/sci/ - Science & Math

Europe and Canada are subsidizing Starlink competitor OneWeb
https://spacenews.com/uk-jump-starts-oneweb-esa-program-with-23-million-pledge/

>>10399281
That's not a subsidy, that's buying goods and services.

>>10399292
>That's not a subsidy, that's buying goods and services.

For some odd reason, detractors routinely call the same thing a subsidy if SpaceX is the chosen provider.

>>10399302
Seems like it's the exact opposite outside of one or two French and Russian opinion columnists.

SpaceX static fire completed. I’ll stick up the launch thread 36hr before or whatever.

>tfw I’ve been doing every SpaceX launch thread for the past two years or whatever on /sci/
I hope my walls of information are useful for some people. I try and include everything relevant

>>10399330
i appreciate you

>>10399330
I appreciate it. I would have missed a few launches without your threads.

>>10399337
wouldn’t one of those things on the moon have enough dV to reach orbit or something?

>>10399330
Post one on /news/ or not at all.

>>10399302
yeah those are shitposters, we don't stoop to their level

>>10399330
>>10399341
you really should post one on /news/
it's a good board

>>10399341
sci is a much better place for it than news

>>10399355
>science and math
It's off topic.

>>10399340
>escape velocity 2.4 km/s

>>10399355
this

>Cygnus is being used as a test target for missile defense
Imagine shooting down a Cygnus during re-entry for a missile defense test.

Someone was moaning about the lack of SLS CG;
to address that, here's a quickie-is this accurate?
https://3dwarehouse.sketchup.com/model/14e97e71-6c76-493b-8af2-06b1dc4023e9/SLS-family-launch-vehicles-WIP

>>10399330
I love your dedication man.

>>10399360
lol have you seen some of the threads here? launch threads should be the least of your concern
>>10399373
I think my cubesat is going up on the next cygnus

>>10399413
how many U’s

>>10399340
no you're thinking KSP

>>10399415
3

>>10399421
CIA is disappointed

>>10399413
nice, anything interesting

>>10399428
yeah it's gathering data on its shockwave right before entry, fun mission, hope it doesn't fail due to anything I did

>>10399436
>make a cubesat
>burn it up
not a whole lot of useful time out of that one, huh?

>>10399436
I looked into the timelines for communication permits etc for cubesats. Was like 4 years minimum start to finish. Same for your sat? There’s a lot of paperwork involved

>>10399440
I think we managed it in about 3 months of paperwork? fortunately I didn't have to deal with that shit myself

>>10399452
hmm, do you talk to it or does it only talk to you

>>10399456
both ways through globalstar, theoretically it doesn't need anything from ground though

Their covering the dirty outer rim with shiny foil as well.

>>10399698
everything must be shiny

>>10399699
The shine must flow...

>>10399399
Nothing past the one on the left will ever exist.
I don‘t even know why they planned it like this. Could‘ve just built the beefy versions right away. Not like they didn‘t have enough time and money for it by now.

>>10399699
FUUUUUTUUUUUUURE!

>>10399698
Does that indicate they don't plan to reattach the half that got blown over?

>>10399699
and chrome

>>10399436
Just having a cubesat that you've worked on is amazing enough. Goodluck to your 3U buddy.

>>10399716
>Could‘ve just built the beefy versions right away.
My guess was that the smaller versions were intended to launch sooner while the beefier versions were developed, but then it became more convenient for SLS to be used as a jobs program, delays came up, people got upset that a 21st century rocket using 80s tech was taking so long, and so the beefier versions were scrapped.

>>10399699
>>10399698
>>10399719
It's for increasing thermoreflectivity, we use this method for furnaces as well to keep in more heat. It works both ways so it can keep more heat out.
In the intended thermal range thermic radiation is much much stronger than thermoconductivity, since conductivity needs convection first for the hot plasma to touch the surface to start the thermal exchange.
I personally use silver paint from the closest small paint shop on our furnaces. And yes, it works, we save a lot of money on the energy bill.

>Muskrats unironically believe this wrinkly piece of shit will take them to Mars

>>10399983
>musk haters honestly think this wrinkly piece of shit is anything more than a test hopper
AHAHAHAHAHA. GOD YOU'RE DUMB! HAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>10399999
>>10400000

>>10399959
That hopper is not going higher than 5km, it doesn't need any thermal protection, it's all just to look shiny

>>10399995
It looks soo cheap I love it. Cant wait to see it hoop

>>10400017
>That hopper is not going higher than 5km
Lofty goals.

>>10400200
How so? Getting to 5km should be easy.

>>10400017
im curious wont they need to build another one incase this one goes splat

>>10400242
>im curious wont they need to build another one incase this one goes splat
They can probably start a second one immediately after finishing this one.

>>10399698
I still think they aren't going to leave the spot welded sheets like that. Too wrinkly, too weak.

>>10400374
The inner thick panels are more carefully welded. I wouldn’t worry

>>10399337
Is this real?
Would xanax keep you calm enough unteathered like that?
I can barely look at this image. Ive had dreams where I float off into space.

when will people realize rockets are a dead end and build a skyhook? maybe blue origin will do it once they've finished new glenn

>>10400406
Yes, it's real

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/dec/23/astronaut-bruce-mccandless-the-first-person-to-fly-freely-in-space-dies

>>10399983
It was never meant to leave Earth's atmosphere. It's just a test article.

