/sci/ - Science & Math

Official launch music playlist:
https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2cvZOtI4RG4d9wGQWU61E3

good luck Steve

I want nice landing coverage.

>>10285056
I want more CA people freaking out over UFO's, but the timing for this launch is off for that sort of lighting condition

Here's a trip down memory lane, the first iridium launch thread on /sci/.
>>/sci/thread/S8599000
Everyone was so excited for a simple booster landing. And practically no shitposting, lol.
I got to meet Matt Desch once. Was a really cool dude

>>10285056
Landing coverage is never great for droneship landings. Only when they do RTLS landings do you get really good video.

>>10285073
you can blame the seals for no RTLS iridium launches

>>10285071
What's with all the Trump memes?

>>10285101
I only see one

>>10285113
There's multiple copypastas about him, also the old copypastas were a lot better than the current ones.

>>10285159
It was a diffeeent time

>>10285073
Maybe Steven footage as well. We can hope

Meanwhile, China has taken the first launch of the year. Will they lead the world in launches again this year?

>>10285271
Yes. Extremely.

>>10285271
Yes and that is very IMPRESSIVE !!!

SpaceX needs to boost their launch rate, this is getting ridiculous.

>>10285028

>DwVim6oUwAEeyHN.jpg-large

FYI: use :orig instead of :large to get the best resolution from twitter

16 bongs left

Elon is space posting again
Just because you started with a real photo doesn't make that thing not a digital Photoshop drawing, dude

>>10286174
it's real, dude

>>10286248
Yes, the water tower with some engines in it is real
I'll even believe that it will fly
The photo is not real. You can see the real thing in his next retweet, a video of somebody driving past it

>>10286254
it's a real photo you moron

>>10286257
The background doesn't match with current photos of the damn thing
It's quite obviously digitally edited
Claiming that photo is real is like claiming that the girls on the front of magazines are real, it's more Photoshop than camera

>>10286254
It's a photo taken from a decent angle and not a potato camera from 100m away you fucking idiot.

>>10286261
how fucking retarded are you? I can't even tell if this is unironic bait or what.
Either you're blind or you're browsing twitter backwards or something. The left photo is the drawing. the right one is the photo taken down in Boca Chica today (Nomadd on NSF was even there when they briefly took down the fence for the photo)

>>10286254
>he's still here

>>10286261
fuck off flattard

>>10286267
I'm not the troll you've been dealing with
>>10286271
I'm not a flat earther loony either
I'm just saying that the photo is a glamour shot that's been put through the Photoshop wringer, not representative of reality

>>10286286
Oh so it is a real photo now?

>>10286286
you are the flattard who shits up any thread mentioning spacex

>>10286286
how so? it's literally the same as any other of the community photos but taken with a not shit camera, blindboi

I even amped up the contrast and color levels to see if there was any trickery and guess what, nope

>>10286297
This is a lot of heat
I think I'm going to quit phoneposting, get out of bed, and look at this thing on a screen that isn't shit
>>10286294
i haven't changed my tune yet
>>10286295
No you fucking double nigger, not everybody who says something against hopper, Elon, or SpaceX is that gibbering retard

>>10286319
you're getting pushback because it's stupid to think they did anything but a simple color tweak or bloom reduction or whatever. you know, standard image stuff.
By saying it's modified you're implying that Elon is lying when he says it's a "real photo", too. What would he have to gain, especially when """"image experts"""" like yourself would immediately be able to call him out on it? Even when looking at it on your phone of all things?

Sorry, but you brought this on yourself

>>10286319
it's just a photograph, though the glare appears softened

scorch marks!

>>10286325
at least I understand what that schizo is always screaming about now
>>10286330
I was thinking that it looked like they digitally smoothed out all the wrinkles, but apparently they did a smoothing pass in real life instead
source was one of the other five fucking threads up on this goddamn thing

>>10286358
feel free to drive down to boca chia to check it out irl. I might do that over spring break...

