/sci/ - Science & Math

previous thread >>10355476

>>10362051

>>10362052

>>10362056
They say on NSF that these circular pits in the launch area will be for "rombus" style launch pads.

>>10362058
I don't get it, where's the rhombus?

>>10362069
the rocket is called "rombus"

>>10362077
Alright, probably makes more sense to call it 'open water-pit style launch pad' though.

>>10362058
you mean like a round launch pad or filled with water?

why does a pipe dream need n threads?

said the ledditor about falcon 9 eight years ago...

>>10362140
this is spaceflight general, so it's not only for spacex

stop fighting nerds

China's plans for it's human spaceflight program:
>space station in LEO
>Moon landings
Notice that they seem to be rendezvousing with a Lunar space station similar to NASA's Gateway. Their new spacecraft is also similar to NASA's Orion capsule. Their Lunar lander would also dock at the space station just like NASA's would. I wonder if the Chinese anticipate or hope that they will get to join with the rest of the international community's joint space efforts? If not I wonder if they will end up trying to build a similar architecture in order to land on the Moon.

>>10362284
2-man re-usable lunar lander concept

>>10362140
look at the opportunity cost of this thread
such amazing and worthwhile threads as pic related have been killed by our rampant shitposting

>>10362284
>China lack originality to the point that their actually going to copy the LOP-G boondoggle, even though everyone knows it's a dead-end architecture...

>>10362427
I think they're actually just planning to use the LOP-G boondoggle

Happy birthday falcon heavy

>>10362439
>has only flown once
>still a better launch rate than Delta IV Heavy

>>10362466
They've got pretty much equal launch rates, D4H flew once last year and is scheduled to fly twice this year just like FH. However, FH has the ability to increase it's launch rate by winning more contacts and D4 is entirely reliant on the NRO.

>>10362047
That pic is straight off reddit...

I guess we know who makes these threads now.

>>10362284
Why is it literally everyfucking thing China make have to be a carbon copy of western ideas/technology

DM-1 is now March 2nd NET

>>10362792
How is it a copy if a western lunar gate doesn't exist?

>>10362784
i was looking for any new updates from multiple sites, reddit included. i saw the pic and thought it would make a good OP image.

Meanwhile in Poland, some teens are making progress with their amateur liquid fueled rocket
https://youtu.be/ezAiYAxHWT8

>>10362869
what are they burning?

>>10362869
Good luck to them! Hopefully they'll work out the kinks soon.

>>10362885
Another video on their channel has them working with hydrogen peroxide and ethanol, so perhaps the engine uses that?
An interesting combination, although I'd think nitrous oxide would be better than peroxide because its easier to get and is safer to handle without a significant hit in performance. Maybe hydrogen peroxide doesn't have as many restrictions in Poland compared to America.

>>10362918
holy fuck, high test peroxide is some nasty stuff
it'll decompose violently if you let it

>>10362919
>holy fuck, high test peroxide is some nasty stuff
Indeed! Thats why I like N2O.
I've talked to some aerospace industry veterans and they all spell the dangers if peroxide. Oddly enough to them, peroxide is still safer than liquid oxygen. I asked one guy about the dangers of LOx and he looked like he had a 'Nam flashback.

>>10362928
you haven't lived until you drop a hammer on a concrete block and it violently detonates

>>10362869
maybe polan can into space

>>10362869
If you want an impressive amateur Rocket team look no further than Purdue University in Indiana.

https://twitter.com/PurdueAeroAstro/status/960549585356820480/photo/1

>>10362936
there’s already a polish amateur radio cubesat

>>10362945
I live like 30 mins from there

>>10362047
Some things about the BFR don't add up to me. As per wiki, it is going to have almost twice the thrust of the Saturn 5 while having a significantly smaller payload capacity. This is pretty strange, especially considering it also supposed to have a lower empty weight. Now if you look at the overall mass it is considerably higher than the Saturn 5 so that I guess means the BFR is supposed to have much bigger fuel tanks. Now my questions are why does the BFR need so much more fuel than the Saturn 5, and where are they going to fit so much more fuel, especially considering the RP-1 of the Saturn 5 first stage is denser than liquid methane of the BFR.

>>10363347
The dry mass is not the same as the mass fraction....

>>10362885
>what are they burning?

well, they are polish...

>>10363353
That doesn't help much, as the mass fraction of the BFR is not much higher than that of the Saturn 5. The BFR also needs some fuel for landing manuveurs but the numbers still seem really off.

>>10363392
Are you taking into account the fact Raptor is a more efficient engine ASL compared to the F-1?

>>10363403
So it should need less fuel, not more.

>>10363392
4 stages stages vs 2 changes the math a lot as well.

>>10362047
will someone download this legitimately innocent .exe file in a .zip (its just an open gl program) and tell me if it runs on other computers
https://1drv.ms/u/s!ArOHasfbu8fOjB_6RqpG46swAlm_

Swear to christ its just me trying out openGL and I have no friends to do it for me

>>10363426
it's relevant because its the innocent earnest beginnings of what will be a planet-to-planet space launch game

>>10363419
It changes it in terms of payload capacity to higher orbits but not so much for LEO. Anyways, I guess that they need to reserve much more fuel for the landing manuveur than they do with the Falcon 9 because of a sharper and faster reentry of the first stage. Falcon 9 1st stage detaches relatively early so the landing manuveur is relatively easy and I guess that is not the case anymore for BFR.

>>10363426
you nigger, learn how to package correctly

>>10363347
>>10363353
>>10363392
>>10363418
>>10363419
Your all retarded, the payload number listed for BFR is for it's reusable RTLS configuration. The Saturn V could lift 115 tons expendable, BFR is designed to launch 100+ tons while also landing the first-stage back at the launch site. The BFR's expendable payload has never been listed because it's designed to never go expendable; however, it's been estimated that it's expendable payload could hypothetically be around 300 tons to LEO.

>>10363492
note that it's not Starship that'd be thrown away, it'd be Super Heavy, which contains how many Raptors?

>>10363495
partially correct, the no-refuel LEO numbers I believe include landing. However a fat payload would deplete starship, & it is then slightly refueled in LEO to land by another starship. That changes the tonnage delivery you can do by a bit.

>>10363477
lol thanks that's exactly what I need to know

>>10363507
no problem

>>10363503
I'm just saying, they could squeeze a bunch more tons out of it by expending Super Heavy, but they would never do that due to the expense of the Raptors

>>10363492
This is bogus. Pic related shows the BFR concept in 2016. Note the raptor has a lower specific impulse than is conceptualised now but the payload was still higher back then. In the same presentation, the BFR mass is given with 4400 tons and 54000 tons thrust while having 150 tons LEO payload in reuseable mode. The new version still has 4400 tons, the thrust got raised to 61000 tons, but the payload went down to 100 tons. This is all really, really weird and I dont think they are putting a lot of thought into their concepts and are just publishing some numbers and CGIs for the sake of publishing numbers and CGIs.

Looks like March 2 for DM-1 is actually happening; it's been approved by the range, which is the main sign that SpaceX/NASA are actually serious about launching then.

>>10363519
forgot the pic

>>10363523
>inb4 weather delay
>then FH pushes it back further

>>10363519
It's impossible to estimate what BFR's actual payload will be right now due to numerous factors, including engine performance changes (increase from 1.7MN to 200 tons), engine layout changes (now seven on the Starship with no vacuum nozzles) and material/construction changes (carbon to stainless steel, with no heat shield). Elon says the new configuration will have a higher payload, but I doubt SpaceX will even know the payload margins until a stack has actually been put together. All payload speculation is pointless due to the developmental and fluid nature of BFR's design.

>>10363556
SpaceX even lies about Falcon 9 payload capacities, so what did you expect to do about a paper rocket.

>>10363556
only a few things are known for sure, you're right
facts:
1. Raptor will have a beautiful purple/blue flame
2. SHINY BOI
3. HUEG

>>10363556
Yes, running an actually somewhat accurate simulation of the concepts would cost hundred of millions, so of course they just put out some numbers that sound good even if they dont make much sense.

>>10363563
Source?

>>10363556
Obviously they have to be able to model it well enough to just be able to build it, therefore they know fulll well what payload it will have

But if construction costs are cut in half due to steel compared to carbon composite, you can accept a 15% payload loss

>>10363610
payload has gone up due to the switch to stainless steel, according to Elon on twitter. How much 'up' we don't know yet.