>>10400428
when will people realize skyhooks are a dead end and build a orbital ring? maybe spacex will do it once they've finished starship

>>10399998
Cirno gets pretty frequently nowadays
>>10400448
I refuse to believe that orbital rings would be stable in orbit

>>10400428
You need rockets to build skyhook and you need rockets to go anywhere further than Earth orbit even with a skyhook.

>>10399399
>no common bulkhead between first stage LOx and hydrogen tanks
you can't explain that

>>10400478
Because LOX and hydrogen have too much of a temperature difference?

>>10400374
They are not structural, they are fine as they are.

>>10400460
Orbital rings aren't in orbit, they're held up by an internal mass that is accelerated to higher-than-orbital velocity and the centripetal force keeps the ring from falling. It is however a retarded idea and will never happen.

>>10399256
Kek

>>10400495
I know how they work, I just don't think it'll be stable

>>10400485
Saturn IV used common bulkheads on the second and third stages, which both used hydrogen and oxygen. It's >50 year old technology.

>>10400498
You are correct that they aren't stable, you were incorrect that they would be in orbit.

Really all an orbital ring is is a platform above the atmosphere that you can then build electromagnetic rails onto in order to actually achieve orbit.

>>10400485
Saturn V SII used a common bulkhead for their LOx and LH2. Maybe it was just cheaper to manufacture transport and assemble separate bulkheads. Or maybe the artist isnt a rocket engineer and messed up.

>>10400428
>when will people realize rockets are a dead end
Probably when any of the other options start being more practical than just building a larger reusable rocket. In other words, never ever.

>>10400478
>>no common bulkhead between first stage LOx and hydrogen tanks

It is because of solid boosters being attached to a beam that goes in between LOX and hydrogen tanks.

>>10400507
Only an orbital ring can get giga nigga bulk freight and passenger transport
Rockets will pave the way to it, and then be relegated to interplanetary work

>>10400478
Guy who shat out >>10399399
Pic related said there's a gap
Probably where the truss for distributing the orbiter's mass used to be

Here's a picture of the payloads integrated into the fairing, can't see the micro-telescope but that's to be expected.

>>10400499
SpaceX uses deepcooled fuel, much colder than boiling point which was used in Saturn V so they have a much denser fuel so they can cram more of it into the tanks, plus the bigger temperature difference means bigger expansion in the reactor chamber meaning more thrust.

>>10400546
This has literally nothing to do with SpaceX. This is SLS vs Saturn V, the latter of which had common hydrolox bulkheads and the former will not. Other anons pointed out that there is a beam that goes across in the gap between the tanks to support the solid motors, but there's no reason that couldn't be immersed in the oxygen tank in they had a common bulkhead.

>>10400546
>plus the bigger temperature difference means bigger expansion in the reactor chamber meaning more thrust.
Thrust increase due to using densified sub-cooled propellant comes from being able to pump a higher mass of propellant per second, not from there being a higher temperature difference between the fuel and exhaust.

>>10400428
>Year sqrt(4076361)
>Not being Sea Dragon-pilled

>>10400600
>daily reminder that Sea Dragon would not have worked because the designers did not consider combustion instability of large engines and even if it did work it would only be economical if it were loaded to the tits with bulk raw materials
>daily reminder that Sea Dragon would have cost ~$500 million per launch optimistically
>daily reminder that Sea Dragon was envisioned during a time when the space program appeared to be moving in a direction in which there would be large space-construction projects such as O'Niell cylinders and such and does not make any sense whatsoever outside of that paradigm

>>10400597
The higher density comes from cooler propellant, dingus. It is bigger temp difference.

>>10400609
>daily reminder that Sea Dragon would have cost ~$500 million per launch optimistically

So a fifth the cost of an SLS for almost 6 times the payload to LEO?

>>10400621
AND the engine would shake itself to pieces
AND the engine would shake the payload to pieces so you could only bring up bulk materials

>>10400613
>It is bigger temp difference.
That doesn't matter. If you're burning 100 kg/s of normal propellant or 100 kg/s of sub cooled propellant you get the same thrust. Using sub cooled propellant just lets you pump and burn 110 kg/s of propellant using the same sized turbopumps, hence you get more thrust out of the same engine if you sub cool the propellants to make them more dense.

This is the exact same reason why a kerosene fueled engine of a given size will have way more thrust than a hydrogen engine of the same size. You simply can't pump an equal mass flow of hydrogen through an engine to match what you can get using a more dense propellant.

>>10400621
see >>10400624

Also, the cost point means that unlike BFR, which is economical no matter what because it is cheap to launch, Sea Dragon would be economical only on a per kilogram to LEO basis, which real life launch vehicle economics show is not actually that important. Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy reusable are actually more $/kg to LEO than the expendable versions, but people choose the reusable options because they aren't even close to maxing out payload capacity anyway and thus only care about actual per-flight cost.

Fun fact: the Falcon 9 will be the second tallest rocket ever to carry crew when DM-2 launches, first is Saturn V of course...

>>10400635
long boi

>>10400635
lol fucking look at Starliner there on the left
worst case of mushroom head since New Shepard

>>10400635
>Comparing the height of a rocket with another rocket that has its second stage on its side instead of on top

Only Muskrats.

>>10400661
The Space Shuttle doesn't have a second-stage retard, it's a 1.5 stage to Orbit vehicle that uses efficient hydrogen engines with altitude compensating nozzles.