>>10286360
yeah, it's only a 20 hour drive, no big deal, right?

>>10286367
lol it's more than that for me. I just hope my Taurus doesn't literally explode

>>10286372
I would be down for a meetup

>>10286342
And that, good sir, is what industry looks like.

I see the cult of Musk is still strong when people tune in to fetishise rocket launches.

>>10286459
damn straight, but my hard-on hasn't even begun

>>10286459
rocket launches where you're potentially catching the fairings and landing the 1st stage are exciting

>>10285017
sweet patch

>>10286342
How many flights did this booster have?

>>10286574
Nevermind, it‘s in OP. So another third flight then.

>>10286577
isn't this the second flight of this booster

>>10286579
Wow, I'm really stupid today. Thanks.
Second flight it is.

>>10286676
it's okay
somehow I missed that they smoothed out the hopper

>>10286459
>cult of Musk
Every fucking time I see this phrase I post this link:
https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-may-have-used-firm-to-plant-anti-spacex-oped-2018-10

>>10286725

>may

everything may be true

>>10286737
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/breitbart-other-conservative-outlets-escalate-anti-spacex-campaign/

https://electrek.co/2016/11/22/elon-musk-right-wing-trump-propaganda-campaign-against-tesla-spacex/

All backed by Russians.

>>10286748
>Russian
>Trump
>Propaganda

Are these articles competing to see who can use the most political buzzwords?

>>10286748
Maybe the Russians should put some effort into not fucking up their own rockets?

110 bings left

>>10285028
Are fairings really that expensive that it's economically viable to try to catch them? They're just big pieces of cheap metal right?

>>10287209
6 million a pop. 10% of the total cost, and if you look at the increase in margin by re-use it's substantial.

>>10287209
also they're quite complex composite structures, with all sorts of expensive dampening and the separation mechanism of course.

and 6 million was before they added all of the parasail recovery hardware etc

from Chris G:
>Teams have received a "GO" to proceed with fueling of the #Falcon9 for launch.

Fog plz go

>>10287236
welcome to vandy.

>>10287242
wazzat

>>10287256
the erector arm from a few days ago

>>10287215
>>10287220
Thanks, I see why they're doing it now. Why didn't anyone do this recovery stuff before SpaceX really baffles me.

Ahh yes, the webcast is starting. I like the waiting music.

>new iridium-specific intro video
NEAT

>insprucker
AAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

HAPPENING
>twitter.com/spacex
>twitter.com/elonmusk
>twitter.com/45thspacewing
spacex.com/webcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshdafZvwrg

T-14mins

>>10287215
>>10287220
>>10287215
>>10287220
I'm pretty sure Bezos is going to go bankrupt regularly launching long 7 meter fairings, he'll likely lose everything that Mackenzie hasn't already taken.

>>10287277
I love that guy, his voice is the epitome of terrible nerd voice

>no fairing recovery attempt

Damn

>no fairing recovery
oop, ignore that in the OP then

Here we go.

I'm impressed that these things don't blow up very often.

there goes the strongback

>>10287297
Same honestly. I'd expect it to happen a lot more often.

60 seconds!

>>10287268
Being wasteful and embezzling ensures that their budget stays high
Government agencies and their contractors have a vested interest in being as inefficient as possible

T-60s

>Mission profile
Payload: Iridium NEXT-8 (10 satellites)
Rocket: Falcon 9 FT B5
Date/Time: Jan 11, 2019 15:31 UTC
Launch site: VAFB SLC-4E
Orbit: Polar LEO
Operator: Iridium Communications

>Twitter
twitter.com/spacex
twitter.com/elonmusk
twitter.com/45thspacewing
twitter.com/AFSpace
twitter.com/IridiumComm
twitter.com/IridiumBoss