>>10363608
Their webpage says it can do 8 tons to GTO in expendable mode, but there are multiple launches where the rocket didn't attempt a landing, although the payload was much less than 8 tons but SpaceX only reached subsynchronous GTO and the satellite had to go there themselves.

>>10363618
do you mean the GPS mission? the Air Force forced SpaceX to expend that flight. In the other cases, you might be mistaking the throw away 2-flight block 4's as block 5's.

>>10363628
See also the SES-12 launch where the payload mass was 5 tons but they didnt attempt a landing. There are several if you look into it. Koenigsmann also said in a small conference that the GTO capacity of expendable is 6,5 tons, not more than 8 as claimed by the webpage.

>>10363652
that was a block 4, 2nd flight. They expended those on purpose to make room for Block 5. The idea that they're lying about the perf numbers is conspiratard level of stupidity, dude.

You can check stuff here you know https://elvperf.ksc.nasa.gov/Pages/Default.aspx
Last time I checked it wasn't updated with the new block 5 numbers but it might be by now

>>10363618
>>10363628
The GPS-3 launch was expended due to many complicated factors that we don't fully understand even now. The Airforce's excuse was that they put a bunch of extra fuel onboard which meant the booster was at the very edge of being recoverable, so they wanted it to fly expendable just in case.

>>10363675
Its not a conspiracy. You can also compare the Falcon 9 user guide with that of any other rocket. There are no typical payload capacities for several orbits given there, which is very unusual. It also lacks a lot of details like the dry mass of the Falcon 9 which is also very unusual. It is almost as if SpaceX wants to hide the real capabilities of its rocket.

The 8,3 tons to GTO is from 2016 so it counts for SES-12. Also there is no thrust difference between block 5 and 4, the only differences concern alleged greater reusability.

Also, as I already said, Koenigsmann said the capacity to GTO is 6,5 tons, not 8,3 tons.

>>10363683
what I read was that they just wanted the extra .001% of mission assurance by having engine-out mission success or something silly like that.

They could have recovered it. Es'hail-2 was 5300 kg and went to GTO-1746 which was more difficult than the GPS III-2 orbit.

>>10363694
It is a conspiracy, and you're only making a fool of yourself. Block 5 did have performance increases. Do you just shut out information which is counter to what *you* want to believe? That's a sign of delusion.

>>10363675
>The idea that they're lying about the perf numbers is conspiratard level of stupidity, dude.
Just wait until someone here starts posting about how flyback boosters are a hoax perpetrated by SpaceX.
Unless that has already happened and I missed that.

Anyways, variations in payload capacity is expected for a vehicle with has many variations in model and launch modes as Falcon 9. On top of that, why would SpaceX lie about payload capacity? The whole conspiracy would be blown apart the moment they attempt to launch a payload that's heavier than what Falcon 9 could carry.

>>10363727
on top of that you'd only have to email someone like Mike Carney at NASA to ask for the oodles of data. The elvperf folks are really nice, and the mailing list is fun to read too.

>>10363713
Eshail actually was put into a subsynchronous orbit and the satellite flew to GTO itself. I also dont know why you say that Koenigsmann is a conspiracytard, I guess he knows the real capabilities of the F9 better than you.

>>10363747
he said "6.5t" at IAC 2018. He then followed it up with ""we've actually flown a little bit more than that". His slides were all over the place numbers-wise anyways.

>>10363694
Intelsat 35E went to GEO-1719... it was 6,761 kg. There's a difference between something like GEO-1800 and GEO-2000 you know, something that translates to large perf changes.

Just give it up dude, again just contact elvperf and ask if you have such a conspiracy hardon.

lots of equipment on the lid now. Plus protective parafilm over some of the valves and stuff

More nubs attached to the side. They have a row of rectangular holes and then circular holes on either side?

>>10363782
the large black piece on the right is intriguing.

>>10363770
>he said "6.5t" at IAC 2018. He then followed it up with ""we've actually flown a little bit more than that"

I think this is in relation to the reusable payload, which is officially listed as 5.5 tons to GTO; maybe he just misspoke, but he's correct saying that they've launched bigger when Telstar 18-19 were both 7 ton satellites, but were launched to subsynch orbits.

>>10363770
You dont seem to understand that most of the launches you are citing here were subsynchronous orbites. The payloads that were launched into actual gto were smaller than that and there are multiple expendable launches in the 6-7 Ton range that also went into subsynchronous orbites although SpaceX claims they can do 8,3 tons to gto and not subsynchronous. This has nothing to do with conspiracy, it is completely obvious the specs of F9 are spoofed.

>>10363796
There's only been one expendable Block 5 launch and it wasn't to GTO, Block 4 and 3 boosters likely could not do 8 tons to GTO but somewhere around 6.5 to 7.

>>10363796
why am I even bothering with you? You complete ignored the fact that your 'evidence' was a SECOND FLIGHT BLOCK 4, something which they EXPENDED ON PURPOSE on a vehicle NOT AS POWERFUL AS BLOCK 5.
you honestly don't think that the GNC techs at the various sat companies weren't alarmed by this blatant LYING that you so cleverly figured out with your hand waving and SpaceX-hate?

Can you imagine the industry blowback if a company had a 8t payload they wanted SpaceX to launch but SpaceX was like 'lol we can't we lied sorry :^)'? So think, think with your tiny brain: WHY would they lie about a single payload figure, especially a figure which is for the most part irrelevant for most commercial and government payloads? And think some more: WHY would they lie to begin with? what do they have to gain? Their ACTUAL CLIENTS don't give a shit because they have access to the flight models and other technical documents. the public doesn't give a shit because no one is like "oh well SpaceX is stupid because they can't launch 8t payloads to GTO lololololol". If they had not "lied" as you stupidly unfoundedly claim and set the spec on their website to 7t or whatever they would only benefit and not lose any theoretical brownie points from the industry, from the community, from ANYONE.

This is probably a stupider conspiracy than chemtrails.
you're delusional, you made me angry, and you're not getting any more (you)'s from me. Good day.

soon(ish)

>>10363832
a new era in human spaceflight begins soon

>>10363834
not to mention India is getting into the manned spaceflight game as well. And other countries are forming astronauts corps, if not actual rocket programs.

meanwhile in Iran

>>10363819
These specs are from F9 FT introduced in 2016.

>>10362919
they use low test hydrogen peroxide, which isn't that bad...

>>10363819
Not him but I bet he saw all the proof from that special place on that site where they have a hard on for Musk
Look there its fresh from today and have a nice laugh

>>10363819
Also as to the alleged industri cryout, they have already flown payloads less than 8,3 tons into subsynchronous orbites so the customer know their Satellites need to fly there themselves.

>>10363819
Tiny brain: There's a conspiracy in SpaceX to lie about payload capabilities to sell more launches.

Big Brain: SpaceX actually doesn't exist. All of it is actually a massive and complex advertising campaign for the upcoming "The Outer Worlds".

>>10363841
>not to mention India is getting into the manned spaceflight game as well.
Their capsule looks promising. Hopefully it takes off without a hitch.

LRO spotted Chang'E!

>>10363891
I don't think it'll use the IDE, which is a shame. Seems to be some in-house design

interesting news: Shotwell was saying how they would not launch as many F9's in 2019 as in 2018. But, that appears to have changed https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1093292525740310528
>Jonathan Hofeller of SpaceX on a #smallsat2019 launch panel: this year we’re going to try and break last year’s record of 21 launches.

>>10363426
any updates?

>>10363832
Looks like a rusty piece of shit.

>>10363917
Hmmm the manifest doesn't support this and most statements said at these conferences are usually just hyperbolic lines designed to sell launches. I don't see how they could beat 21 without launching some Starlink satellites.

>>10363618
>why is this rocket operating to the mission parameters aHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10363694
>yeah well so and so said...
fucking moon hoaxer

oh no no no

>>10363519
They are focused on reuseability so if they have to sacrifice payload to reduce turnaround costs they will. Switching to stainless steel is a perfect example of this, the overall weight stays the same because you subtract that extra weight from the payload capability.

>>10364058
>EUS is not good from NASA's perspective
I thought that the EUS was good enough, and that it was being reworked because SLS got delayed so much that new tech came along that could be added to the EUS?

>>10364058
>Ars Technica
OH NONONONO

>>10364078
What's wrong with it?

>>10363917
Remember how they were talking about doing 100 launches a yearlol

>>10364083
fake sources and blatant Elon Musk bias

>>10364085
No?

