/sci/ - Science & Math

check out this space debris capture test that the University of Surrey RemoveDEBRIS sat performed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oryJMdonUA

on the NASA funding side of things, the most recent budget draft gives them 8% more than requested: $21.5b.

Mark Kelly is running for senate in Arizona https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/politics/arizona/2019/02/12/arizona-us-senate-astronaut-mark-kelly-announces-run-congressional-bid-gabby-giffords/2845417002/

check out those big zip ties

>>10389805
Even the shithouses are crooked.

>>10389797
>implying that birds exist

>>10389805
Hopefully this is a sign that NASA is starting to be taken more seriously by the government.

>>10389808
The southern states are fun in that you could have a retired astronaut or some bigwig ex-NASA guy run for senate against a Flat Earth Creationist, and its still a toss-up over who ends up winning. A guy in in my county keeps getting re-elected despite being a creationist and making claims about how Obama was foretold to be the biblical antichrist.

NASA's new commercial Lunar landing program has got me pretty hyped. Of course there will be science payloads, but I want to see what kind of commercial payloads get added. A growing commercial industry on the Moon will add alot of fuel to a potential Moon base.

oh yay, more Soyuz seats... https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/nasa-soyuz-seats-uninterrupted-access-iss/

Launch pad is coming along nicely

>>10390224
They have fire suppression gear as well >>10389801

>>10390224

>>10390234
seems that they’ll need more than just that if a hppper blows up lel

>>10390244
It's just for suppression when the engines ignite, the huge dirt barrier is for when things go wrong...

>>10390201
it sucks but it makes sense

>>10390297
No it doesn’t make sense... they are just dragging out the commercial crew program forever

HURRY UP AND FUCKING FLY AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

>>10390047
never ever

>>10390300
Once Boeing flies and gets the flag the delays will decrease drastically. A lot of money and prestige on the line.

>>10390464
>implying Boeing will get the flag
the race is on

>>10390300
Don't worry. NASA is just keeping Russian rocket engineers employed for Russia so they don't end up working for North Korea making missiles or something like that.

>>10390455
It's going to be funny when the delays magically stop after Boeing launches their first crew...

>>10390474
Ain't much point in a race that isn't fair...

>>10390474
>dm-1 delayed to march and maybe even beyond
>has to reuse the dragon for inflight abort test
>nasa has to process all the paperwork
>meanwhile boeing needs to finish its capsule and do a simple pad abort whose paperwork will be stamped before just in case

Expect unexpected issues to be discovered after dm-1 that will put further delays.

>>10390490
>meanwhile boeing needs to finish its capsule and do a simple pad abort whose paperwork will be stamped before just in case

I thought Boeing has to do an inflight abort test too? NASA seems way too safety oriented to allow Boeing to not do such a test.

>>10390504
Nope. They opted for more simulations; spacex opted for an actual test

>>10390504
Boeing will do only pad abort. Supposedly inflight abort is not a requirement and spacex requested it themselves, but what lead to this and whether there aren't any important details left out in the explanation is unknown.
>1. dm-1
>2. refurbish dragon
>3. inflight-abort
>4. paperwork
>5. dm-2

Boeing lacks 2 and 3, while 4 could very well prove to be much easier problem to tackle for an experienced company like them. Judging by how easy they moved on from the hydrazine leak some time ago I have no worries.

NASA is getting $800m more than last year
https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/15/18226398/nasa-funding-bill-fiscal-year-2019

>Overall
$21.5 billion vs $20.7 billion (last year)
>Human spaceflight
$5 billion vs $4.79 billion (last year)
>funding for the LOP-G Lunar space station
>$800 million in funding for Lunar lander programs

>>10390545
Daily reminder that muskrats will complain about this, despite the fact that SpaceX is bidding for the manned lander contract, and is a prime candidate for launching the smaller CLIPS landers.

>>10389797

>Chemical mass ejection propulsion

Is this, 1870?

>>10389801
wow...that business alone will be billions a year.question is where do you dump the space garbage

>>10389797
does iss have an escape module that can at least parachute to earth.

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1096544472224157697

Looks like SpaceShipTwo is going to launch again next week, visit the Blue Origin subreddit for maximum salt...

>>10390695
can't be salty about something that doesn't even go to space :^)

>>10390689
They always have enough Soyuz onboard to get everyone home if that’s what you mean

>>10390699
The US government counts it as space and the pilots recently received astronaut wings.

>>10390699
Space should be 80km

>>10390695
>SpaceShipTwo
Is this thing going to be dead once Starship begins Earth-to-Earth hops? They'll have spent a over a decade working on this for it to only exist for a few years.

>>10390743
>>10390773
space*

>>10390795
And how does Branson spend $35 million a month on Virgin Galactic? Where is all of the money going?

He looks tired, bros

thank you for not including the word "spacex" in the OP

>>10390870
whoops, I should have. sorry

>>10390871
please don't

>>10390873
why not? these threads are largely about the ongoing SpaceX starship hopper construction.

>"Starship"
>doesn't visit other stars

>>10390878
Falcon 9 isn't a bird either

>>10390878
Saturn V didn't go to Saturn. What's your point?

>>10390047
it's too conservative, it's basically a request for apollo all over again
>>10390874
yeah but it'll give shitposters less ammo if it's just "spaceflight general" instead of "spacex fanboy general"
also they might not find the thread lol

>>10390878
>Proton
>is actually made of protons AND neutrons, plus some electrons

trash name desu

>>10390889

>>10390878
Atlas V isn't some buff dude holding the sky, much less five of them.

>>10390885
>Saturn V didn't go to Saturn
thats what u think

>>10390877
what are those metal oval things on the bottom right?