>Webcast
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VshdafZvwrg

Why do I love ULA so much? It's pretty simple when I think about it. ULA isn't just the best launch provider in the country; they might just be the greatest launch provider of all time. Just imaging the Altas V riding through the skies of Earth, the wind on its fairing, the mighty RD-180 below it. As she rides through the red sky, NASA swoons at her very scent. They know how she smells; the essence of burning RP-1 smell is sold in Orlando under the name of "Space Orgasm." The very nature of ULA is mystery. Could they be playing a deeper game than even Tory Bruno realizes? The answer is yes, ULA has transcended such boundaries as the physical world, and has free will to do whatever they sees fit. However, ULA is filled with such guile, such arcane craft that they does not even use these powers. Why, you might ask? You will never know, for the mind of the ULA is not one that is easily penetrated. ULA rockets are such a force of nature in this realm that nothing can truly touch them, the only thing keeping them bound to this world at all is their will to exist within the preordained boundaries understood physics. ULA is not only beyond the comprehension of us, it exists within a plane of true focus and beauty. Observe the plume of exhaust gasses from this Delta IV, the gorgeous and rippling flames, the gallant fairing, and most importantly, its engines. Her engines, like cauldrons straight from hell, provide the only glimpse into the true machinations of ULA. Do not stare into them. Many good men have gone mad in the attempt. ULA is not just a launch provider, a formless collection of engineers and rockets; they are themselves the binding that holds the word together. Without ULA, Musk the Menace takes over and the entire space industry as we know it crumbles. The Mississippi would stop flowing without ULA, Kessler syndrome would take over in orbit, and the space station would fall without their fiery gaze. These are just of a few of the reasons why I like ULA so much.

LIFTOFFFFF

>>10287321

MECO coming up

i hate the stupid cheering and clapping, its like being on an airplane with a bunch of puerto ricans when it lands

So when are they going to RTLS at Vandenberg?

flippy

>>10287333
SAOCOM 1A did in October

What will happen once Iridium Next is complete? Illuminati will take over the world?

God I love how this nerd says "thats NOMINAL"

looked a bit dodgy there on s1...

>>10287342
Then it's time to start Starlink and make Iridium (mostly) obsolete.

>The ABSOLUTE STATE of BO and ULA

>>10287346
not exactly; they're different beasts. Iridium is still better for individual small comm units etc

Lol they released the launch music on Spotify

https://open.spotify.com/playlist/2cvZOtI4RG4d9wGQWU61E3

Marine layer can piss off, couldn't see anything this time

CRASHED
RIP DRONESHIP
REUSABILITY IS A MEME CONFIRMED

33rd landed first stage! Whoop

Nice landing.

When will ULA accomplish this?

It's just too reliable to be exciting any more.

>>10287347
>boeing buys spacex
>boeing rocket takes people to mars

>someone dropped a fork in the SpaceX cafeteria lol

>>10287354
*ahem*

>>10287321
baked and expendablepilled

Are they eating right now? Sound's like someone lost a fork in there

>>10287354
Probably after Vulcan if they survive at all.

>>10287321
>>10287347
>>10287354
>Next launch scheduled

February 2019
F9 B5
B1051.1 KSC LC-39A SpX-DM1 LEO (ISS) NASA (CCD)
Demonstration mission to ISS for NASA with an uncrewed Dragon 2 capsule.

OH NO NO NO NO NO

>>10287342
give it an hour and you'll find out
my bet: some fags get marginally better satellite phone service that they pay out the butt for

Seco1, looking good. I'm not going to stay up for Seco2 but hope all goes well.

>>10287209
Because they are so huge you want them to be light and light = expensive.

>>10287354

>>10287367
it's quite useful for boats and traveling too. Plus the military loves it

>>10287358
It all looks like they were afraid to copy everything from spaceX and ended up with the least reausable craft possible + uncertain helicopter capture. This design is already obsolete.