>>10364078
>frogposter

>>10363694
>Falcon 9 user guide
It is strange they don't have numbers there but I could imagine that being for legal reasons as they are running from 2 launch sites that will have different ∆v requirements.
As for not listing the empty mass that makes perfect sense as if they have increased the payload mass fraction that is something they would want to hold close to their chest.

>>10363941
Yes Arianespace gained more new launches in2018 than SpaceX they just launched all of their massive backlog.

schedule updates from virgin orbit, firefly, relativity, vector

>>10364078
I should update the space news people tier list

hehehehheh
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/french-auditor-says-ariane-6-rocket-too-conventional-to-compete-with-spacex/

“This new launcher does not constitute a sustainable response in order to be competitive in a commercial market in stagnation," the auditor's report states. The Ariane 6 rocket design is too "cautious," according to the report, relying on mostly traditional technologies.”

Yuropoors can't into space.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/02/french-auditor-says-ariane-6-rocket-too-conventional-to-compete-with-spacex/?amp=1

>>10364794
do you have eyes

>>10364722
>>10364794
Ariane 6 already has 8 launches contracted while BFR has 1, and that one is the japanese shareholder that will fly around the moon.

>>10364985
It's an EU project, of course all nations involved will book launches on it or it looks like a complete waste of money to the public.
Also comparing it to BFR is retarded, it's much closer to Falcon Heavy in terms of capability.

>>10364995
It has 3 public and 5 private contracts.

SpaceX has said they are going to phase out Falcon 9 as soon as BFR drops so we are comparing the future vehicles of each company.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1093423297130156033
>Raptor just achieved power level needed for Starship & Super Heavy
>Design requires at least 170 metric tons of force. Engine reached 172 mT & 257 bar chamber pressure with warm propellant, which means 10% to 20% more with deep cryo.

>Did you folks track down the source of the green hue?
>Vaporized some copper

wtf

>>10362285
seems dumb to have huge windows on the cockpit like that

>>10365043
They built a full flow staged combustion engine in under 5 years with a tight budget.

>>10365032
Watch the talk with "going to phase out Falcon 9" for yourself and let me know if you think it's a statement of fact or something he hopes is viable.
@4:00
https://youtu.be/cj3OgrvvBpE

>>10362792
Some designs are so good/practical separate teams often converge on them. Look at the Soviet buran. It was literally a commie (albeit generally better than the original) shuttle. Not saying the Chinese don't love to steal US technology, but consider this, if you're trying to catch up with the head of the class does it make more sense to study off your incomplete notes or theirs?

>>10365065
>seems dumb to have huge windows on the cockpit like that

Grumman started with a very similar idea for the lunar lander. They agreed with you, and ended up with the tiny windows we're familiar with.

>>10365032
Elon said they're gonna launch Falcons as long as there's demand for them.

>>10365043
>SpaceX have now tested the Raptor (1.72) at a higher thrust than Blue Origin have ever tested the BE-4 (1.68) and done it in less than a week.

>>10365101
It's a smaller engine too.

>>10365076
Yea I'm aware of that.
Big windows are even dumber these days when the technology exists to just give the pilot an AR visor that lets him see through the vehicle.

>>10365108
>pay a billion dollar for a ride to see the moon up close on a gigantic starship
>get a monitor glued to your face showing shitty cgi because some engineer decided to save few bux from structural mass for windows and stood his ground for this by claiming that's how it was always done no need do things differently

>>10364197
>virgin orbit
They killed people and got away with it not if virgin or chad.

>>10365115
>not sure if virgin or chad*

>>10365113
they're talking about the chinese lunar lander, not spacex's starship

>>10365115
That's Virgin Galactic the suborbital space tourism company, not Virgin Orbit which is an orbital air-launch company. Their both owned by Richard Branson.

This sounds like a really dumb question but how is the raptor held in place if it produces that much thrust?

>>10365143
Very strong bolts and other connecting hardware to the thrust chamber's exterior walls, with the ground hardware being a combination of a shitload of concrete and deeply driven steel piles. If the bedrock is close enough to the surface, they'll be driven into it as well.

>>10365043
New engine test fires for the first time and didn't explode. That's a fucking Grand Slam for rockets.

>>10365119
My bad then. If I were to speculate I'd say it's purpose is to protect the people from dust during landing and ascent rather than provide livable pressurized environment. Getting in and out of the joypod likely involves spacewalk in orbit. Or they are just propaganda images.
I also have some doubts about the fuel tanks as they give about 3 tons worth of hypergols and that's somewhere around 4km/s with 1 ton dry mass. Either there's more tanks hidden inside, or nobody's coming back after the joyride on this one.

REMINDER:

>limited budget
>5 years
>TWO DIFFERENT DESIGNS
>BOTH REACHING FULL SIZED
>FIRED BOTH
>BOTH FULL FLOW

NASA, ROCKETDYNE, BO, ULA, ROSCOSMOS, ARIANE, EVERYONE SINCE VON BRAUN LITERALLY BTFO.

>>10362047
Earth is flat

>>10365161
It's startling, yes.

>>10365161
It ran for 3 seconds, they need 3 minutes to beat the longest Russian Full-Flow burn.

>>10365169
russian rokets always best america scared xaxaxaxa

>>10365171
Just facts on the history of rocketry anon, I wish spacex all the best but am a little worried the green tinge in the flame was injector erosion.

>>10365161
Of these only Braun's team sought results.
Even BO seems to focus more on consuming the "endless money" from its rich owner than actually do something before retirement.
Excellent example how much difference dedicated leadership and organization actually makes but also very sad in a way.

>>10365180
Unlike SpaceX with Falcon 1 BO can't afford explosions because they need to convince passengers to get on their rockets.
This means a very different corporate culture is needed where everything is tested and re-tested and tested again before going on the rocket unlike SpaceX who have lost boosters because they were in a hurry.

I think BO will do great things eventually and I think they will be the first private company to take passengers to space (maybe just short of the Karman line but you know what I mean).

>>10365185
virgin will beat bo

>>10365143
That's not a dumb question at all. The BFR is supposed to have almost twiche the thrust the Saturn 5 had. Creating a launch pad and a rocket that can sustain that is going to be really difficult, especially if they go with a structurally weak material like steel. I also still dont know how they want to fit all that fuel into that rocket. The Super Heavy has a volume of 4000m3 which could contain a maximum of ~1700tons of liquid methane, however the Super Heavy is conceptualised to use ~3000tons of fuel. So where are they putting the extra 1300 tons of fuel? The numbers of the BFR just dont make any sense.

The Raptor is a similarly weird concept. Sure, its a very capable engine, but it is also very expensive, and they want to put overall 38 of them on one single rocket. This would make sense if F9 had such an amazing reliability and reusability quota that they are very confident they can use each BFR countless times for very cheap while not losing any to failed landings or launches. That is not the case. The F9 is barely reused and landing manuveurs still sometimes fail. Landing the two stages of the BFR will be way harder, and especially if one first stage explodes that's 31 destroyed Raptors right there. That's really, really bad from a pure economic point of view. Elon himself said the first few Superheavy test flight will not feature full raptor count because of how expensive they are. So they will produce a super-expensive rocket that is supposed to very easily reusable, but will probably end up not being that just like F9.

>>10365174
History is good but I'd rather we cared more for the present, and immediate future. Downplaying spectacular success we are witnessing these years by asspulling random and ultimately irrelevant facts is ugly. Currently we're seeing the greatest potential in spacex and not in nasa, who are focused on jobs programs, or russia, who are focused on kleptocratic programs. The vatnik nationalism is especially tragic as they are essentially selling away inheritance.

Injector erosion is a bit too much. Testing seems to continue and there is no reason to believe any issues discovered cannot be fixed. This newer image for example shows no signs of green tinge which hints that they either fixed it or it was caused by something else.

>>10365185
This is their problem actually. BO works too much like oldspace - endless budgets endless time - and at best they'll play perpetual catch up. By the time they have functional NG, FH competitor, spacex would be using the BFR and likely phasing out the Falcon line completely while doing manned flights to the Moon. By the time they consider NA what is spacex going to be doing?

Still too early though, they are yet to send anything in orbit so I'm not sure why they are waved around as main competitor when in fact that would be ULA. Wishful thinking?

>>10365196
maybe someone dropped a gum wrapper in the engine while they were building it

>>10365204
Blue is actually very decicated to making reusability work and the New Shepard is also the only rocket that can fly twice within a 24 hours. The BE-4 is also delibaretely not maxing out on performance because reusability is top priority, and more often than not preformance and reusability are trading off. Raptor is going for maximum performance because Raptor has the main purpose to fire a rocket that can go to Mars, so it needs to very capable. The BE-4 isn't supposed to do that, so the engineers can focus on reusability much more.