>>10400669
Yes, it uses a first stage retard instead.

>>10400633
I was mostly just memeing, but I see your points and agree with them. Going for super big rockets isn't economically feasible. Making a rocket thats cheap per launch regardless of the payload is a good approach.

Although, would a low $/kg payload launch still translate to relatively cheaper launches? How can SpaceX have relatively cheaper launches yet higher $/kg? The math isn't quite working out in my head, then again I hardly got any sleep last night.

>>10400661
Imagine being is desperate to piss on SpaceX.

>>10400498
youd be better off building an orbital space station than an orbital ring. less mass better benefits same amount of effort

>>10400522
no governments are are going to be okay with a permanent line across the sky.not mention if shit falls off it at at point on the globe

>>10400526
damn all that fuel just launch something so small. better to invest in nuclear rockets or fuels with high specific impulse

>>10400674
Shuttle was all retard

>>10400635
makes me wonder how soon before we start seeking billionaire with private rocket ships goto "monaco" in orbit or on the moon,.

space hookers!

>>10400697
Launch costs are nowhere near the cost of fuel. Maybe with starship.

>>10400678
>How can SpaceX have relatively cheaper launches yet higher $/kg?

The payload hit for operating in reusable mode is slightly more than half, but the price drop is less than proportional, so the dollars per kilogram minimum goes up while the actual launch cost goes down.

That's just for the Falcon family though, the payload hit for BFR in reusable mode is still roughly half but the commercial launch cost will be something like 10% of the cost of an expendable flight, and the marginal cost will be even lower, so it's actually more economical in both metrics to run BFR in reusable mode every time.

>>10400697
>falling for the 'save propellant' meme
Specific impulse will not make your rocket cheaper, only reusability can do that. Worse, nuclear rockets or whatever else can potentially replace chemical engines for better performance costs way more than chemical rockets so your economics actually get worse.

>>10400691
>better benefits same amount of effort
nigga what ?
Price per mass on orbital ring in the cents vs a space station?????????

>>10400722
im saying governments arent going to push that shit, stop acting like actually would, they wouldnt from a national security point of view that a completely no no. push as others have stated its not stable

>>10400448
>>10400722

>>10400714
I guess that makes sense. Thank you.

>>10400717
Plus a nuclear launch vehicle runs the risk of severely reducing the property value of every piece of land around the launchpad and down range for rad reasons.

>>10400694
If shit falls off, it's going to land near the equator, aka the shitty parts of Africa and South America.

>>10400708
>makes me wonder how soon before we start seeking billionaire with private rocket ships goto "monaco" in orbit or on the moon
Bigelow needs to get their ass in gear and get some shit ready to launch. Gambling might be a bit trickier without gravity though. Imagine roulette and craps in orbit. I guess you could make a roulette wheel where the bins are around the circumference, but dice would be a problem. Space hookers could be another problem, I've heard sex in space described as a docking problem.

>>10400777
>but dice would be a problem
ferromagnetic dice and magnetic board.

>I've heard sex in space described as a docking problem.
Astronauts on the ISS strap themselves to the walls for exercises. Space sex could do the same.

I for one support blackjack and hookers in space.

>>10400808
>ferromagnetic dice and magnetic board
leading to immediate worries about influencing the dice with external magnetism such as a hidden coil

>>10400808
>Astronauts on the ISS strap themselves to the walls for exercises. Space sex could do the same.
The reason it's a DOCKING problem is that the two bodies (literal bodies!) have to approach each other from opposite directions, and then a bit of the old in-and-out too. Walls can't give you that kind of "thrust" control.

>>10400819
>leading to immediate worries about influencing the dice with external magnetism such as a hidden coil
Then how about making a small spinning device that uses centripetal force to help roll normal die?

>The reason it's a DOCKING problem is that the two bodies (literal bodies!) have to approach each other from opposite directions, and then a bit of the old in-and-out too. Walls can't give you that kind of "thrust" control.
Love will find a way.

>>10400825

>>10400694
>ring over a hundred kilometers up
>visible

>>10400737
>current problems mean never ever
Yes, those are large issues, that's why this is on the drawing board rather than overhead doing work
Does not mean they magically block it forever and ever

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=44184.20

Y'all might wanna read this, SpaceX just went 3 to 3 against ULA in a competition for military satellites. They just bagged 2 NRO payloads and one AFSC. ULA got 2 SBIRS and the secretive SILENTBARKER satellite (NROL-107).

>>10401160
SpaceX:
NROL-85 (LEO 63 Degree, by Dec 2021)
NROL-87 (SSO, by Dec 2021)
AFSPC-44 (Inclined GEO, by Feb 2021)

So that's 2 Falcon 9's from Vandenberg and a Falcon Heavy from KSC?

ULA:
SILENTBARKER (NROL-107) (GEO, March 2022)
SBIRS GEO-5 (GTO, March 2021)

>yfw you realize SpaceX has only 6 non-US-government launches scheduled for 2020

10401178
>the spammer has gotten BTFO so many times that he's devolved to low effort shitposts

>>10401188
Imagine being so triggered you think you are achieving something by "not giving away yous" ayy lmao

Enjoy your "private" launch company, Muskrat.