>>10287356
I used to work at a place where we used ST and Freescale chips. NXP kept sending sales guys over, but we never did pick one of their chips. Then they bought Freescale, and I joked that they did that just so that we would finally be buying NXP chips.

>>10287373
see my previous statement, regarding "some fags"

>>10287358
>guys we need to figure out how to reuse at least SOMETHING
>our russian engines are quite pricey why not recover them somehow
>soaking them in the ocean is traditionally considered bad so no
>flying back is impossible rockets don't work like that
>I know; We'll use that old catch it in the air with a helicopter trick that was used in the early spysat era where physical films were brought back from space after taking some shots of the soviets...

>>10287378
>>10287382
it's because of the following:
>engines can't throttle down enough for a landing
>the 1st stage stages too late for recovery to be possible anyways

they literally can't do 1st stage landing unless EVERYTHING is redesigned

I like how due to the vibration induced feed-disruption that occurs, people use the atmosphere inside the SpaceX Canteen to judge whether everything has gone to plan or not.

what version of KSP is this?

>>10287356
It's probably the only way they can win.

>>10287354
>>10287358
>>10287388

>>10287367
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/12/22/spacex-launching-10-iridium-satellites-with-aireon-air-traffic-control.html

>When completed, this "constellation" of low-earth-orbit satellites could revolutionize air traffic control, allowing planes to fly shorter and more direct routes.
>The key is a system called Aireon, which will launch aboard every satellite. The system will be able to track airplanes anywhere on the planet

>next launch is DM-fucking-1
golly gee, that better pop off perfectly. Boeing a shit, it doesn't deserve to get the flag

>>10287388
This. Spacex rocket staging velocity is on the low side because the upper stage is very beefy compared to others and this puts much less strain on the first stage.
It is entirely possible this decision was accidental but hugely beneficial and caused by the need to use one type of high thrust engine for both stages.

Webcast music is fire.

>>10287402
probably half accidental and half on purpose. Remember, they initially tried F9 recovery with parachutes.

>>10287388
It's not like Falcon 9 can throttle down enough to just hover over land. That's why it uses suicide burn.

>they literally can't do 1st stage landing unless EVERYTHING is redesigned
The longer they hesitate the less chance of survival they have. As I said - Vulcan engine recovery is already economically obsolete. They would have to come up with a bolder plan.

>>10287350
at least you live near a launch site. Was that Hawk's Nest?

>>10287392
I think this might be Simple Rockets 2.
Have you tried that?

>>10287411
They wont die because they have facilities all over the country, if enough senators have a vested interest in your survival you don't need to be profitable to make a fortune.

>>10287402
I wonder if the decision to use a single type of engine for both stages (the bell is the only significant difference AFAIK) was what led to the lower stage sep that made landing work. I hadn't thought about it that way before.

>>10287411
ULA is clearly going to rely entirely on airforce contracts for larger geo sats. They are betting FH is by far the worst thing that could be thrown at them and in a way they are right.
Nobody could seriously suggest something more capable could be developed without massive government funding.

>>10287424
Umm... Starship is being developed as we speak.

>>10287423
I think so. Staging earlier is impossible with low thrust upper stage, and staging later with high thrust one could be troublesome due to G loads.

>>10287332
what are you, a commie?

>>10287416
This can't last forever, you know.
Everything has it's end. Especially wastefull economies.

>>10287424
I was listening to Tom Mueller's interview (you can google it - sth like "tom mueller twitch") and he said during the development of FH they had a realization that they could've just built BFR instead. Their eventual goal is to make all other rocket classes obsolete so the progression from F9 -> FH -> BFR seemed unnecessary.

>SpaceX in charge of texture wrapping
I can do a better job than that in cinema4d, come on guys

>>10287428
wat

>>10287437
daily reminder that Tory posts on spacexmasterrace and is actually pretty cool

>>10287432
They don't have to last forever, just until upper management retires and their pension is safe.