>Long March
>not a military retreat undertaken by the Red Army of the Communist Party of China, the forerunner of the People's Liberation Army, to evade the pursuit of the Kuomintang (KMT or Chinese Nationalist Party) army

>>10390895
one of the SIIB stages got pretty far out there

>>10390874
it's just one autist spamming the images

nobody cares about the hopper, they just come here to shitpost

fucking retard

>>10390896
the hole? no one really knows. Entry point for something

>>10390903
I mean these

>>10390907
nevermind I realized just now that they are lights >>10389808

>>10390907
those are lights lol

I would be really stressed out if I was building huge rocketship in my garage. I'd rather be in a cubicle crunching flight equations.

>>10390885
Point is they should come up with relevant names.

>>10390892
Top kek

>>10390932
"Alright, we have the 'Thing that looks deeply into the stars' telecope ready to be sent into space on top of an 'Going up machine'. 'Going up machine', owned by Space Company Inc., has just upgraded their 'constant combustion down a converging diverging nozzle' engines to the new 'constant combustion down a converging diverging nozzle but at a higher chamber pressure' engines."

Nicknames and tradenames are fine. Stop taking things literally.

>>10390973
>responding to a low effort shitpost

>>10390684
what? How will this make billions? I don't get it.

What are they doing in the tent lads?

>>10390903
Or an exit point for something... or someONE.

>>10389797
Alright guys, i need a run down, how high will this thing fly, and when can we expect a launch?

>>10391037
I think i'm wrong, but SpaceX filed for 1km hops a while back, and it should be flying in a couple months if not sooner.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oryJMdonUA
>harpooning enemy spacecraft
The future of space warfare is bright.

>>10391101
literally useless

>>10389805
How does a single nasa probe cost 5 billion dollars and 15 years to build while private industry is able to do the same thing for 50 million in 1 year

>>10391101
this is only for garbage collection
and space whaling

>>10391101
>Space harpooning
Finally! Those space whales had it good for too long!

Joking aside, that's pretty impressive. Can't wait to see them try it on a real satellite.

>>10391004
There's a significant amount of debris up there, and the risk to various satellites keeps going up. Hard to say these days who's going to pay for it, but there's a large (commercial) interest in reducing / minimizing the unused crap whizzing around up there. At some point certain orbital slots might be unusable due to debris.

Also, governments could hold satellite operations companies responsible to remove their shit once it's no longer working though legislation etc.

>>10391118
>single nasa probe cost 5 billion dollars
which mission is that?

>>10391143
>tfw planetes becomes reality

I wanna be a space garbageman

>>10391143
thanks:))

>>10391155
Well I was being flippant but I wouldn't even be surprised if they ACTUALLY have some project that costs that much

fucking nasa

>tfw ywn harpoon the enemy astronaut who is trying to invade your space station

>>10391037
>>10391082
5km max

>>10391166
A great economist Milton Friedman once said if the federal government was put in charge of the sahara desert within 5 years there would be a shortage of sand.

>>10391183
Like I'd trust anything a jew says

>>10391166
There's probably some efforts that would cross that threshold, you know - like the moon landing. I guess people who don't work in the business don't know about it, but NASA-funded missions undergo quite rigorous financial checks. I've been working on a few in the last years and they fucking turn every cent around. One of the more recent one's was on the verge of being scrapped already in the design phase because they were convinced the instruments at the initial specs would break the cost limit. At the end it got greenlighted, but only after severe re-design efforts to make the thing cheaper and heavy convincing on our side that the instruments could be built for cheaper.

Anyone thinking NASA HQ is just spending billions like it was chump change is clearly talking out of their asses.

>>10391191
NASA isn't spending billions on your science fair projects

they're wasting all that money on administrators sitting around having meetings for $400k/yr salaries.

>>10391191
SLS

>>10391195
NASA directly employs abour 17k people at the moment. Even if ALL of them were 400k p.a. admin, it'd only add up to 7 billion or so.

Besides, the salary you get there is nothing to brag about given the education you had to invest in to get a job in the field.

>>10391202
? Is that their new staff cereal?

>>10391118
>> private industry is able to do the same thing for 50 million in 1 year
private industry does not build space probes. There's no money in space exploration and science(yet). As for $5 billion dollar space probes, Hubble cost about $4.7 dollars at the time of launch and by 2010, cumulative costs were $10 billion. Although five servicing missions were carried out. You also have operating costs where you need to fund a team of scientists and engineers to operate the thing. Hubble was also a flagship observatory so they were really pushing the envelope, much like we're doing with the JWST. The next flagship telescopes are going to push the envelope even further. The ones currently being planned are actually infeasible with today's technology, so we're going to develop new technology to make them and other stuff than just telescopes possible. That's what pushing the envelope is about. Private companies aren't going to make ground breaking space telescopes, the market for detailed space imagery is not very large.

In general, most big science projects take a long time to fund and develop. Going from theory to instrument can take quite a while these days. The nobel prize winning physicist Steven Chu makes the case that this does not need to be so. For nuclear chain reactions, we went from theory to experiment in 3 years, to application in 7 years. Bell labs was also quite productive at making nobel prize winning discoveries. When Chu was in charge of the DOE he funded a bunch of research centers which tried to replicate bell labs' approach to change this trend, but congress didn't like that and ultimately defunded them.... Oh bell labs was a part of a private company you say? Bell labs is basically gone now, along with the era of private companies doing big science.

>>10391270
Lol @ the idea that satellites need operating budgets

>>10391313
What? It's fucking costly to keep satellites operating. Especially if you need your satellite to be in a tight orbit (constellation), various make-up maneuvres, planned decon cycles, operation mode changes .. that shit's expensive!