>>10401188
He's literally trying to turn a massive victory into a defeat, SpaceX just beat ULA again when it comes to bidding for military contracts. First for AFSC-52, now 3 vs 2 definite launches.

>>10401160
>>10401167
Now we wait for SpaceX to sue the DoD for the other three payloads as well.

>>10401216
>United Launch Services, Centennial, Colorado, has been awarded a $441,761,778 firm-fixed-price contract, for launch services to deliver the SILENTBARKER, SBIRS GEO-5, and SBIRS GEO-6 missions to their intended orbits.
>This launch service contract will include launch vehicle production, mission integration, mission launch operations/spaceflight worthiness, and mission unique activities for SILENTBARKER and SBIRS GEO-5, with an option for an additional SBIRS GEO-6 launch service.
3 missions, not 2

>>10401248
I specifically said definite missions, GEO-6 is optional.

>>10401256
It's not like the mission is up for grabs. If it will exist, ULA will launch it.

>>10401267
Shhh I can dream...

>>10401256
So ULA being able to dual launch is a disadvantage now ayy lmao

>>10401267
That's not how it works you complete retards either it goes on the rocket with GEO-5 or it gets its own. ULA also develops those satellites and got almost 2 billion for that.

What parts are being blurred here?

>>10401289
>"ULA develops satellites"
>calls other people retarded

>>10401290
Probably some ITAR measurements.

>>10401295
Yes you fucking idiot Lockheed Martin developed them now go ahead and google who owns half of ULA by god you muskrats are flat out retarded.

>>10401289
ULA doesn't develop any satellites, only the parent companies Lockheed Martin and Boeing do. For example, SBIRS satellites are based off Lockheed's A2100 bus.

>>10401290
What parts? It's just the SLS's LOX tank.

>>10401300
look at the picture dude

>>10401300
there's a strip of blurred out tank just left of center on all three shots of the in-progress tank

More good news for SpaceX, this time in regards to capture the flag for commercial crew, this is likely why more Soyuz seats were bought.

>"This was passed on to me, but needs checking. Trying to get my head around it, so a copy and paste:

--

They have substituted the Starliner that was to fly on the demo flight, to replace the damaged Starliner that was to be used on the abort test.

They are then going to use the Starliner that is still in production that was meant for the first manned flight, as the demo flight test article.

The second "manned" flight Starliner that is still only half built, will be then used on the first manned flight and likely to be 2020.

---

So, if I'm reading that correctly before we attempt to get an official answer (questionable if they will even answer it), OFT Starliner is now the abort test vehicle. CFT Starliner is now OFT (flying first, which we had heard). Another new Starliner - in production - is now CFT."

Apparently Boeing really understated the damage of the failed abort test...

hmm

>>10401351
>Starliner is NET 2020 now
I hate old space so much. We need more companies that are actually pushing to get people into space.

>>10401368
consider the following:
>1961-1969
-mercury flies
-gemini flies
-apollo flies

that's less than a decade. Consider 2009-2019. wtf have they been doing? why does space engineering get harder as the tools and technology make things easier? We have advanced finite element analysis software. High-tech, tiny powerful computer systems. Sophisticated manufacturing processes. Yet stuff is harder to do, not easier.

Perhaps that's part of Elon's idea for starship now. Cheap, simple, easy. Use modern stuff when applicable.

Virgin Galactic has another test flight tomorrow?

>>10401351
>Apparently Boeing really understated the damage of the failed abort test...
What?

>>10401382
NASA's budget was like 4% of US gdp during those times, whereas now it's less than half of 1%, and most of that isn't for rocket development.

>>10401395
hydrazine spilled over stuff or something like that

>>10401382
Part of it is that interest in manned spaceflight has dropped considerably after Apollo. IIRC Apollo had at best a ~50% approval rating with the American public.

>>10401403
% isn't a useful metric. actual real dollars for the specific program is. you gotta compare the capsule programs apples to apples for a cost analysis

>>10401404
Are you dense?
I was asking what you think was understated about anything.

>>10401351
>Apparently Boeing really understated the damage of the failed abort test...
Apparently NASA really understated the amount of extra paperwork they needed to give SpaceX for Boeing to get there first...

>>10401532
A this point, muskrat and conspiratard are interchangeable terms.

>>10399330
God bless you anon

You may never make the history books but you'll always be a hero to me. I remember watching F9 from the early attempts at splashdowns, the first landing, the first barge landing, FH... its been a wild ride.

Never give up your passion for space anon, because if not for people like you who do what they can - even just threads for launches - the world would be worse off.

Hey guys what are your opinions of all the new microsat launching startups that are coming up recently?

Do you think that they're filling a niche in the launch industry?

Do you think that the market is saturated with them?

Do you think that this trend will continue for longer? If so, how much longer?

>>10399699
everything is chrome in the future

Space Force directive got signed today
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/text-space-policy-directive-4-establishment-united-states-space-force/

Basically says that the Space Force and Space Command are allowed to do whatever it takes to defend the US and it's space interests, including deploying weapons in space. I'm expecting more launches than usual as the USSF tries to beef up it's capabilities.

>>10401673
Awesome!

Although, I still think Space Force is a silly name. Orbital Guard sounds abit better to me.

>>10400905
No, it means you want actual magic because you have no fucking clue what you are talking about. You consume to much sci-fi and popsci and it has damaged your smoothbrain.