>>10365205
Unironically thinking it was a contaminant. Maybe not a gum exactly but... gums?

>>10365195
>So where are they putting the extra 1300 tons of fuel? The numbers of the BFR just dont make any sense
Are you sure you are mixing numbers for both stages with numbers from just one stage?

>>10365196
>Downplaying spectacular success we are witnessing these years by asspulling random and ultimately irrelevant facts is ugly
I didn't think that is what I was doing at all. I applaud SpaceX for all their success and hope in the long term they financially bankrupt ULA to match ULAs moral bankruptcy. I'm just always skeptical of considering a development engine hitting literally 1% of it's design goal (3 second burn compared to 10 x 5 minute burns between refurbishment).

>>10365204
>This is their problem actually. BO works too much like oldspace
Depends on their goals, if they are serious about the tourist market taking your time to maintain 100% reliability makes perfect sense as a single failure will lead to strict regulation and reduced interest from the public.

>I'm not sure why they are waved around as main competitor when in fact that would be ULA
Agreed, I was simply responding to another anon that brought them up and I don't persoanlly see them as a launch provider competitor until New Glenn flies.

>>10365209
No I am not. The whole BFR is supposed to weigh 4400 tons with the Super Heavy being 3100 tons of that. That means that the Super Heavy will be ~3000 tons of fuel.

>>10365207
Personal anecdote but whatever; I can say with utmost certainty if leadership does not demand results nobody is going to bother working for results they're getting paid either way. BO would be better off if Bezos whipped them into shape by demanding a moon base and soon.

>>10365209
>hitting literally 1% of it's design goal
Now that's pure shitposting.

Those are the first fires of an incredibly advanced test engine.
Compare how other similarly complex engines behaved at that point.

>257 bar test
Holy shit I just realized they blasted the thing at full power.
300 bar version when?

>>10365214
Blue has no narrow purpose for their rocket in mind and is concentrating on maximum reusability. SpaceX has the purpose of going to Mars so they can not concentrate on reusability as much as Blue can. Blue also has several launches contracted, a delivery contract for the Vulcan, as well as some cash flow from tourism and experiment flights on the New Shepard.

>>10365214
just threaten the employees with wage cages

>>10365213
Interesting, I want to run some numbers now.
LOX = 1141 kg/m3
Liquid Methane = 424 kg/m3
Mixture Ratio = ~3.8

>>10365217
It's a great achievement but it's still in development, I hope all goes well and they reach the ~3000 seconds between refurbishment they are after.

>>10365229
2/10

>>10365245
But that's literally true. The only goal Blue has is making a reusable rocket while SpaceX wants to go to Mars. You need to have a gigantic payload capacity for that so just making a reusable rocket isnt enough. Hence Raptor is getting maxed out on performance specs while BE-4 delibaretely is not. Maxing out performance = bad for reusabilitiy.

>>10365043
damn that was quick

>>10365074
>Some designs are so good/practical separate teams often converge on them. Look at the Soviet buran.

Your point would be better if you had not used Shuttle as an example, which was a very bad design. Reason for the existence of Buran was simply copying the West without thinking.

>>10365237
Cont.
LOX Flow rate ~ 737.2kg/s = 0.86 m3/s
LCH4 Flow rate ~ 194kg/s = 0.77 m3/s
Total ~ 931.2kg/s = 1.63 m3/s
Super Heavy = 4000m3 = 2454 seconds / 31 engines = 79 seconds @ full thrust
This seems unusually short but not so much that I doubt it's possible especially as they will be running at low thrust for Max-Q.

>>10365108
Every manned spaceflight ever had windows. There is no good reason not to have them.

>>10365161
it does make on think what the fuck are traditional space contractors even doing with all those billions

>>10365265
There are plenty of good reasons to not have them (weight, different thermal expansion rates, cost ect.) but human psychology is such that people feel much better then they aren't locked in a windowless box.

>>10365195
>especially if they go with a structurally weak material like steel
steel is among the strongest structural materials, what the fuck are you even talking about

>>10365267
Paying $3,500 for door latches, I'm not even memeing this was the actual actual quote SpaceX got when looking for rated cabinets for Dragon. Needless to say SpaceX found a way to lock a plastic box for $5.

>>10365207
>Raptor is going for maximum performance
ironically Raptor due to full flow staged combustion has even better potential to be reusable than BE-4

>>10365282
The real reuseability benefit of the Raptor design is no need for internal seals on the turbo-pumps as the leaking fuel / oxidizer cools the pump and ends up in the combustion chamber anyway.
It's the only engineering case I know of where a shitty seal is the best seal.

>>10365286
You are trading off no internal seal for a whole second preburner with turbines. The CEO of Blue said they expect around 100 reuses for the BE-4 without any refurbishment done. I highly, highly doubt Raptor will achieve even a fifth of that.

>>10365313
>Benefits of the full-flow staged combustion cycle include turbines that run cooler and at lower pressure, due to increased mass flow, leading to a longer engine life and higher reliability.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staged_combustion_cycle

Did you ever stop to think that one of the main reasons SpaceX, a company famous for their reusable rockets, picked a full-flow staged combustion cycle was because it was well suited to reusability?

>>10365360
>quoting wikipedia

ayylmao go kys

>>10365386
I'm not that anon but you know you can check wikipedia's sources right? For example this is the source of that claim.
https://elib.dlr.de/78208/1/Prop2012-2.pdf

>>10365404
>https://elib.dlr.de/78208/1/Prop2012-2.pdf
That paper is basing it on 16Mpa chamber pressure, so it is a medium performance variant.

>>10365410
What has that got to do with dismissing wikipedia as a source instead of just checking their source?
Honestly I'm not too impressed by that paper or the fact many of their references are also produced by the same team so I'm about to read http://www.quantumg.net/Design_Of_Liquid_Propellant_Rocket_Engines.pdf which they also referenced.

>>10365418
Because wikipedia is a shit as legit sources get misrepresented as just demonstrated. In that paper they compare a ffsc engine at 16mp with a frsc and conclude that the ffsc at 16 mp might be slightly better in terms of reusability (table 2). raptor is a 28mp ffsc and be-4 is a 13 frsc. so you tell me which you think is more reusable.

additionally, be-4 is also a larger design which also increases reusability.

>>10365442
>and conclude that the ffsc at 16 mp might be slightly better in terms of reusability
How is that misrepresented no wikipedia? The wiki article isn't about Raptor it's about possible advantages of an engine that has never flown and it sites a paper that lists a possible advantage.

>so you tell me which you think is more reusable
Honestly I have no idea and unless both SpaceX and BO decide they are going to open source their engine designs the only people that might know are the industrial spies in each company.

If they can get the Raptor to work and work well it's a good thing even if it turns out not to be reusable because a HydroLOX FFSC could be built from their design and push 500 ISP.

Reading this thread, how do you guys know so much about rockets? Do you work in the industry?

>>10365473
Lots of rocketry nerds on /sci/, it's like those guys that can rattle off details about trains but with rockets. In my case I learnt a lot about solid fuel rockets making them as a hobby but everything I know about liquids I have read (for now, need a lathe and mill to get into liquids).

>>10365262
>This seems unusually short but not so much that I doubt it's possible especially as they will be running at low thrust for Max-Q.
70% seems to be the historic norm for Max-Q. Falcon 9 generally burns for about 2:20; it won't be surprising if Super Heavy wraps up sooner, since RTLS is the only way it operates.

>>10365454
You have no idea? ayy lmao. This paper concludes that if you compare two 16mpa engines with each other the full flow might have a slight advantage and now you honestly say that "you have no idea" how a 28mpa engine is going to fair against a 13mpa engine?

>>10365506
Do they use Hydrostatic bearings?
How close is the regenerative cooling to boiling at minimum throttle?
Is there any pitting on the injector head after a burn?

These are things we don't know so yes I have no idea and if you think you do your are delusional.

>>10365473
Autism.
KSP.
DIY solid rocket motors.
Lurking NSF.

>>10365502
And since refueling in Leo disposes you towards an overly large second stage

>>10365276
(And the astronauts liked it better, too)

>>10365593
>And since refueling in Leo disposes you towards an overly large second stage

SpaceX's Starship, as an honest to goodness spaceship, needs to be big.