>>10390870
It has "space" in it, that's good enough to ctrl-F in the catalog, but you do have to wade through some /x/-tier shit first.

>>10390814
>Where is all of the money going?
my belief is that its a tax scam, does he get subsidies from us gov.
this think has no way even goto ISS or even a similar orbit, its too small and it has no way reentry the atmosphere, maybe he wants to use the spacex trick of stainless steel.

id honestly want elon musks opinion of space ship two im guessing he would laugh at them. The only competitor to musk is blue origin

>>10391187
>>10391183

jew or not
there is truth to what he is saying
spacex wanted a cabinet for dragon and were shopping around suppliers. one quoted $3500 im sure nasa would paid that, but space x just nah and built their own for under 100 bux.

would some one also like to tell me how a rover costs $400million dollars.

>>10390878
>Soyuz
>doesn't contain any sѹ

>>10391383
>would some one also like to tell me how a rover costs $400million dollars

Same reason why your mom is 25 bucks an hour. Personnel, material and logistics.

>>10391383
>$100 Cabinet
>$400 Mil Rover

I don't think those are directly comparable. If a cabinet breaks, then it can easily be fixed with space tape. If a rover breaks, then it's too far away for anyone to fix it. Don't get me wrong, a $3500 cabinet was ridiculous and shows the issue with the "space-grade" mentality, but the comparison you made doesn't work.

>>10391396
do you know how much a full stocked LNG tanker that does refining and refrigeration built by teams of engineers.
$200million dollars, and youre telling me the most advanced LNG tanker costs less than a rover. bitch please

alot of pork in NASA. problem is you faggots love to suck NASA cock so much, you put up with any high price just so you can jerk off to grainy pics on on anoter planet.
remember the average cost to launch a satellite for like 400million dollars and spacex got that shit to under 100million.

-
"The development of commercial launch systems has substantially reduced the cost of
space launch. NASA’s space shuttle had a cost of about $1.5 billion to launch 27,500 kg to
Low Earth Orbit (LEO), $54,500/kg. SpaceX’s Falcon 9 now advertises a cost of $62 million
to launch 22,800 kg to LEO, $2,720/kg. Commercial launch has reduced the cost to LEO by
a factor of 20"

https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/bitstream/handle/2346/74082/ICES_2018_81.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

>>10391401
that point just flew right over your head i guess.
imagine how much costly shit nasa is saying yes to that spacex would tell others to go fuck themselves.

>>10391422
>do you know how much a full stocked LNG tanker that does refining and refrigeration built by teams of engineers.
>$200million dollars, and youre telling me the most advanced LNG tanker costs less than a rover. bitch please

How many of those tanks are going to be produced, and how many rovers are you seeing being assembled per year? Am I shitposting with people with the economic understanding of a 12 year olds?

>>10391439
lol...continue suck nasa cock
when spacex or blue orgins does something similar for 1/10th the cost id pay to see your expression

>>10391449
>when spacex or blue orgins does something similar for 1/10th the cost id pay to see your expression

I'd be interested in when those companies start spending money on purely scientific objectives with zero economic return.

>>10391459
they will build rovers just a advanced at that rover,faster than that rover

>>10391478
>they will build rovers just a advanced at that rover,faster than that rover

It's a bit easier to build on someone elses hard efford and success, isn't it?

>>10391484
They don't need to build toy cars, a guy with a pickaxe and shovel will show up and do more work as the last 50 years of toys in half a day.

>>10391515
this is true.

So /sci/, do you think methalox will become a new standard for launch vehicle propellant? Or do you think it's just a meme?

>>10391550
hydrolox is the meme
methalox is here to stay

SpaceX foundry casting Raptor engine manifold out of Inconel

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies

>>10391160
that would be cool af

>>10391124
Must be a japanese probe

>>10392106
neato

>>10392106
Webm: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1096722006450462721

>>10392197
きた〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜〜

>>10391101
It's only a matter of time now
https://youtu.be/Zk0esR2s_P8

>>10392106
And this's his 6,666 tweets by the way

>>10392197
Not bad.

>>10392291
Nice, check em

>>10391183
Bootlickers would argue otherwise but that is the truth.

>>10392352
Then how did "the government" land on the moon 50 years ago ?
How much are you getting paid to shill here 24/7 btw?

>>10391166
*ahem*

>>10392706
That is somewhat forgivable since its a delicate peice of science equipment that's going out to where no one can repair it if something went wrong.

>>10392654
>Then how did "the government" land on the moon 50 years ago ?

By drowning any problems in funding and then getting promptly cancelled once the footprint was there. Apollo was a great singular achievement but not a good role model for an efficient space program in general.

>>10389797
There is no bird in the pic

>>10392791
There’s 4

>>10389797
Earth is flat

>>10392654
>Then how did "the government" land on the moon 50 years ago?

By having national pride on the line.

>>10389808
Why is that concrete chute so erect?

>>10393128
Well you see, when a mixer and a mold love each other very much

>>10390887
>it's too conservative
how is it conservative?

one day i'll have to go there. i only live a few hours away.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/0215-fy2019-nasa-gets-its-best-budget-in-decades.html
>NASA's low-Earth orbit (LEO) commercialization proposal did not fare as well, receiving only $40 million compared to its $150 million request, directed toward a docking node on the ISS dedicated to "commercial activities".

Why did commercial funding for Lunar exploration get alot of money but commercial funding for low Earth orbit get a huge cut?

>>10393324
because LEO is even more of a meme than the moon

this fucking budget

>>10393378
>all science overfunded
>SLS, which is behind schedule, is overfunded
>memes like gateway and subsidies for LEO hotels underfunded
Seems pretty good to me

>>10393269
Literally just Apollo but with a gay space tollbooth

>>10392791
This will blow your mind, but there's 4 blackbirds on the fence.