>>10401673
Haha it costs more than a trillion dollars for a fucking new plane design let alone orbital weapon systems, A space force will be nixed by whatever Democrat gets into office next anyway.

>>10401607
Interest will drop dramatically when they stop allowing launches for satellites that don't have de-orbiting mechanism built into them.

>>10401680
I'm personal to the Space Corps myself, although I guess that isn't the most American sounding name for a military branch.

>>10401290
>minions.jpg

>>10401687
How so?

Do you mean that the cost of a de-orbiting mechanism would be too great and that would kill interest in microsats?

I mean, I understand your reasoning, but I was a part of an mircosat team and we were looking into cheap ways of de-orbiting such as parachutes or magnetic coils. Such units we've found were barely a third of a U.

>>10401694
Still sounds better than "the People's Liberation Army Space Force" which is what China's will be called.

>>10401704
Stop using 4chan, mom.

>>10401387
>Virgin Galactic has another test flight tomorrow?
Oh yeah there is. https://spacenews.com/virgin-galactic-prepares-spaceshiptwo-to-fly-again/
>SpaceShip Two VSS Unity will takeoff from the Mojave Air and Space Port around 7 a.m. local time (10 a.m. Eastern time).
I didn't know that SpaceShipTwo has a bunch of aircraft decals on it.

>The Israeli Lunar lander cost $100 million but will only survive 2-3 days on the Moon.
what the fuck

young elon was such a cutie

>>10401680
>>10401694
>Orbital Guard
>Space Corps
It should have been the Space Marines

Before the Space Force concept fully took over, there were arguments for creating a Space Guard or Orbital Guard. It would have been like the Coast Guard, where they provide services and security for space (instead of the sea) and in times of war it could have functioned similar to a Space Force.

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/05/the-us-needs-a-coast-guard-for-space-semper-paratus-exteriores-spatium/
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3520/1

Nobody mentioned that Russia said they will launch two tourists to the ISS within the next two years.
https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1097835454366404608

>>10401845
Its probably because most people who visit these threads are American and don't often hear about Russian space stuff. Plus, I'm sure that Russia is a bit more secretive about their projects compared to SpaceX or ULA.

With that aside, I wish them good luck on getting their space tourists up there. Maybe its a sign that space is starting to open up from strictly government projects.

>>10401866
>Maybe its a sign that space is starting to open up from strictly government projects.
We've had tourists to the ISS before, but losing the Shuttle probably killed off tourist programs until the US could get manned flight back to the station. There just weren't enough seats available to the ISS per year to allow for tourists anymore.

>>10400503
View inside Saturn 1 LOX tank.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PV6NDTbJB3A

Does anything like this exist for Saturn V? My Google-fu is weak.

>>10400633
>it is cheap to launch

SO how many have they launched?

SLS was outed as "cheap" too. I hope it's true this time -- I'll wait until ti flies to evaluate how cheap it is.

>>10401993
I agree with you. We shouldn't sing the praises of BFR until we start seeing some good hardware tests at least.

However, I would like to add that SpaceX has established themselves to be able to develop cheap rockets on time and on a good budget while NASA has somewhat ruined their credibility in rocket design with the SLS (at least to the mainstream eye)

Anyone know why the F-1 had a chamber pressure of 70 bar?

Was it due to a technological limitation at the time? Or was it due to the engine's size? Or was it just essentially arbitrary?

I've tried looking it up, but I couldn't find anything on it.

>>10402097
american metallurgy sucked
now we're the best in the world

>>10401712
virgin spaceship 2 is shit, its never going to to an orbit like ISS. its just a giant expensive roller coaster for rich people.
do you see how small the craft is, maybe its a demo, but their isnt even enough fuel on it to make it to ISS

>>10402164
spaceshiptwo isn't meant to go to orbit you fucking retard, SS3 is the one that's supposed to be orbital

>>10402171
>SS3
Wait what? They have plans for an orbital craft?

>>10402179
last I heard, yeah. the successor to SS2 is supposed to go orbital

>>10402199
Yeah right, SSTO spaceplanes are a fucking meme.

>>10402212
>SSTO
who said anything about an SSTO?

>>10401831
If Space Guard would start deorbiting space junk as practice for shanghaing hostile satellites, I'm all for it.

>>10402219
Considering that the recent anti-space debris testing involved harpoons, just package the spacejunk clearing job as some kind of spacewhaling and the Japanese would turn the whole spacejunk job into an industry.

>>10402212
air launched orbital spaceplanes are the big meme but I want to see them do it

>>10402199
does this look like they have enough fuel to reach orbit. they dont even have a proper rocket engine like a merlin

>>10402243
>talking about the successor to SS2
>posts a drawing of SS2

>>10400898
I mean, you can see a large bridge from father away than that.

>>10401607
Rocketlab will probably survive, VERY iffy whether or not a second company (firefly, vector space, other) survives, no one else will survive to 2021. The small-sat launch market has more potential individual launches but much less revenue and less profit per launch as a necessity. Therefore to sustain itself a small-sat launch provider needs to launch very very often, otherwise basic costs like salaries and lease payments become too much financial strain to bear. I personally think that a single provider would be good enough to cover that entire market, and two providers could probably compete without causing their mutual bankruptcy. Three is too much.