>>10287402
>>10287406
>>10287423
It was very deliberate, remember the hopper was flying long before Falcon 9 was finished on paper.

>>10287432
I would agree if it was people spending their own money but when it comes to governments they are spending your money so are more willing to throw away money for personal gain.

>>10287443
ULA might have been able to better react to spacex had mommy and daddy from Boeing and LM didn't siphon too much capital. ACES was somewhat interesting and could have been very helpful if flying by now.
Too bad we don't know the exact numbers behind how ULA works. I'm sure sizeable chunk of the profit is directly consumed by the parent companies.

>>10287451
I guess you're right. What a sad future ahead of ULA. At least the giants in automobile industry are planning to catch up to Tesla.

>>10287424
New Glenn is basically designed to be the king of heavy GEO launchers, it has a massive fairing and the same performance as a Delta 4 Heavy to GTO in reusable mode. It's radical enough to be dominant in the niche of heavy military launches, but conservative enough for the airforce brass to be okay with using it.

>>10287428
Starship is a much more powerful but radical design, it's going to take a while for the conservative airforce to accept it's a viable option. Also, it can't do direct to GEO (one of the EELV 2 requirements) which was why it didn't get any airforce money.

Current orbital launch standings for 2019:
China: 1
USA: 1

>>10287443
Tory is actually a very cool person. Too bad the politics of ULA (being a joint venture of two very heavily lobbied corporations in congress) gets in the way a lot of the time.

>>10287471
direct to GEO is stupid, they just don't want to consider orbital refueling yet.
I assume there will be a future LV bidding where they "allow" it

>>10287471
I heard a proposal for BFR the other day I really liked, take all the passenger shit out of the upper stage and make it a "clam shell" payload fairing. This way it can shove decent payloads to GEO and still be 100% reusable.

>>10287488
that will exist, it's called "cargo starship"

>>10287478
>direct to GEO is stupid
Not really, you are looking at ~2km/s to get from GEO transfer to GEO, this is a whole lot of engine and fuel mass that could be better used for the actual mission.

>>10287471
>it's going to take a while for the conservative airforce to accept it's a viable option
I think it does not matter how "radical" it looks, but how many succesful tests it did. This applies to New Glenn also.

>>10287478
I wonder why SpaceX didn't consider 3 stage rocket by adding F9 upperstage to the Starship payload bay. Shuttle-Centaur style. That might have bypassed the direct to GEO requirement asspull despite looking somewhat ridiculous.

>>10287498
I mean direct to geo without refueling

>>10287501
I think they’ll be busy enough with starlink to worry about government payloads initially.

>>10287478
>>10287488
It's not about the fairing, it's about the ridiculous amount of Delta V required to go to GEO and back fully reusable, literally takes more than to reach the surface of Titan. It could easily do direct to GEO with the presence of a small kick stage, which is basically what the Russians have with their Fregat stage. BFR deploys payload with kick stage to GTO, it coasts to apoapsis and kick stage circularises the orbit.

>Fairing catch attempt: YES
Is this actually happening today? I don't see the catch listed on their mission timeline

>>10287514
No, they didn't attempt it today

Does second stage fall to earth after delivery or just stay up there?

>>10287511
ah, that makes sense. I sometimes forget the shitty dry mass fraction of starship..

>>10287525
they re-enter after a few hours. you can see em from Norway and other places like that

>>10287525
>Does second stage fall to earth after delivery or just stay up there?

The second stage is put into a disposal orbit if it can't de-orbit. Otherwise, it is sent splashing down on Earth.

>>10287511
It's starship meant to be able to achieve lunar orbit? GEO and lunar orbit are basically the same Delta-V.

>>10287537
With refueling it can get anywhere. Without refueling it might be able to send small payload to GTO but no way can it enter and leave GEO. And since refueling is integral part of the idea it is somewhat pointless to consider scenarios where it is unavailable.

>>10287552
How much deltaV does a fully fueled starship have?