Is the flame actualy that purple and blue or is it the camera sensor? Because three of those lighting up below a shiny hopper will be beautiful

>>10365607
It'll be a sexy blue.

>>10365607
>>10365615
It actually is purple. Raptor runs oxygen rich.

>>10365615
your picture clearly shows it'll be purple

>>10365627
At 1 atm which I assumed would be below the actual exhaust pressure near sea level but as >>10365623 pointed out being oxygen rich will maintain the purple.
The shock diamonds should actually be deep purple as that will be the lowest pressure part of the exhaust.

>>10365043
More! I want MOAR!!! We need more companies doing this shit with actual results.

>just not the Chinese.

>>10365506
Engines are very complicated things. So while a FFSC engine may have an advantage over ORSC at the same chamber pressure in reusability, the advantage may be lost if the FFSC engine were ran at higher pressures than the ORSC engine due to a complex interaction between the pressures and the parts. The higher pressures could result in faster wear on the pressure bearing parts. The additional complexity of FFSC may end up making repairs more challenging than ORSC, so while an FFSC engine may last longer it may be more expensive to fix at the end of its life.

Ultimately, the deciding factor (without the full design of the engines being released) will be flights and real use of the engines.

>>10365607
If you have a gas stove at home, then that is basically a methane+oxygen flame. Same as Raptor.

>>10365664

>>10365664
>Same as Raptor
>Full Flow Staged Combustion 300 bar Stove
Someone would buy that.

>>10365680
>30 minutes @ 200?
Nah, 3 minutes @ 2,000.

>>10365659
No, absoluetely not. This is like comparing a car with 800HP to a car with 200HP. Sure thing the 800HP car is faster and all, but it is also bloody obvious it will degrade much faster.

However, the bottleneck for reusability aren't the engines anyways. So I doubt it will matter a lot. Raptors surely are going to be very expensive though. ULA is purchasing a pair of BE-4s for 16 million, that's cheaper than the russians ever were. Raptor is going to be much, much more expensive than that, probably at least 20 million per engine.

>>10365710
>This is like comparing a car with 800HP to a car with 200HP. Sure thing the 800HP car is faster and all, but it is also bloody obvious it will degrade much faster

You are acting like like both of those engines don't peak ~70 atm and do it several times a second for decades. Sure it's harder to make something handle higher pressure but if it can take it for a minute it can take it for an hour.
Realistically what parts do you think will wear faster and why?
Pumps? The whole impeller is in housing with no significant pressure gradient.
Pipes? If the walls can take it they can take it, same goes for regenerative cooling channels.
Chamber? Same as pipes, if it can take it then it can take it.

The only real difference is increased torque on the pump shafts but guess what... if they can take it then they can take it.
The only part directly exposed to an increased pressure gradient is the external pump seals but since submarines have been dealing with 30 atm across the propeller shaft seal since the '60s I don't think that is a deal breaker.

>>10365683
Pic related

>>10365710
>However, the bottleneck for reusability aren't the engines anyways.
What do you think the bottleneck is? The price of the engines? The engines are among the most expensive parts in a rocket, and saving those for reuse would mean a severe cut in cost per launch.

>Raptors surely are going to be very expensive though
Indeed, and that's why I doubt Raptor-like designs will be used outside of SpaceX except when maximum performance is needed or when technology has brought the price down. However, I can totally see the BE-4 being the more ubiquitous (compared to the Raptor) engine since it's cheaper while still having good performance.

>>10365710
>ULA is purchasing a pair of BE-4s for 16 million, that's cheaper than the russians ever were. Raptor is going to be much, much more expensive than that, probably at least 20 million per engine.

So BE-4 unit cost is 8 million but Raptor is supposed to be >20 million, even tough Raptor is smaller? Does not make sense. Raptor is more complex but that is all we know. I dont think anyone except SpaceX has any solid idea about estimated Raptor unit cost.

>>10365747
They can take it until they can no longer take it, and with a way higher performance for the Raptor it will be shorter lived than the BE-4 will be. That is guaranteed.

>>10365765
>They can take it until they can no longer take it, and with a way higher performance for the Raptor it will be shorter lived than the BE-4 will be. That is guaranteed.

Without intricate and deep familiarity with the operating cycles and designs of both engines and the bearings, it's not possible to speak with authority towards that.

>>10365765
It's a new design, by your logic an internal combustion engine should need more maintenance than a steam engine but thanks to the sump and oil pump the opposite is true despite running at high temperatures, pressures, RPM and power output.

>>10365761
>So BE-4 unit cost is 8 million but Raptor is supposed to be >20 million, even tough Raptor is smaller? Does not make sense.
The Raptor runs at a higher chamber pressures which require more advanced materials to contain without becoming very heavy. Plus, the FFSC requires more plumbing and machinery than ORSC so at whatever size the Raptor will see a price penalty compared to the BE-4 no mater what.

I don't know where >>10365710 got the 20 mil figure from, but I can totally see the Raptor being that expensive since it'll be the first flight engine of its kind. However, the price may drop as more Raptors are made.

>>10365779
>However, the price may drop as more Raptors are made
As they are going to need 38 engines per BFR I could see it rapidly becoming a comparatively cheap engine as economy of scale kicks in.

>>10365761
What part of the Raptor is smaller, the nozzle diameter? lol.

Well, the purchasing price for the russian RD-181 is around 18 million dollars if you buy a bulk of 60 (see the latest delivery contract), that engine has a very high, but still lower chamber pressure than the Raptor, and is also less sophisticated still. Obviously, the russians are adding a profit margin to it but if the russians cant build high-pressured engines for cheap neither can SpaceX.

>>10365786
>if the russians cant build high-pressured engines for cheap neither can SpaceX.

Russians are not some paragon of efficiency at all.

>>10365786
>Obviously, the russians are adding a profit margin to it but if the russians cant build high-pressured engines for cheap neither can SpaceX.

If that were true, SpaceX wouldn't be beating the Russians on price and reliability at the same time.

>>10365773
It's not a new design. It is using a second preburner cycle, that's it. It is not some complete sci-fi that is unkown to mankind. There were also several full flow engines already on the test stand.

>>10365784
What economies of scale though? The BFR needs to be highly reusable to make any sense economically. This means they won't have many of them, and despite the high number of engines the scale at which SpaceX would be producing Raptors is SMALLER than what expendable eninge producers produce, since they need to produce new enignes after every launch.

>>10365805
>It is not some complete sci-fi that is unkown to mankind.
You could say the same about Merlin and yet we know Merlin cost is some fraction of a million, way below any other engine of its class. The point is, rocketry is a very undeveloped field compared to lets say, aviation or ICEs, and it is only recently that focus on economic efficiency became the driving force. We have no idea how much an engine like Raptor can cost when built under this new paradigm.

>>10365805
>It's not a new design
It is, it isn't as revolutionary as my internal combustion / steam comparison but it is a new design. Using something as simple as the very high pressure fuel for hydrostatic bearings on everything and pressurised labyrinth seals designed to leak a little and you have just done something as revolutionary as the sump and oil pump.

>What economies of scale though?
They are going to need 76 engines at least for 2 BRFs for their LEO refuelling plan. This isn't a small order in the world of rocketry and you would have a hard time finding an engine under a decade old produced in those numbers.
Add to that it should have high ISP and uses high density propellants increasing payload fraction with re-ignition capability and you have a very viable replacement for the AJ10 on upper stages.

>>10365827
As already stated, there is a delivery contract for 60 RD-181 and the Angara rockets are going to use up to 5 of them per launch, too. Arianespace also goes through ~30 engines and 20 side boosters per year. Economies of scale rather happen in expendable rockets, reusable not so much.

>>10365813
>way below any other engine of its class

I highly doubt that. Also, the launch costs of the Falcon 9 barely went down over the years, so I doubt there was much of a learning curve or economies of scale.

>>10365888
>Economies of scale rather happen in expendable rockets, reusable not so much
I get what you are saying and agree that disposable items tend to benefit more from economy of scale but we are talking about rocket engines, they aren't being made by the millions.
The Angara uses 2 RD-181s per launch so you need 32 launches before you have used as many engines as 2 BFRs (the minimum but most likely not the maximum).