>>10401721
Earth days or Lunar days?
Surviving a single Lunar day (~656 hours) is a challenging feat, your probe has to be designed both to handle extreme heat during the Lunar day as unfiltered sunlight blasts it and heats up the surface to over 100 celsius, followed by more than 300 hours of chilling down to negative 183 degrees C, cold enough to liquefy oxygen.

>>10399337
>>10400406
>>10400432
balls of steel
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvnC--JjDBw

>>10401993
I was talking about the design concepts and their projected performances, because we were comparing two rockets that don't exist yet (though one is definitely on the way).

Everyone always uses the most optimistic performance figures for Sea Dragon, so I did the same for BFR. Just like BFR, Sea Dragon will not have worked as well in real life as it did on paper. However, even on paper, Sea Dragon could not compete economically with BFR.

>>10402097
Turbopump power limitations, the cause being they didn't bother to try to increase the chamber pressure any more than the initial design targets.

>>10399959

when are you going to realize any project ran by elon, aesthetics will come first.

And obviously he's going for the pikmin aesthetic.

>>10402286
isn't it more accurate to call a lunar day a "month"?

>>10402244
do you have a diagram of ss3? also they arent even using a standard rocket engine.
i cant find it( cuz its a scam shit thats never going to work)
it took 15 years for vss to get to a this test flight at there place i expect anlther 20to 30 years before ss3 test flight, by then musk will be watching news at his lunar condo saying thats cute

>>10402317
frame of reference is the moon not the earth

THIS ROCKET LOOKS LIKE AN 8 YEAR OLD DESIGNED IT.

>>10400635
when is a fully crewed mission expected to launch.

>>10399256

>So this is whats between us and advancing chink space superiority.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuug

>>10402331
later this year

>>10402317
No.

>>10402097
>Anyone know why the F-1 had a chamber pressure of 70 bar?

Because that's one of the ways it managed to beat combustion instability. High chamber pressures have adverse effects on combustion instability in big engines (ask the RD-270 about that).

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/4886871.pdf

>>10402097
>muh chamber pressure

How to spot somebody who doesn't know shit about rocket engines apart from reading Elons twitter

>>10401403
NASA budget when accounting for inflation is fully half of what it was during Apollo, and sustained for decades. Lack of funding is not the issue here. Gross inefficiency is.

They've been fitting the unfinished leg out with piping.

Before:

After:

>>10402813
It’s getting close, I can feel it

>>10402815
They also got a delivery of what I believe is liquid Methane or Oxygen.

https://twitter.com/RogerLewisHolt/status/1098130634483163138

>>10402832
nope, 1977 is liquid nitrogen

>>10402839
I wonder what they need so much Nitrogen for...

>>10402841
filling up those fucking huge nitrogen tanks they just installed
turning soft household items into small shards
plasma torch cutting
purging the oxygen from a space so you can kill yourself quickly and quietly
purging the oxygen from a space so you can clean it properly so it won't explode when you pour liquid oxygen into it
cooling things for reasons

>>10401351
Awesome, $10 says the dragon crew launch will be pushed back to 2020 now for 'reasons'

>>10402848
We already know why it'll be pushed back: paperwork

>>10401607
Its excessive and a race to jump into a market with people who are already past the finish line. They will have a purpose, but the startups still in infancy will quickly die out unless they bring something new to the field.
Some startups are just hoping to get bought out anyways, no real desire to become fully functional.

>>10402844
Ice cream.

>>10402299
well it's not like he'd be completely fucked if his propulsion went out. There was almost certainly a failsafe to turn it off if it got out of control, and they would prob send somebody out on a line to get him back.

but yeah it's pretty scary

Orion Module internals 1/3

>>10402882
2/3

>>10402884
3/3

>>10402882
>>10402884
>>10402887
How much dust will there be by the time it launches?

>>10402882
>>10402884
>>10402887
Neat. Looks like the seats are adjustable/foldable?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Siebold#SpaceShipTwo_VSS_Enterprise_crash

ouch

Also, are these your OC? Reverse image search yields no results and the filename seems to suggest the photos were taken on October last year.

>>10402891
No clue, lol. The engineering and work going into it is very impressive, but damned slow.
NASA didn't even make the Life Support System that links up to it. Its already done and I believe its been delivered from overseas

>>10402895
Yes, very adjustable. They are designed to be able to support 99% of human heights, male or female.

>>10402900
Yes, OC from back in October as you can tell. This is all at NASA's Houston TX location. I have more stuff I'll upload later. Never really found a place that would seem interested.

>>10402882
>>10402884
>>10402887
>>10402907
It looks very spartan and rough around the edges compared to the Space Shuttle and Dragon 2, doesn't look very comfortable for a multi-week flight desu.

>>10402907
Fascinating stuff. I hope you're not violating some NDA or ITAR shit by posting these here.

>>10402936
Nope, the photos were reviewed and cleared.

You can tour through some areas, but from behind glass as you can see at the top. These are from building 9, which is mainly training and some mild research.

Looking through the RFPs for the recently awarded DoD launches, found some interesting stuff about AFSPC-44:

>"1.)Two Payloads

2.)Deployment of both payloads with a separation time of 600s

3.)The Offeror shall assume each payload has a weight of 2000kg.

4.)Semi-major Axis: GEO 42464km
Apogee & Perigee radius: 42464km
Inclination: 5 degrees

4 tons direct to a high and inclined GEO is a lot of weight.