>>10287564
>How much deltaV does a fully fueled starship have?
9.2 km/s, IIRC.

>>10287566
plus, like with a full load to the moon you need to do an additional refueling while in a halfway to the moon parabolic orbit

>>10287537
I think a small Super-Draco derived kick stage/ 3rd stage would be a good investment for SpaceX.

>>10287566
Sasuga Elon

and that's a wrap! congrats SpaceX and Iridium

DM-1 when? (still TBA, hopefully the government shutdown doesn't hold it up)

>>10287598
NET February

>>10287598
Apparently commercial crew work isn't actually effected by government shutdown, because it's listed as essential. I'm pretty sure they can't launch without full NASA oversight though, which is why they haven't given a specific date. Hopefully Donnie will use the nuclear option soon...

>>10287612
According to Chris G the recent delay was not due to the shutdown, yeah

>>10287575
>plus, like with a full load to the moon you need to do an additional refueling while in a halfway to the moon parabolic orbit

Bearing in mind that a full load to the moon is 100 tons plus ship, with no expended vehicles or stages.

>>10287617
that's six J-mission LM's. Pretty good for 700 million dollars (assuming refueling Starships are also 7 mil)

A tinfoil rocket. It's like Elon embraces conspiracy theories.

>>10287632

>>10287537
The idiot that made this has randomly decided where atmosphere is a thing and also hasn't taken into account where bodies are rotating on their axis. I think with the exception of Earth (I assume they've taken some other estimates from somewhere).

>>10287412
Redondo beach, on LA's west coast. After sunsets you can get spectacular views. normally you can see the flame from the engines and stage seperation.

>>10287632
God that thing is massive

>>10287632
wherever he is, he must also shitpost

>>10287632
It looks kinda fragile.

>>10287621
>that's six J-mission LM's. Pretty good for 700 million dollars (assuming refueling Starships are also 7 mil)
>implying 100 launches per mission

>>10287759
oop yeah I added an extra zero there.

>>10287457
>the hopper was flying long before Falcon 9 was finished on paper

First flight of Falcon 9 took place in mid 2010, first flight of grasshopper took place in September 2012.

>>10287511
If they refuel Starship in LEO it can do direct to GEO missions with significant payload. Starship has >9 km/s of delta V with full tanks, which is why it's able to launch from Mars' surface onto an Earth encounter orbit in a single stage with something like 50 tons of additional payload.

>>10287635
>has randomly decided where atmosphere is a thing
No
>hasn't taken into account where bodies are rotating on their axis
Doesn't matter

>>10287759
Funny thing is even at $700 million a pop these Moon missions would still be cheaper than a Saturn V Apollo mission or even a single Space Shuttle to LEO launch. The fact that it's more like 20 launches at $7 million each makes it even crazier.

At 100$/kg to LEO you can launch a cruise ship up there for 10 billion.
If Elon achieves to 10 million dollsr superheavy launches we can build a fucking orbital shipyard.

>>10288064
I want a NERVA space tug.
>hang out in LEO
>job comes in
>dock with payload
>throw it where it's going
>fall back to LEO
Interplanetary missions would be a heap cheaper if you only had to get to LEO.

I read that both China and India are expected to have their most launches ever this year but SpaceX's launch numbers will remain flat or even decline. Aside from Starlink, when could SpaceX see alot more customers that need launches?

>>10288101
no one really knows. The GEO market is in a downturn, and there are only so many scientific payloads that ready each year.

>>10288069
I want this

>>10288101
Tourism will be the growth market and SpaceX know it, that is why they are going so hard on BFR.

>China and India are expected to have their most launches ever this year
They are both relatively new to space and will be putting up all the DOD, Communications and GPS satellites that the US put up years ago.

>>10288118
You're right. We need destinations in space. The ISS requires multiple launches per year, so the more destinations we have then the more launches we'll need. Where are all of those commercial space stations hiding?