>>10365916
>the launch costs of the Falcon 9 barely went down over the years
If you are so much cheaper than the competition that they need to RnD new rockets to compete with you would you keep lowering the price or take the ~10 years it's going to take for them to catch up to make some money?
It doesn't make economic sense to keep dropping the price especially as they need money for BFR.

just my 2¢ on raptor cost - right now a Merlin is a “fraction of a million” to produce. Raptor is a bit bigger, and more complicated for sure, but I don’t see how that translates to more than 10x the cost. To my knowledge there aren’t any exotic materials or anything, it’s just a very complex engine that took a lot of R&D.

>>10365916
Why cut price if you are already the cheapest ride by far?

>>10365932
>If you are so much cheaper than the competition that they need to RnD new rockets to compete with you would you keep lowering the price or take the ~10 years it's going to take for them to catch up to make some money?

SpaceX is definetely going for the "high market-share, small profits" strategy so they would be interested to maximizing their launch acitivity. They also definetely planned to do so as they announced 40 launches per year, but they cant do that because they are actually not getting all contracts. So you would expect them to lower the price even more to achieve those 40 launches but they arent doing that.

>>10365993
>So you would expect them to lower the price even more to achieve those 40 launches but they arent doing that.

The market is not elastic enough to entertain the notion of lowering costs to launch more payloads that can't, won't, and don't currently exist. A factor of two drop over most service providers was enough to capture the market. BFR's intended order of magnitude drop (two if you compare it to the pre-commercial space average) is what will change the game.

>>10365993
They are never going to get all launches because of politics, once they have all launches they realistically expect to get on pricing alone then there is no point in reducing pricing.
Right now they are ~50% of the competitions price so I don't think they are going to get anything by being even cheaper.

>>10366015
They are not at 50% of the competition price. Sharing a dual launch on the Ariane 5 can be cheaper for GTO launches, than launching two F9s, and for small satellites Arianespace also has smaller rockets. SpaceX reduced russia's market share in the commercial launch market to 0% and it is obvious they planned to do the same with Arianespace (hence the announcement of 40 launches per year) but failed. So why are they not lowering the price so that one Falcon 9 is actually cheaper than sharing the ride on a Ariane 5?

>>10366040
>So why are they not lowering the price so that one Falcon 9 is actually cheaper than sharing the ride on a Ariane 5
Because they won't get that market due to politics, they won't get EU government launches. As for commercial launches it's standard that using our nations launch provider offers large tax benefits offsetting any savings from using SpaceX and creating tension between your company and those that regulate it.

The space industry large enough for a model-t marketing strategy of reducing costs until the average family has a satellite, that isn't going to happen in our lifetime.

New stuff

plumbing

bZzzzzt

>>10366067
>>10366077
whats with all the rust?

>>10366084
>weld
>grind weld
>iron filings rust
>stain surface with rust

>>10366015
Yes the US gov was extremely worried about the ULA monopoly pre-spacex. Two providers for assured access my ass just political talkshit.

>>10366065
I am talking about commercial launch markets. Arianespace gets way less public missions than SpaceX does. They are almost all private.

>>10366091
At this rate of rusting it's going to vanish in few centuries no way will this thing actually work.

>>10365623
>oxygen rich
Preburner. Main combustion is fuel rich as it should be.

>>10366096
And I explained why companies would still be better off using their nations / alliances launch provider.

>>10366100
>R&D rocket won't last a century
Waste of time, I hate SpaceX now.

>>10364794
>Waaah, waaah, military payload prices are inflated to keep US space companies afloat!
(never mind that SX caused military payload prices to go down)
>France spent $4.5B on developing A6 and other EU countries paid the rest
nothing to see here, perfectly normal

>>10365761
If you follow the threads you'll notice the body odor faggot likes to pull various things out of his ass. The current shitposting trend is towards expensive and dysfunctional raptor plus spacex bankruptcy.

>>10366109
There is no tax benefit for choosing a national launch provider, and most commercial launches are coming from non-EU and non-US companies, anyways.

>>10366113
If you were CEO of arianespace what would you do?

>>10365916
>>10365993
>>10366014
>>10366015
>>10366040
>>10366065
The reason SpaceX don't cut their prices even more when they can is because they want to make as much profit as possible, their not a charity and don't have infinite wealth like Bezos backing them; they need to make as much money as possible to fund BFR and Starlink while still lowering the price to space. Contrary to popular belief SpaceX didn't win all those GTO contracts just by undercutting the competition, they won because they provided a more desirable service. Arianespace's GTO rideshares are usually delayed due to scheduling conflicts, because trying to get two large and complicated satellites built and delivered to the launch site at the same time is extremely hard. SpaceX provides a service which doesn't have these problems and is completely tailored to individual satellites, for a little less performance you can have a launch provider with a flexible schedule and less delays.

>>10366136
>most commercial launches are coming from non-EU and non-US companies, anyways
Source? I'm legitimately interested to see which nations without launch capability are flying the most.

>>10366143
Good point.

>>10366137
LITHIUM
FLORINE
ENGINE

>>10366150
Balls to the wall mad lad, 10/10 would invest.

>>10366137
LITHIUM FLUORINE HYDROGEN ENGINE

How much does a Merlin 1D cost?

>>10366150
>>10366155
Is zis a safe bet for ze company, monsieur?

>>10366143
SpaceX announced they want to achieve 40 launches per year, which would be on track for a 80-85% market share in the commercial launch market. They didnt achieve that, and are in fact losing market share again. As to the profit bit, its more profitable to do 40 launches with 15 million profit per launch than 20 with 25 million per launch.

>>10366155
>>10366154
Does Hydrogen increase Delta-V? If so is it just because it's very light and increases exhaust velocity?

>>10366164
>>10366162
>>10366154
From “ignition!”

>>10366158
about $600k according to Mueller

>>10366166
Tweet this at Musk so he can raid Tesla for fuel.

>>10366166
Tri-propellant engines are indeed more efficient, would be curios to experiment with a blend of even more propellants. Sadly completely useless for a rocket as the architecture to fit in that many different fuel tanks would be nigh impossible and the exhaust is highly toxic. Could be an option for a space-only ship that taxis between planets, though.

>>10366171
>sub 1 million
The raptor priceposting can safely be ignored in that case.

>>10365207
>and the New Shepard is also the only rocket that can fly twice within a 24 hours
Not so great unless you can do that with a useful payload. I guess you could call half a dozen paying passengers "useful", if you really wanted to push the issue.

But they're the only other company with a serious attempt at re-usability, so even if they get there second, they'll still be way ahead of everyone else.

>>10365185
>I think BO will do great things eventually and I think they will be the first private company to take passengers to space (maybe just short of the Karman line but you know what I mean).
Considering that SX isn't trying to be the first at a sub-orbital amusement ride, their only competition in that is VG, who are still having troubles getting to the Karman line.

>>10366106
Stoichiometric Methane + O2 combustion is one Methane molecule and 2 O2s to produce one molecule of CO2 and two molecules of H2O. The mixture ratio of Raptor is 3.81:1, Oxidizer to Fuel.

>>10366191
hol’ up, both India and China are making strides towards reusability as well.

>>10366191
>Not so great unless you can do that with a useful payload. I guess you could call half a dozen paying passengers "useful", if you really wanted to push the issue.

New Shepard could put satellites up to 1 ton into space if you mounted a second stage on top of it instead of the passenger cabin. That's obviously not what it is designed to do, but it capable of being the first stage of an orbital rocket.

>>10366199
>>10366191
here’s india’s take on the matter.

Sure they’re not anywhere near flight ready but both countries are putting their feet in the game at least

>>10366197
Stochiometric ratio is 4:1. Raptor being 3.8:1 is still fuel rich, just less fuel rich than most other engines.

>>10366214
>Stochiometric ratio is 4:1. Raptor being 3.8:1 is still fuel rich, just less fuel rich than most other engines.

Should work on your molecular accounting, rather than relying on a search engine and the top result from Reddit.

Methane: 1 carbon, 4 hydrogen
Oxygen: O2

1 methane and 2 O2 produces 1x CO2 and two H2O.

>>10366201
>New Shepard could put satellites up to 1 ton into space if you mounted a second stage on top of it instead of the passenger cabin. That's obviously not what it is designed to do, but it capable of being the first stage of an orbital rocket.
Considering that it's got ZERO orbital velocity, and has certainly never landed after having any, what would boost those satellites horizontally? A star MLB pitcher? You might as well just stick with the jet plane launch meme if your first stage imparts no horizontal velocity.

>>10366214
I hope you aren't considering responding to his retarded post.
Note the reddit spacing too.

>>10366201
>>10366235

>New Shepard max speed: Mach 3.72

>Orbital Velocity: Mach 20+

>>10366235
What? I dont know exactly what you are trying to say, it sounds like you are just repeating some words you think sound science-y.