Tomorrow's launch fairing

>Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo launch scrubbed due to high winds. Now slated for Friday, Feb. 22.
one day high winds wont matter

https://mars.nasa.gov/insight/weather/

boeing pisses me off so much and i'm not even american

still no stream or press kit so I'll wait to put up the launch thread

Hayabusa2 is landing tomorrow

>>10403321
Awesome! Will there be a stream?

Apparently the welders are being fed on a taco-diet, are they producing their own gas for welding?

>>10403462
No womder they needed so much ventilation in the rocket

>>10403462
Gotta get the methane to fuel the raptors somehow.

Their installing kerbal struts on the other legs

>>10403468
i hope that crane strap is real grippy

>>10403492
>crane strap
It's called a sling

>>10403468
I wonder what it must feel like to be one of those guys, making a nice living to pursue some some eccentric billionaire's deluded fantasy. I imagine it must feel a bit like conning old people.

>>10399373
it would not be the first time an Orbital ATK spacecraft has been shot at
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/orbital-atk-successfully-completes-launch-of-intermediate-range-ballistic-missile-target-for-missile-defense-agency
And well Northrop Grumman does actually make missile defense systems.
https://news.northropgrumman.com/news/releases/northrop-grumman-directs-engagement-in-first-ever-icbm-target-intercept-test
SpaceX may be able to make world's largest rocket, but Northrup Grumman can shoot it down. Let's not forget that Orbital ATK used to make more than just rockets before being acquired, pic related

>>10403053
Temperature are bit misleading just FYI when comparing earth to mars due to the difference in atmosphere. Such a thin atmosphere can potentially mean that if the martial suit is pressurized properly, they might not even need a heater inside and the body temperature might be enough to keep the body warm. Thats just an exxageration, but its slightly true, Martian Suits might only need a pressure feature and maybe slight heater to go outside due to the fact that air outside cannot take away the heat from your suit/body.

>>10403405
just watch their twitter
https://twitter.com/haya2e_jaxa?lang=en

>>10400737
That post itself is hand-wavy. There are no sources nor any calculations for any that he expects to happen. Some things aren't even hard to calculate for the average /sci/ poster. Figuring out the tidal forces due to the earth and moon would be trivial. Other things would be much harder and he would need to post a source, wave propagation and damping.

>>10399413
>I think my cubesat is going up on the next cygnus
how much does it cost to build and get a cubesat up?

>NASA and commercial crew provider SpaceX are targeting 2:48 a.m. EST Saturday, March 2, for the launch of the Demo-1 uncrewed flight test
nighttime launch, oh well

>>10403699

7:48 UTC for us Eurofags

>>10403692
The problems seem valid, their severity is the question
They might do fuck all, and a ring is in reach

>>10403699
So 12 minutes before midnight on Mar 1 for PST.

>>10403726
Yes. Some problems I don't think would be an issue at all. The effect of tidal forces on an orbital ring due to earth's gravity would be negligible. The ring wouldn't be large enough to have any differential forces on its extremes. The tidal forces due to the moon might have an effect, but I don't know to which extent. It seems like an interesting problem and simple enough. The other problem I see that could be troublesome is the difference in temperature due to the shadow of the earth. But I think the engineering solution would be simple enough (in comparison to building the ring in the first place). I honestly don't think wave propagation would be a problem.

Hopper pad seems mostly done, apparently their mostly working on the highway ramps.

Anyone Interested in a private for profit moon mission?

2 kg of moon rock is approximately worth one hundred million dollars. Which is enough for an expendable F9 launch. The moon lander will have to take a direct track to the lunar surface. Then collect 2 kg of moon, and launch the return pod to a landing somewhere over Nevada.

Sell it in 1g samples at $50,000 a piece.

>>10403468
They're*

>>10401673
oh shit, Moonlight Mile is becoming a reality!

>>10403785
I assume they'll just stick it on a flatbed and truck it over?

>>10402276
Virgin Galactic's LauncherOne will probably make it. It has billionaire backing, and a proven architecture for a niche market, since it is basically a Pegasus replacement.

Hardcore welding action going on

>>10403822
Stratolaunch

>>10403825
ever since Allen died they've scaled back. His yes-men can now say no
https://spacenews.com/stratolaunch-abandons-launch-vehicle-program/

Imagine the preflight check and pre reentry checks on the Starship's active cooling system. A few clogged pores and the system is defeated.

>>10403825
this vanity project will probably be mothballed after the first flight, and that is if they are lucky.

I can run a better bead than that, come on

>>10403832
Sell it to the USAF.

fun article about the last HEXAGON mission. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3662/1

>>10403785
wasnt the pad just rebar and dirt a few days ago? concrete really does dry fast.

NASA is going to provide live streams and other coverage of the upcoming uncrewed Dragon flight to the ISS
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-spacex-demo-1-briefings-events-and-broadcasts

>>10403793
I think you've underestimated the cost of the mission. Luna 16 cost about $102 million (desu this is a very rough estimate but it's the best I could do) and it brought back only 102g. Sure, technology has improved since the 70s and so a modern Luna 16 may bring back more, but I don't think it'll cover the cost. Plus Moon rocks are worth a significant amount because they're very rare, and the price may drop significantly once start selling them.

>>10403793
a barebones supercheap moon lander cost at least $100 million >>10401721

>>10403879
It reacts and solidifies, it doesn't dry.