>>10393324
>but commercial funding for low Earth orbit get a huge cut?
People used to think ISS would be good to grow some very large perfect crystals but it turns out to be useless for that purpose because of constant vibrations and microgravity. You would need some dedicated station for that plus methods of growing them on Earth improved in recent years.

>>10393497
>growing awesome crystals
Well they dodged a bullet there. Not to imagine what mustard gas would've done on the ISS.

Boca Chica facility video from yesterday, some good shots https://youtu.be/s-vP6Tw4b1w

>>10393386
>SLS, which is behind schedule, is overfunded
>memes like gateway and subsidies for LEO hotels underfunded

SLS is a waste of money, nothing good about overfunding it. LEO commercialization on the other hand could possibly lead to the next SpaceX or something similarly progressive.

>>10393497
optical fiber growing is one potential area where on orbit manufacturing can make sense, zero gravity supposedly makes a real difference and also this stuff is extremely expensive per kilogram

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/2421.html

>>10393527
>SLS is a waste of money
Nobody else is working on a BLEO manned vehicle.

>>10393484
>Literally just Apollo but with a gay space tollbooth
and a partially reusable lander
and inclusion of commercial elements that could bring all costs down
and gateway is supposed to last 15 years for starters

>>10393562
Yeah but gateway is useless

>>10393590
Going to the moon is useless

>>10393600
Gateway cannot make it to the moon

>>10393548
Have you checked what thread you're in?

>>10393548
>China, Russia, SpaceX
>nobody

>>10393548
>Nobody else is working on a BLEO manned vehicle.
Hi.

its been in development for a long time. will it ever launch tho? who knows?

>>10393606
and?

>>10393613
You're right, China is building one, but the others aren't.

>>10393614
Won't ever be properly man rated. It's a glorified red bull stunt with a higher altitude.

>>10393636
>Won't ever be properly man rated. It's a glorified red bull stunt with a higher altitude.
I guess we'll all see in due time, won't we.

>>10393635
Vaporware.
Russia also says they will launch 50 rockets this year. I don't believe it for a second.

>>10393614
I hope they drop the ugly window for the final design.

>>10393651
Don't respond to shills, please and thank you
Report them instead

Americans are afraid of China.

>>10393378
Pretty decent all things considered. I'm not too broken up about the programs that are being underfunded, but I think the additional JWST funding out to 2021 was already authorized last session at some point.

>>10393774
>only going to be ready for first flight in 2030
>not even reusable

>>10393799
2028

>>10393812
That's still five years late

>>10393814
late for what?

>>10393816
>>10393614
It's like people don't know what thread we're in.

>>10393814
Doesn’t really matter when China is operating independently of the rest of the world. They have stuff that will only ever be launched on a native vehicle

>>10393664
The small windows or the big window at the nose?

>>10393835
Are you autistic or something?

>>10392812
>>10393496
Holy fuk

>>10392812
>>10393496
>>10393960
I see 5

NASA's lander plans are literally to smart for /sci/.
>gateway lets them use unmodified Orion capsule to get to moon, removes the difficulty of having a full stage for cargo just to enter orbit, lets them have a permanent outpost at the moon, and gives us a real moon space station
>lander is broken up into three parts, and each part has a "maximum wet mass" of 16t, meaning that when "dry" they could be launched on Delta IVH, Vulcan, Atlas V, or Ariane 6, or when "wet" launched on expendable FH or a New Glenn
>"tug" element completely negates the "negatives" of having gateway and maximizes the positives
>2/3 of elements are reusable from the start, and even the landing stage is described as "initially" expendable
>refueling missions to gateway will be commercially bid
>none of this shit needs the upgraded version of SLS
and if SpaceX's starship can be built, tested and man-rated before all of this, NASA can just use that instead. If Musk loses his marbles and his Mars meme folds, none of this plan is affected. Also, starship's payload capacity could be increased if it dropped its return fuel off at the Gateway before descending to the moon. Not so "useless" anymore, heh.

>>10394273
>NASA
that'll never happen

my faith rests in private companies getting us to moonbase level

>>10394276
private companies (except Blue Origin) haven't gotten anywhere without massive help from NASA

Also, here's China's current plan for a lunar mission, 2 Long March 9 launches and a Long March 5 just for a single mission to the surface with two people. LMAO what a convoluted piece of shit.

>>10394278
no prob, NASA can be the Venture capitalists
but NASA it self nope

>>10394289
>>10394273
why are all lunder landers so stick pod shaped
i cant wait for non engineers to work with engineers to design spaceships

>>10390891
desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu desu thb desu desu desu desu desu

>>10394298
>adding extra mass just for aesthetics

>>10394298
delta v is too precious to put form over function, the designs are entirely dictated by physics and material science

New SpaceX job postings at Boca Chica for Starship welders.

https://www.linkedin.com/jobs/view/1120859043

High school diploma required.

>>10394480
I wonder if their aiming for the shipbuilding crowd, Boca Chica is near a lot of ports?

Also, I found this great summary of the state of human space flight:

A roundup of manned spaceflight,
The most powerful and richest nation on earth after landing people on the moon and launching the most sophisticated and largest spacecraft (shuttle), cannot launch people into low earth orbit on a capsule.
Russia having put the first human into orbit more than half a century ago is still using 1960's design.
China, the second largest economy on earth has flown crew a handful of times in more than a decade. Using a copy of the old Soviet design.
The EU (ESA), doesn't have any manned spacecraft.
It is dismal.