Anyways, the New Shepard has enough thrust to be the first stage of an orbital rocket for payloads <1 ton to LEO.

>>10366247
Can you point me to an actual launch where it did that?

>>10366247
Lol, yes, first stages don't go anywhere near orbital velocities. Are you really that stupid or just pretending?

>>10366253
Freefall.

>>10366257
How is that a launch where it had an orbital velocity? Are you actually retarded or just pretending? Seriously, I want to watch the footage of that launch!

>>10366265
pssst, he might not be the same person

>>10366243
I am sorry master, just this one time I must go all out.jpg

>>10366222
1 carbon and four hydrogens molecular mass: 16
four oxygens molecular mass: 64

4:1 is the stochiometric mass ratio of a methalox rocket engine

>implying we shouldn't just be focusing on 50-50 wt% monatomic hydrogen + regular hydrogen, resulting 1000-1100s performance

>>10366265
You gigantic faggot, the New Shepard is much more capable than a Falcon 1 first stage was, and the Falcon 1 was able to put things into Orbit.

>>10366278
It's not very capable when it's sitting in the shed. So far it's just gone up and down half a dozen times. Yep, that's some fine capability right there.

>>10366253
>>10366265
>>10366268

>>10366257 is right, the New Shepard booster actually hits max speed while falling back down towards the launchpad. New Shepard isn't designed to launch orbital in any way; in stark contrast it's actually designed to be as heavy and slow as possible so that it can hover before landing, to do this it has to retain a thrust to weight ratio of below 1. On the other hand, the Falcon 9 booster has a thrust to weight ratio of 1.3 before landing, therefore, it cannot hover and has to do a hoverslam movement to land.

>>10366281
It has demonstrated actual reuse, unlike the F9.

>>10366282
This is all complete bullshit. New Shepard never goes faster than 600Mph falling down, while top speed going up is 2300Mph. The whole thrust to weight ratio is also utter nonsense, a rocket with a bigger weight thrust wouldn't even leave the ground. The reason why the New Shepard hovers and the F9 first stage doesn't is because the BE-3 can deep throttle and the Merlin can't.

>>10366283
Yep, it was re-used right back into the hangar. It's the world's most capable hangar queen!

>>10366282
>right, the New Shepard booster actually hits max speed while falling back down towards the launchpad
That's the right answer to the wrong question. Follow the quote chain and you'll see
>Orbital Velocity: Mach 20+

>>10366278
*cough*

>>10366296
Are you fucking retarded? Holy cow. I really hope you're not the same dude that wrote this complete nonsense >>10366293

>>10366300
*cough*

>>10366296
Are you fucking retarded? Holy cow. I really hope you're not the same retard who wrote this complete nonsense >>10366282

>>10366306
You have disqualified yourself from the discussion with this complete bullshit >>10366282

You are a complete retard who has literally no fucking clue at all.

lol nobody knows who is who

>>10365265
>>10365113
I'm not saying you couldn't have windows, just not big windows. Obviously you would still want small windows as a backup in case any of the cameras failed or were obscured.
F35 pilots already use the AR visor thing to see through the floor/etc.

>>10366306
also comparison of flight trajectory

New Shepard is just a toy compared to Falcon 9 first stage, we all wish all the best to BO but they have yet to begin seriously competing in the same category as SpaceX

>>10366296
prove me wrong

>>10366320

>>10366293
it maxed out at 2603 fps on the *descent* during NS-10.

>>10366320
Not to mention New Glenn is delayed to 2021, and orbital manned missions on it are now 7-8 years out according to BO

>>10366329
*mph whoops

>>10366320
Yeah no shit the Falcon 9 is way bigger than the New Shepard. Doesn't change the fact if BO wanted to they could launch small satellites on a system that consists of a New Shepard and a second stage conatining the payload. So it is really much more comparable to the Falcon 1, yes, but unlike Falcon 1 or 9 New Shepard is actually reuseable with flight costs estimated to be below 100.000 dollars.

>>10366320
>Blue Origin have yet to begin seriously competing in the same category as SpaceX

I'd argue that the two aren't really competing at all. Sure they'll compete for contracts, but SpaceX and Blue Origin aren't competing the same way in rocketry in the same way Apple and Samsung are competing in phones.

Their mindsets and goals are too different. When they both made their first flyback rockets, Blue Origin kept theirs in development and intend to use it while SpaceX dropped theirs to develop a bigger "version". When they both developed new engines, Blue Origin started selling their engines to other rocket companies while SpaceX intends on keeping their designs.

>>10366337
>https://spacenews.com/blue-origin-still-holding-off-on-new-shepard-ticket-sales/
>"We’re not selling tickets yet. We have not selected a price yet, despite what you might have read,” she said, a reference to a report last summer that claimed the company was planning to charge between $200,000 and $300,000 per seat. “We don’t have a price yet. We haven’t determined when we’re going to sell tickets.”

any price speculation is that, speculation. It could be five bucks, it could be two mil. No one knows.

must be good news out of McGregor with the tests.

>>10366326
>>10366306
here it is in one image to terminally shut up them new shepard trolls

>>10366360
compare it to Falcon 1, not Falcon 9 dude
small-sat launch capability is a good starting place, as SpaceX proved

>>10366351
Yes, because building the New Shepard costs 10 million. It is supposed to be reused 25 times with 10k refurbishment cost inbetween flights. Fuel is 50k per flight. So that's 10.000.000/25=400k + 10k + 50k = 460k per flight.

The marginal cost for each flight though is below 100k.

>>10366360
I’m on the new Shepard a shit side of things here, but that’s a crap not to scale pleb infographic. Unless you can compare the re entry velocities, overall vehicle stresses and maneuvers apples to apples it’s sort of silly to compare F9 and NS. They’re different things with different purposes

>>10366368
This.

It's like you guys are comparing four-wheelers to cars. Sure a car is "more powerful" than a four-wheeler, but that's completely ignoring the different intended purposes that the two vehicles are designed for.

>>10366368
>short booster syndrome
rocketlet fags on the defensive

>>10366381
what do you mean, defensive? it sounds like you have some bizarre need to prove the superiority of your idol of worship, probably stemming from a deep seated sense of personal inferiority
New Shephard is less capable than Falcon 9, because they're totally different classes of boosters. An objective look will show this.

>>10366360
also Falcon 9 is like ~20 times heavier than new shepard, more so than mere size difference would suggest due to denser propellant

props to BO for new shepard reusability but seriously give us new glenn or dont bother with the rocketlet

other concurrent construction as well. Land leveling and wiring from the solar farm

>>10366360
Don't worry anon they'll pick something else equally stupid.

>>10366377
Btw, a Falcon 9 copy with 9 BE-3s at the first stage and 1 and the upper stage would have a similar payload as the Falcon 9 while being actually reusable and more suited to transport stuff in more complicated orbits.

>>10366527
Really? The Merlin 1D has a Sea Level thrust of 620 kN while the BE-3 has a Sea Level thrust of 490 kN (Comparable to a Merlin 1C). Surely the reduction in thrust from a Merlin 1D Falcon 9 to a BE-3 version would mean a reduction in payload? Also the BE-3 is a hydrolox engine, which means less dense propellant and a longer rocket for a fixed diameter. The Falcon 9 uses much more dense kerolox and it's already pretty long for its diameter. Plus, what specifically about the BE-3 that makes it more reusable than the Merlin?

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just curious of where you got that assessment.

Although, I do agree with you that a BE-3 upper stage on a Falcon 9 would definitely be more capable than the current version due to the better Isp.

>>10366546
>The Merlin 1D has a Sea Level thrust of 620 kN
845 kN according to wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_(rocket_engine_family)

>>10366546
Yeah the rocket would need to be bigger but you would also need less fuel, so saving dozens tons of fuel more than compensates the bigger size. So you end up with similar levels of payload, might be a bit lower for the BO one though.

>>10365827
>They are going to need 76 engines at least for 2 BRFs for their LEO refuelling plan.

This is not necessarily so. They could reuse the same booster that flew the Starship up to fly the tanker up. So they would need a minimum of 1 booster and two upper stages, so 45 Raptor engines to make refueling possible.

>>10366595

When each engine costs upward of 40 million 45 is not much different than 76.

>>10366595
wouldn't it make more sense to send the tankers first?