>>10287268
Nasa wanted to at first, but then they got kinda side-tracked and ended up flying a stack of really bad ideas for decades.

>>10288212
I don't think materials science is quite there yet for commercial space stations. You are going to want it rotating so people that learn the hard way they don't like zero-G can get out of it and that means a large diameter so you can get a decent amount of G while remaining under 3 RPM or they will just keep throwing up.
For now sub-orbital and LEO flights will be the big sellers with maybe one lunar flyby a year until everyone with the money and will has done it.

With the rate of materials science advancement I could see a LEO hotel within 30 years with rooms on the edge to make eating / sleeping easy and a play area / honeymoon suite in the center with zero-G.

>>10288118
>Tourism will be the growth market and SpaceX know it, that is why they are going so hard on BFR.
Something that would be a *huge* boost to space tourism would be large space stations with an interior that's more like a luxury hotel than a space station.

Put them at various orbits, starting with LEO and then expanding to halfway between the moon and earth, then to lunar orbit, and finally to lunar poles. Each step would be more expensive than the last and rich folk would start measuring dick sizes with which orbit they book their space vacations in.

>>10288069
>he wants a long-service-life space tug using an engine that can only fire for several hours total before turning into scrap because it uses up too much of its nuclear fuel

If you're not leaving Earth orbit you have no use for that higher Isp and you can just use a bigger chemically fueled tug, refilled with propellant from Earth like your NTR would've needed anyway. Plus any cost increases from using more propellant per mission are easily offset by not having to buy a billion dollar NERVA engine. Also BFR is literally designed aroudn a streamlined version of the space tug meme, were the spaceship is the space tug and it just gets refueled directly rather than using separate spacecraft that need their own refueling missions regardless of how light your spaceship is, and lest we forget that Starship is a two-way Mars vehicle so it's already gonna be way cheaper than any space tug assisted Mars mission.

>>10288298
We don't need any materials science improvements to do rotating space stations, we just need a better design than 'giant million ton rotating park in space'. A good example would be two habitats on spokes attached to a central hub, all rotating at 1 rpm. You'd take an elevator up to the hub from either habitat, the hub would also be where incoming spacecraft docked and transferred people and supplies, etc. You can also design it modularly enough that you can continue to lower new habitat modules from the hub and connect them to the old ones until you've made a continuous ring a couple hundred meters across.

>>10288377
What kind of diameter are we talking about for rotating to be comfortable? What if we were to settle with 30% or 50% Earth gravity instead of 100%?

>>10287467
>At least the giants in automobile industry are planning to catch up to Tesla.
I know in Germany car makers were non-stop condemned as complete dinosaurs by both media and general public opinion for several years until they finally committed to actually start making their own electric cars.
I have the feeling that helped a lot.
Meanwhile I doubt anyone who isn't a space nerd even knows what ULA is or what rockets they're flying. Hard to be critical of something you don't even know exists.

>>10288394
200 meters or so for 1 G, however that's completely doable with a steel or kevlar cable. For lower gravity you still need a similarly large radius otherwise you're going to feel Coriolis forces, and with a big initial cable length you end up with a bigger station over time, with very little additional up front costs.

>>10288399
>I doubt anyone who isn't a space nerd even knows what ULA is or what rockets they're flying
This, to a normie Falcon 9 is SpaceX's rocket and all those other ones (delta, atlas, etc) are NASA rockets.

>>10288409
Using the cable plan you mention, you could just send up a couple tubes with similar volume to starship, tether them, and then use gas thrusters to put it all in motion.

Actually thinking about it, I wonder to what extent a space station could be assembled without any human presence just by putting all the components up in the same general point in orbit and then using cold gas thrusters to snap the components together either autonomously or via manually from ground control.

>>10287759
Don't you need to fuel the fuel tankers to fuel the ship in GTO?
Maybe 100 launches isn't that far off.