>>10394499
Dismal indeed. You can say whatever you want about SpaceX but without them what the fuck is there even left? Blue Origin is a wild card but other than that we are basically at the same level as in the fucking early 60s, even before Apollo came along. That is what our actual capabilities are equal to, more than half a century later. One does not know whether to laugh or cry. Hopefully next decade will be a turnaround.

>>10394499
>>10394507
good points

i'd say there should be an investigation into the great US space boondoggles, but that would just turn into a boondoggle itself. governments need to learn that if you want to do something, you have to do it yourself. the goal of contractors is to carry out a heist, not to provide value for money.

>>10394273
Anyone seriously thinking lunar orbit is nothing special needs to read this. There are literally only four stable orbit latitudes around the moon. The lowest stable inclination is 27°, so the whole thing will have to be done tilt-ways.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_orbit#Perturbation_effects

>>10394517
>governments need to learn that if you want to do something, you have to do it yourself.

Wrong takeway considering SpaceX is a private company. Governments need to learn that if you want to do something, you need place a fixed price bid to private industry and keep your dirty hands off the project as much as possible.

>>10394519
Lunar frozen orbits are indeed some prime real estate in cislunar space. However 86 degrees inclination is the one you want, because of easy access to lunar poles.

>>10394480
>Tfw experienced welder with SS and other materials
>Tfw cucked out of welding glorious shiny spaceship by fucking ITAR

Shits gay as fuck, it's not like the Chinese don't have a gorillion plants inside SpaceX and US aerospace in general.

>>10394540
If Starship works, I fully expect the Chinese to flood the market with cheap knock-offs a decade later. And honestly Elon would be proud of them.

>>10390047
You know, people shit on this because it's not as ambitious as Starship, but honestly, I'm thinking that these things might complement each other pretty well at least while Starship is still in its infancy.
The thing that always bothered me about Starship is all that refueling you have to do with people on board. Takes ages and it's dangerous.
So maybe they could ultimately settle on something where Starship is in charge of moving the equipment and the astronauts will get there with Nasa's new method.

Also I'm really curious if Space X will even bid for this at all. I mean they really just want to do Starship right now by the looks of it. I doubt they'd start building a tiny lander now.

>>10394582
SpaceX will not bid for this, I don't think
they may try to sell NASA a dragon 2 on top of a falcon heavy or something but the real takeaway for them is launch contracts for this stuff

>>10394588
>>10394588
>the real takeaway for them is launch contracts for this stuff

The problem with this is, that I feel most the bidders will go for an all in one approach. For example, both Boeing and Lockheed's lander would launch on Vulcan, Blue Origin's on New Glenn and Northrop's on OmegA. This would leave little space for Falcon Heavy, unless SpaceX bids something.

>>10394582
>You know, people shit on this because it's not as ambitious as Starship
People shit on it because a lunar orbit baby space station is fucking useless... unless your objective is to give SLS a place to go so you can keep solid rocket engineers employed.

>>10394520
well spacex is known for doing shit itself to minimize cost and expedite results

>>10394616
>a lunar orbit baby space station is fucking useless
Going to the moon is useless.

So what happened to this guy?
Always seemed like he had too much ambition and not enough money to do something with it

>>10395039
he’s an based ayylmao believer you know. They supposedly are launching some 330 modules on a ULA rocket in 2022; dunno what’s going on right now. BEAM got an extension which is nice

>>10395039
He is still waiting for a crew capsule so that people can actually get up there to his station.

>>10395085
Soyuz?

>>10395113
Too expensive at $80 million per seat. Will be either Starliner or Crew Dragon.

>>10395123
What is the price per seat for those vehicles?
I imagine it's not too good now that the crew numbers were knocked down from 7 to 4...

>>10395123
don't forget dreamchaser

>>10395126
>I imagine it's not too good now that the crew numbers were knocked down from 7 to 4...

Assuming SpaceX charges $140,000,000 per launch and launches with four seats? $35 million a seat.

>>10395128
>don't forget dreamchaser
Dreamchaser is cargo only.

>>10394411
adding a 100 pounds of asthethics isnt going make a differenc3.e for lunar operations. not saying right now but eventually space ships will eventuallyhave aesthetically pleasing designs like ships and designs that changes thanks to yachting industry

>>10395128
Dreamchaser is currently cargo only, won't be human rated for the foreseeable future which is a shame.

>>10395147
is there some huge difference between human rated and cargo if so what

>>10395138
>35 millions for 7 minutes in space with a 20% that your rocket is gonna explode
Who's the retard whose gonna pay for that?

L O N G

>>10395155
why do all the new rockets look like stuff i'd put in my asshole?

>>10395126
personally i blame that on ISS infrastructure. lemme explain. ISS can only hold so many people. If a spacestation was design for say 1000 people, then ships would be sending up people in 50 to 100 batches and optimize their designs for that.

People dont realize unless a sizable moon base or spacestation is launched,for holding large numbers of people 100+ plus
then space will slowly die as you wont have the personnel change over to justify optimization for large passengers flights.
btw how much do you guys think a iss module would cost to build if it was done by a private company?

>10395154
$35 million to be in orbit with a better than 95% chance that it gets to space and back to Earth in one piece.

>>10395155
OH NONONONO AHAHAHAHHAHAHHAhAHAHHAHAHAHHA

>>10395191
Umm yikes dude...

>>10395171
Commercial Crew and Orion vehicles are designed with a 99.6% success rate, which seems pretty good for a spacecraft desu

>>10395204
wtf, I mean to write "desu" not desu

>>10395163
were optimizing for function not form now, once we have the form down pat, we will start making form changes >>10395191

>>10395211
*inhales*

>>10395216
>>10395211
>>10395200
galactic dick measuring contest

>>10395206
go back to /a/ you dumb weeb

>>10395163
>>those fins
ouch!

