together in orbit, removing the circumference and shape restrictions that would exist from being a BFS stand-in.