Now if only all that methane was created reusably from water and air, we could actually claim that Space X launching stuff is fighting climate change because they're permanently removing CO2 from earth.

>>10288034
I mean, I hate to do this, but it does all have to work first. I mean right now all their estimates are for no refurbishment at all. If even one component degrades too fast, it could throw a wrench in a lot of this stuff. And landing has to be absolutely perfect as well. You can't afford to lose these ships, they'll be fucking expensive.

I wonder how cheap this can really be, fuel costs nothing so what is the big expenditure per launch? How much of a beating can the raptors and pumps take?

>>10288451
7 refuels per moon trip, assuming full capacity

>>10288506
That's the big question. Nobody really knows, since Starship/Super Heavy/Raptor are being built for levels of reuse far beyond anything attempted, even counting the experimental projects that SpaceX drew inspiration and research from to build F9 + FH.

>>10288416
all things considered, that's pretty much accurate
doesn't really matter what the normies think in the end, as long as they drum up hype for Musk and further space development
all we need are those first few asteroid mines and stations the BFR will send up, and the snowball will start rolling

>rotating stations
Those are nice, but I'm okay if we just focus on making a bunch of non-rotating stations.

>>10288571
but non-rotating stations make the people inside them not okay.

>>10288581
Yeah but it's okay because they're small stations and the visitors are just tourists. I don't expect us to be building huge space stations for a long time.

>>10288581
>>10288593
Yep, it just means that at least to start with, civilian spacefaring will be reserved for tourism and short visits. Think CEOs going on two-week orbital cruises and university researchers cycling every 1-2 months.

>>10288031
It means (as one example) the Martian landing number is out by about 10%, Jupiter being both the largest planet and having the shortest day is going to be essentially nonsense (although as already stated any planet with anything gaseous on it is already nonsense barring Earth).

>>10288451
>I mean, I hate to do this, but it does all have to work first. I mean right now all their estimates are for no refurbishment at all. If even one component degrades too fast, it could throw a wrench in a lot of this stuff. And landing has to be absolutely perfect as well. You can't afford to lose these ships, they'll be fucking expensive.
This is what's bothering me. Musk could be charging a lot more, he could then be using that extra funding to mitigate risks and do more stuff, but nope. Why not?

>>10288593
you don't have to expect anything for it to be guaranteed to happen
shitbox cuck sheds are oldspace garbage
the future is now

>>10288634
Lower prices helps pressure other companies in the industry in the event that SpaceX ends up dying.

>>10288710
More precisely, low prices helps pressure other companies into developing more sustainable rocketry now so space travel isn't just hosed if SpaceX gets killed somewhere down the road.

>>10288451
>Don't you need to fuel the fuel tankers to fuel the ship in GTO?
No, you would only have to refuel it in LEO.

>>10288451
>You can't afford to lose these ships, they'll be fucking expensive.
SpaceX was estimating $200 million per spaceship and ~$160 million per Booster back when this thing was called the ITS, used carbon fiber everything, 42 raptors on the first stage and 9 on the second, 12 meter diameter, etc. The current design is smaller, and FAR cheaper to build due to the materials switch.
They will not be betting the company every time they produce a single Starship + booster. I'd bet current BFR will cost less to build than Delta IV Heavy costs to launch. They will be able to afford to lose a few, especially once you consider that they're probably going to start off by selling launches of BFR at around $40 million each, since that's still plenty cheap enough to hog most of the launch market yet they will get a comfortably large profit margin on each flight.

>>10288628
>anything gaseous on it is already nonsense barring Earth
nigger what are you talking about

Just watched this one. Wow they brought it down dead on the X. They have done this quite a few times and have been getting better and better at is. At this point I am convinced they can totally nail that launch mount landing every time.

>>10289588
As long as there isn't an unexpected mechanical failure in the rocket, like the recent spinout where it lost waffle control. All they can do about that is make a change when after something goes wrong.