What sorts of food will be served on Mars?

>>10395126
Crew Dragon should still fit a 7 pax configuration, it's just that NASA would rather have 4 pax + more cargo.
I understand that NASA only (currently) wants new capsules, so SX will have a lot of refurbs that they can use for their own purposes.

>>10395229
losts of algar based protein bars and veges...any meat thats brought about will be very expensive and likely smuggled in via resupply missions. unless they bring in post-spermed frozen chicken eggs on the trip to be hatched

>>10395150
Life support, "criticality-one" systems (a non-redundant unit that will cause crew or vehicle loss if it fails), man-rated launches (launch abort), etc.

>>10391573
until we run out of lit...

>>10395240
could they just build a caspule that can hold 7 people PLUS cargo

>>10395204
If I recall, that's 99.6% chance of no loss of crew. The biggest issue was that he somehow confused Falcon 9's launch record with Proton's.

>>10395251
Not without a customer willing to pay them enough money to build that. NASA is willing to pay them for what they've got right now. But you can always put a module in the "trunk", and get an arm to mount it somewhere.

>>10395229
If the food were grown on Mars, then it'll most likely be vegetarian stuff since plants take up less space and energy than livestock.

>>10395262
>If the food were grown on Mars, then it'll most likely be vegetarian stuff since plants take up less space and energy than livestock.

Up until you're trying to optimize for protein production.

>>10395229
Vegetables, fish, and chickens.

>>10395262
yeah just researched chicken eggs.. apparently they cant be frozen and hatched i dunno if there is a way to keep them viable in a long 3 to 9 month journey. maybe fish eggs.

but im still leaning towards a protein bars made of algae or spirulina since those can be grown really fast, sweet potatoes, you can eath the bulb and the leaves and yes meal worm / grubs

>>10395294
fish make more sense than chickens as fish can be used for hyrophonies to help the veges grow

>>10395294
>>10395267

things like chocolate,bacon and coffee will be a luxury

>>10395298
Freezing shouldn't be impossible but it being so could lead to a very interesting situation of live adult chickens undertaking interplanetary journey.

At any rate in terms of difficulty
>veggies/algae
>fish
>chickens
>powergap..............................................
>beef

Naturally not counting various disgusting options such as insects or rats or something.

>>10395328
astronaughts wont be eating rats, bunnies maybe but not rat. Though rats will be brought on for scientific experiment purposes.
I do think grub worms will be the stop gap as they are highly efficient in nutrient to protein conversion.

>>10395262
>it'll most likely be vegetarian stuff

Inb4 Mars a basedboy quarantine planet

You could always just eat perpetually multiplying lab grown cancer[meat]

>>10395328
insects are good tho

>>10395352
id non sarc rather eat grubs than that

guinea pigs are extremely efficient if you want actual meat

>>10395372
Even if you couldn't tell the difference between the lab grown and animal meat?

>>10394273

>Also, starship's payload capacity could be increased if it dropped its return fuel off at the Gateway before descending to the moon.

The Gateway isn'f a fuel depot or a Starship compatible fuel depot.

>>10395421
and?

>>10395431

it cannot drop fuel off if there is no receptacle bin to store it or one that contains connections for the transfer of fuel to the receptacle storage and back.

This is not a function that Gateway supports.

>>10395437
and?

>>10395437
look I don't see how that's a problem you just need to drop a tanker starship off in lunar orbit to hold fuel and never come home
pull the raptors out of it on the way back

>>10395468

That has nothing to do with Gateway.

>>10395489
you could attach it to gateway if you wanted

>>10394273
Literally barp posting.

>>10395493
You could attach anything* to the gateway it doesn't make it any less useless.

>>10395533
Landing on the moon is useless.

>>10395537
Maybe.

>>10395397
think of the amount of chemicals theyd have to pump into that meat to keep it "nutrient" rich for growth purpose. chemicals with 13 letters and one vowel.

then agaim more sensitive to what im putting in my body alot more

>>10394273
I'm just glad Nasa has some kind of big plan again they can work on. First time they've had one ever since early design phases of the shuttle.
And it involves frequent visits and maybe a base on the moon so that's fine with me.
But then I don't pay taxes in the US. And even if I did, I'd probably complain more about meme fighter jet programs than this.

>>10395468
until we get a moon/asteroid fuel production isru it would be pointless youre pretty much launching 500k worth of fuel for the cost of 60million dollars.
if manufactured on the moon, it would be a fraction of that due to low delta v

>>10395537
I've heard one proposal for a manned telescope on the far side. The moon would block any radio or infrared rays that could interfere with such observations without the need for active control systems. Plus a manned telescope could work much faster than an automated robotic one, and repairs can be possible if necessary.

>>10395613
it's not like it would EVER stop being useful, because it serves to reduce the amount of fuel you need to bring from orbit down to the moon and back again for no reason and can be reused infinitely
with ISRU you can just refuel it from the moon for some real savings

>>10395620
>The moon would block any radio or infrared rays that could interfere with such observations
I should've probably specified that I meant radio and infared rays coming from Earth.

>>10395620
don't forget you get to kill moon communists

>>10395605
>And it involves frequent visits and maybe a base on the moon so that's fine with me.

I dont see any frequent visits, SLS is supposed to launch once every two years or so, once a year if we are lucky. And those mission will last few weeks at most.