>>10366629
no, you can only dock with one at a time anyway

>tfw they frequent this thread

>>10366639
gay

>>10366639
Explains the underaged shitposting plaguing most space related threads.

>>10362285
it's cute, I like it, reminds of me of that concept vehicle that could be configured for free flight or rover operations, maybe in the constellation program, anyone remember that?

>>10366558
Oops. I guess I was reading about an older version of the Merlin 1D. My original point still stands though.

>>10366576
Hmmm. Maybe. I may do a more in-depth design analysis of this over the weekend.

>>10362284
Unlikely they are expecting to join in now that relations have soured, they just copy and imitate the given leader in a field in the case NASA. That will continue until SpaceX succeeds with the lunar mission(s) and the weight of those advocating for change in direction grows in accordance to that. The chinese could adapt faster to SH/SS than anyone else.

>>10366804
And all for the low, low cost of decades of horror, butchering, and murder, all in the name of Mao and his glorious revolution. Go China. The modern CCCP is no better, just not as flagrantly stupid as Mao.

https://www.businessinsider.com/horrors-of-communist-china-under-mao-2017-5

I don’t think tanker starship needs all seven raptors. Depends where they want to do the refueling; I know for a full load to the lunar surface it’s 6 in LEO + 1 in an elliptical orbit halfway there

>>10367052
Elon's memeing again

both tweets are with regards to the Super Heavy Booster

This is a super-secret classified photograph taken by a NRO optical-imaging reconnaissance satellite btw...

>>10367114
Whats with the triangular bit near the tanks on the right side?

>>10367119
that's the launch mount. Three holes for three legs. The berm to the right protects the tanks from exhaust.

>>10367134
Thats what I thought. Would the earthworks and that bigass circular area to the left side of the image be the eventual landing pad for this thing?

>>10367052
A better TWR on a second stage can offset the weight of the engines themselves.
If it had less engines, you'd have to lob it higher up so it has time to burn to orbit, wasting fuel on the first stage, or have it burn while falling back down, resulting in a very inefficient trajectory, wasting fuel on the second stage. Or a combination of both.

>>10367140
hmm, on second thought it might be the *refueling* mount. The actual launch pad could be going in on the left, thus the trusses over there.

>>10367146
I doubt they'd move it after fueling

>>10367146
But then that leads to the question of why you'd want to try and move a fully fueled rocket from the triangle to the trusses.

I'm thinking the triangles is a service mount/pad. After each hop test, they haul the hopper to it, lock it down via the legs, and then do what they need to do to it (pull engines off for repairs/inspection, etc)

the absolute state of government procurement

>In a statement to SpaceNews, Calvert said: “I wholeheartedly support the Air Force’s plan to preserve assured access to space. However I do have some reservations about their plan to achieve that goal. My letter with Senator Feinstein supports competition of multiple providers but specifically requests clarification on why the only current, certified launch provider was left out of the LSA award and what their plan is should the three awardees not be able to meet requirements in the coming years. We have seen the script of overly optimistic assumptions on cost and delivery before. It is our duty to the taxpayer and to the warfighter to understand the reasoning and, most importantly, the risk of falling short.”

https://spacenews.com/lawmakers-air-force-launch-procurement-strategy-undermines-spacex/

>>10367159
Feinstein is a witch and damn her

>>10367157
yeah it could be for lifting the hopper up, sort of like the concrete base over in the construction area.

>>10367160
politicians are complex organisms with different, often multiple specialties... sure she's a horrible antigunner but hey, more space support is better. Most liberals don't like Cruz, but lots think his positions on space are at least beneficial. etc etc.

"REMOVE BEFORE TANK CLOSEOUT"
also lol @ the Home Depot buckets; you see those at every contracting construction job site

>>10367231
I've found that the best buckets are from firehouse subs

>>10366639
Raptor started development first, and test fired back in 2016.
>redditors in charge of not being retarded

>>10367231
tight pants tight welds

>>10367231
>>10367237
Plaster buckets are best buckets.

God damn my respect for Bezos just went through the roof. This AMI stuff that just came out with blackmail threats and Saudi involvement is crazy.

>>10367341
Holy shit I just found out about this and he earnt my respect too.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/2019/02/07/f501d20c-2b2d-11e9-b2fc-721718903bfc_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.53d8dc4d7518

>>10367292
:^)

>>10367356
there are more details than you think.
AMI had an agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to be good boys in exchange for a nonprosecution agreement related to... certain 2016 campaign and Saudi-connected activities.

So, SDNY is now going to MONUMENTALLY FUCK OVER AMI.
Not to mention, Gavin de Becker now has UNLIMITED FUNDS thanks to Bezos to ALSO FUCK AMI OVER. It's not like they have a hard job to do, they put "CONFIDENTIAL & NOT FOR DISTRIBIUTION" as the title in emails where they THREATENED EXTORTION AND BLACKMAIL, a LITERAL CRIME, therefore VIOLATING THE SDNY TRUMP INVESTIGATION NONPROSECUTION AGREEMENT AMONG OTHER THINGS.
someone add AMI to the "JUST'D" hall of fame

"If in my position I can’t stand up to this kind of extortion, how many people can?"
-Jeff "CHAD" Bezos

>>10367365
Try replying to the correct post next time.

>>10367368
and to make this actually related to /sci/ and space exploration, let me add onto that that Blue Origin will probably not see any setbacks. if anything Bezos will be like "get me off this fucking planet and put his billions towards speeding up the whole process

>>10365195
>the Super Heavy is conceptualised to use ~3000tons of fuel. So where are they putting the extra 1300 tons of fuel?
It's propellant, not fuel. Liquid oxygen is much denser than methane, the fact that the rocket needs to carry both fuel and oxidizer is where the higher stage density comes from.

>>10365195
>structurally weak material like steel
We use steel tools to literally extrude aluminum ingots like putty through dies to make tubes and other products, steel is FAR stronger than any aerospace material except some alloys of titanium, its only disadvantage is its higher density.

>>10365207
>Raptor is going for maximum performance because Raptor has the main purpose to fire a rocket that can go to Mars, so it needs to very capable. The BE-4 isn't supposed to do that, so the engineers can focus on reusability much more.
Since Raptor is a full flow design with two pumps it has no need for any complex rotating seal to separate hot oxygen rich fluids from hot fuel rich fluids, like is necessary in either oxygen rich staged combustion or fuel rich staged combustion. If that seal fails, the engine explodes. Raptor doesn't need those seals and thus can be run much harder without actually wearing anything out.

>>10365205
>>10365208
Elon already confirmed is was copper from the combustion chamber walls.

>>10365237
>>10365262

Now use the numbers for sub cooled, densified propellants

>>10367454
If you can find them I will.

>>10365623
>Raptor runs oxygen rich.
No, it does have an oxygen rich preburner and a fuel rich preburner, but the engine as a whole consumes more fuel than is stoichiometric, and is therefore fuel rich overall.

>>10365633
It's not oxygen rich

>>10365710
Raptors will not cost more than $1.5 million each

>>10367469
Source?

>>10367463
Source?

>>10367461
Source?

>>10367356
>the chad bezos
>the virgin saudi

>>10366627
Lol Raptor will not cost even close to that much

>>10367475
If Raptor were oxygen rich overall it'd have more thrust and much worse specific impulse. Oxygen is denser, so running more of it through the engine per second results in a higher mass flow rate and more thrust total, but the mass flow increases faster than the amount of thrust per kg of propellant consumed. Also, since oxygen and fully oxidized combustion products are heavier than partially burned combustion products and have a slower speed of sound, they provide less thrust in a converging-diverging nozzle than lighter particles, and thus drop the Isp even more.

Mixture ratio is given as a mass fraction, but in reality what determines whether an engine is oxygen rich or fuel rich is simply which side of the stoichiometric ratio they lie on. An engine that consumes more than a stoichiometric amount of oxygen in proportion to its fuel use is oxygen rich (pro tip, these don't exist for efficiency and other reasons) and if it consumes less oxygen than would be stoichiometric for the amount of fuel used it is fuel rich (every rocket engine ever).

>>10367562
in emergency scenarios where starship has to refuel with whatever is available on mars, do you think the raptors would be able to be configured to burn at the most efficient ratio given the quantities of methane and oxygen in the tanks?

new
>>10367922

>>10366763
>Hmmm. Maybe. I may do a more in-depth design analysis of this over the weekend.

It would be like a Delta 4 M with 4 sideboosters attached, so LEO payload around 15 tons.

>>10366166
Is "Ignition" a book or something? Looks interesting if so