>>10395650
the modules can be assembled in orbit from modern medium lift launches

>>10395628
sure, but its better for it to be economically feasable. lets say 500k worth of fuel is 1000 gallons(i know its not but just for the autists) that has to be lifted into space. If done on the moon we could be lift 10x that much for either the same cost of a fraction of the 60million. maybe 10,000 gallons of fuel for 2 to 6million dollars a pop. i dunno but low delta v makes things transport costs much cheaper

its better to spend 500million or 1 billion on building a luna fuel ISRU
than say 20 fuel missions. the lunar orbital gas stations can usethe fuel produced on the moon as propellant to escape the low delta v and fuel any necessary spaceships and then land back safety for a nice refuel mission.


hell you could make a couple lunar orbit fuelers ships that wait in line to fuel ships

the question i dunno is, how much water is there is on moon to produce fuel. i personally think using ice from saturns rings would be better idea and we'd never run out of it for thousands of years even if we were trying.
bring the ice from saturn in small chunks, process is either on the moon or near lunar earth orbit for your space gas station.

>>10395650
They literally can't even build more than two SLS a year without major investment in manufacturing capacity.

>>10395659
>the modules can be assembled in orbit from modern medium lift launches
So SLS isn't even needed, this is just make-work for its SRB jerbs program.

>>10395650
Pretty sure they're supposed to last several months

>>10395674
SLS is the only rocket on the horizon that can launch Orion, and Orion is the only man rated capsule to NASA standards that can go to the moon.

>>10395664
you're not refueling in lunar orbit, you're leaving your fuel in lunar orbit on an empty starship tanker so you don't need to bring it down to luna and back
>>10395674
I think SLS makes it easier or something but yeah it's just makework
>>10395675
they only last months because you spend weeks in lunar orbit trying to dock with the gateway

>>10395674
>They literally can't even build more than two SLS a year without major investment in manufacturing capacity
Is there a source on that? Because that would be an interesting read. So much for using easy 80s tech.

>>10395677
Didn't they drop the toilets on Orion?

>>10395677
>make a capsule that only fits on one rocket
>B-b-but it's the only rocket that can launch the capsule!

>>10395685
Is it me or is Starhopper finally smoothing out?

>>10395688
>Orion was made to fit SLS
imagine being this retarded

>>10389797
Oh boy! Here we go again!

>>10395692
it actually looks like a rocket now

>>10395692
>>10395713
I'm sure it'll be fully smoothed before launch due to the PR factor. Also, I think more struts will be added to the legs, the picture shows some lying on the floor.

>>10395698
Yes. Before it was called SLS.

>>10395698
But Orion is being designed around having to be launched on an SLS. There's no other rocket meant to launch Orion.

>>10395685
The shiny stuff was just spot welded enough to hold it in place but it'll need more work if it's to fly without issues.
Things will look even better once the hat is on.
A month until then?

>>10395677
dont you see the issue with space program is NASA for setting these crazy requirements. Imagine if the auto regulators said you can only make compact cars, no trucks, ferraris, just compact cars

>>10395739
>A month until then?
How long has the new hat been just a month away now?

>>10395769
So far it's been work on the tanks and connections, what else can they work on until the raptors are ready?

>>10395154
? It’s not some suborbital hopper, it can stay up indefinately

>>10395765
>dont you see the issue with space program is NASA for setting these crazy requirements
What?

Why don't we take the ISS and push it to lunar orbit?

SpaceX is going to open up Mars, but they want to focus on the transportation business. Are there any companies out there that are planning products or services for other parts of a Martian colony? I don't mean some faggot opening up a pizzeria, but things like infrastructure, habitats, ground transportation, etc.

>>10391270
>private industry does not build space probes
They will when launch costs drop further and companies begin to want to be the first to begin space mining.

>>10395852
think of what grows a colony....resources and exporting those resources. however everything mars has we have. BUT there is one resources we cant make more of..and thats land to expand our population, not unless we turn earth into coruscant
(honestly why hasnt there been a mmorpg based solely on a planet with a quadrillion people)

>>10391101
The only anti-space debris measure that will ever work will be pushing them out of orbit with lasers. Won't happen though because of the potential military uses.

>>10395854
youre going to need infrastructure and isru until those get developed we arent going anywhere fast

>>10395852
Essentially zero, but musk's companies can provide most of the basic equipment.
He was/is betting on build it and they'll come and while that's right I think he underestimated just how far does "build it" goes.
Could very well involve the entire transport system before major interest from unusual parties is sparked, as the usual parties will do their best to keep their eyes elsewhere lest the wrong glance breaks their spell.

If your space ship is travelling at relativistic speeds and you look out the window, what do you see?

>>10395938
jack shit because space is big and empty
stuff you're moving towards is bluer and stuff you're moving away from is redder

>>10395951
someone told me "spaceships like that won't have windows because anyone looking out of them would be fried by all the light getting blueshifted into gamma rays" and I wanted a second opinion.

I would look into a data management/hosting company on Mars. Companies prospecting for resources there or doing science will be generating alot of data, but you can't exactly send everything to Earth right away because there will be various issues with the long distance connection. Your best bet is to have alot of it hosted and managed locally while sending the interesting data to Earth for further use. There are similar things done on the ISS: https://www.wired.com/story/the-iss-has-a-supercomputer-never-mind-the-fried-disks/
>HPE's Mark Fernandez, who oversaw the project, says the idea behind putting a supercomputer in space was to help the astronauts do more science on their own. “There’s a lot of 4K cameras and videos on ISS looking for something,” he says, for example hunting through reams of data for a type of cloud, lightning strike or temperature gradient in the ocean. "We should do that kind of general-purpose image processing on board and save that bandwidth for other things.”

Aside from the communication issues, you'd be saving companies money so they don't have to ship hardware and people to Mars to manage the data. You'd be doing it for everyone.

>>10395968
WAssuming a starship is moving towards a yellow star at "effective lightspeed" (~0.707c) then the ~e+15 Hz visible light would be blue shifted up by an order of magnitude. So, visible light would become ultra violet. I'm not sure how intense it would be but I'd guess that you shouldn't look out a forward facing window without some eye protection. No gamma rays though.

One more idea. Space Situational Awareness (even Traffic Management) will be non-existent on Mars. Placing a few remotely operated observatories around Mars will let you monitor space traffic around the planet. Lots of organizations already do this on Earth (e.g. AGI, KARI's OWL-Net, USAF CSpOC, etc.).

A network like this could monitor the spacecraft traffic and debris around Mars, and issue conjunction warnings so companies don't get their satellites or other spacecraft wrecked.

>>10395983
>imagine being a sysadmin on mars
holy shit, peak comfy

>>10395357
Yeah, maybe some processed insects turned into hamburgers or something.

>>10396054
complexity breeds more complexity.
which in this case is good

>>10396073
If plants can benefit from fish (fish poop), and bugs can benefit from plants (eating parts of the plant and pests), and fish can befit from bugs (food). Then plants+fish+bugs would be the trinity for starting a food ecosystem off-world?

Just speculation though.

>>10396272
Nah you want to utilise the ease of growing algae in tubes on the surface to feed your fish and take your plant waste and compost it with other waste to produce fertiliser for plants. Fertiliser chemicals are always going to be in high demand.

>>10396298
I guess that makes sense. Biology isn't my strong suit.

>Fertiliser chemicals are always going to be in high demand.
Reminds me of something I've read about how phosphorus may become the most valuable material in a colonized Solar system due to how useful it is for farming.

>>10396348
>phosphorus
how common is phoshporus on mars though, ive heard its sorta common on asteroids. that alone will help solve alot of our problems,

>>10396298
there will always be excess algae though, what do you plan to do with the excess. I say just eat it. we will probably being seaweed and a whole host of plants as well.

>>10396533
>how common is phoshporus on mars though
A casual search says that it's more common in Martian crust than on Earth. So perhaps the idea of phosphorus being important to the colonists for its use may be unlikely.

However, I've read that there may be a shortage in phosphorus on Earth in the foreseeable future. So maybe a Martian economy can be helped by phosphorus exports to Earth?

>>10389797
Test Flight Planning Dates:
SpaceX Demo-1 (uncrewed): March 2, 2019
Boeing Orbital Flight Test (uncrewed): NET April 2019
Boeing Pad Abort Test: NET May 2019
SpaceX In-Flight Abort Test: June 2019
SpaceX Demo-2 (crewed): July 2019
Boeing Crew Flight Test (crewed): NET August 2019

>>10396071
>BOFH on mars
"Oh my, I'm afraid your office seems to have an atmosphere leak." <clickety-click>

>>10396538
>what do you plan to do with the excess

Moar fish, also can be dried and pressed into pellets for chickens for eggs and meat. No one wants to eat fucking algae bars and a chicken is very efficient at converting foodstock in to eggs.

>>10396071
right as if the sysadmin wont have to have minimum of at least 2 phds to get selected for a mars position

where are the happenings?

>>10389797

This is the goofiest designed rocket I've ever seen. It looks like a fucking joke.

>>10389801
Comment section is retarded as usual.

Musk/SpaceX fanboys ruined the spaceflight enthusiast community.

F9 vertical for static fire https://twitter.com/ken_kremer/status/1097510980593111040

>>10398050
Can't wait for the /pol/tard tears when the private lunar lander completes its mission.

>>10398053
there's also a spoopy Air Force gestational satellite sniffer onboard

>>10398053
not to mention that it's an israeli lander
/pol/ will be seething for sure

>>10398053
>>10398102
>/pol/
>against private spaceflight and industry
>when they memed a businessman into office
Sure smells like reddit in here

>>10398053
>>10398102

>>10398207 is right, /pol/ loves SpaceX. They hate NASA and think their part of a conspiracy to prevent mankind from exploring space (It's hilarious that NASA's massive incompetence has given this impression), while Elon Musk is a based truth-seeker who questions who owns the media. There's even an occasional launch thread on /pol/.

>>10398102
Imagine being dense enough to make this post

Why is it so hard to find decent renders of SLS?
There's literally more pictures of real hardware than computer renders at this point.

>>10397559
its just slow because not much is happening that we can see. there are a couple of launches in the next day or two.

>>10398487
maybe because people hate SLS so nobody wants to make pictures of it

>>10398610
only muskrats hate SLS

>>10398487
Probably because everybody has started ignoring NASA manned launch systems since they all get canceled anyway. I will be shocked if there is a manned lunar flyby by 2030 at this rate.

>>10398625
no almost everyone finds SLS a complete waste of tax money, if rather give the moey to blue origin and space x

>>10399183
I am not a fan of SLS, but it is the best chance Orion has of ever flying. Canceling SLS would cancel human exploration beyond LEO for another 10-15 years.

>>10399188
like i said give the money to spacex and blueorigin and other who will build out platforms.
Problem is nasa will build out a platform and then go into hibernation for the next 30 years.
Solution is to just tell the private space companies their mission goals like "we" want a 1000 manned moon base who ever give us the cheapest and best proposal for different phases of the project wins.

>>10389797
whose gonna start the next bread

don't put the word "spacex" in the next subject line

>>10399233
If they do put it there, just report and hide the post. If it's musk fanboy shit then it's off topic for /sci/.

>>10399216
Sounds great, but it'll never happen. The best chance right now is for Orion to go ahead slowly and for Starship / Blue Origin to work with NASA on their moon / Mars goals. If they can demonstrate soon that they can do manned spaceflight better than NASA, it will open the door to a lot of cool things