>>10403836
Looks like dual shield, flux is still on it

Moon base when?

>>10403462
It's Southern Texas and your insult to the local cuisine will cost you.

>>10403492
they're all really grippy, it could hang straight up and down like that and not slip out
>>10403824
>they're MIG welding this fucker
I didn't realize you could do that on stainless
>>10404166
>inflatable cucksheds
size comparison with Starship?

>>10404277
Imagine being this retarded

>>10404287
I don't need to

>>10404166
I hope that's not supposed to be to scale, because everything there is going to get rekt when one of those landers takes off or lands.

>>10403825
RIP, I really wanted to see them launch a big ass rocket from that thing.

>>10404306
prove it

>>10404327
the Apollo LM landing did discolor the ground for like a km in every direction. But it wouldn’t destroy anything, dunno what he’s talking about

SpaceX thread is up. 2nd 3rd flight of a booster
>>10404426

>>10404443
What's the clover for-luck?

>>10404468
nod to 4chan

>>10404468
every SpaceX patch has had a clover since the 4th Falcon 1

What could have been...

>>10404510
the greatest tragedy of the space age is the death of skylab

>>10403462
SpaceX worker posted this video of what the truck was serving today :)

>>10404525
Oh my god, just how much condiment do you fucking need?

>>10404525
damn that looks tasty in a sort of poor person way

>>10404525
/ck/ get out

>>10404525
>truck
>brick wall and concrete floor
Still, it looks yummy except for the mustard, too vinegary
t.texan

Why hasn't anyone put a reusable permanent space tug up in orbit yet? They've all been temporary tugs that get burned up after one use. We could've had regular flights to the Moon by now.

>>10404571
ULA is considering one

>>10404574
ACES right? Maybe we'll see it finally happen. Though I'm still wondering why nobody has done it in all the decades that we've been in space.

>>10404579
like most potential space things, they teeter on the brink of being completely useless depending on if starship is successful or not

>>10404574
>>10404579
Lockheed and Boeing have not funded ACES development at all this year. It's probably not happening.

>>10404585
Damn. Did Starship spook them?

>>10404591
No, but real, tangible things like ULA's declining profits seen last year did.

>>10404605
Please don't envoke ULA, it will summon the shill and he'll shit up the thread for a few days

>>10404579
Probably because missions that could use a tug (such as missions beyond LEO) are so infrequent that its easier to just have an extra disposable stage.

>>10404327
With no atmosphere the rocket exhaust accelerates the surface dust up to several km/s and the dust doesn't slow down until it impacts something.
Apollo 12 landed near Surveyor 3 and they found that the side facing Apollo 12 had been sandblasted with dust.


Not to mention the possibility of a lander crashing and exploding that close to the base, or debris from two-stage landers upon lift-off.
Just look at all the bits of insulation getting blasted off the Apollo 15 descent stage when the ascent stage takes off.
https://youtu.be/FrjYJ1rioyY?t=23

>>10404510
Skylon is still in development, is it not?

>>10404698
The engine at least, but it's been a while since any news of progress.

Fascinating http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26546/the-tragic-tale-of-how-nasas-x-34-space-planes-ended-up-rotting-in-someones-backyard

>>10404525
my cholesterial levels are raising just from watching that.

>>10404585
>>10404574

some of these companies will only go something if contracted. Its a multi million dollar bet, but i fight some billionaire will do it and charge satellite companies and nasa or who ever to necessary feels to move various objects in different orbits.

the problem thought with a space tug, youll need a space gas station. cant have one without the other

>>10404695
so basically they will have to build a barrier around the lander or build it a small crater

>>10404525
How would you eat that? Eating it with your fingers seems like a huge mess while eating it with a fork seems unwieldy.

>>10404717
SABRE is actually doing pretty great progress. They are not going for SSTO for now, however, since they are looking for other areas to market their ultra-lightweight heat exchanger.

If they have a SABRE prototype soon I imagine a lot of money will be going into developing a rocket around it.

>>10404277
>size comparison with Starship?
I think those are the 330 cubic meter models, so about 1/3 the volume of one Starship. You might be able to arrange their interiors more flexibly though.
Bigelow has a design for one that's about 2x the volume of Starship, but that's not what's shown there.

>>10404801
Basically, or at least put a good distance between each lander and anything else if it's a temporary base.
Permanent bases would really need to be underground anyway, or at least buried with soil to shield them from radiation and small meteors.

>>10404797
>the problem thought with a space tug, youll need a space gas station. cant have one without the other
Has anyone figured out if a propellant depot on the ISS could make sense?

>>10405069
Somewhere in LEO would work, but the ISS has a very strange orbital inclination to permit launches from Baikonur and Canaveral.

>>10404579
>Though I'm still wondering why nobody has done it in all the decades that we've been in space.
It's because since you need to refuel a tug every time you use it you gain nothing by reusing it, therefore just launch a new tug every time and let old ones burn up. The only two ways of changing this would be either a huge breakthrough in propulsion tech that would allow a single tug to perform a dozen missions or so without requiring any refills, which is not going to happen, OR the development of cheap enough reusable launch vehicles that we can afford to send propellant into space, which itself kinda defeats the purpose of a dedicated tug because you can just use your reusable LV as a tug by refueling it after it goes to space (this is what Starship will do).

some new footage of the Boca Chica facilities https://youtu.be/xIazoCEfF6k

Are they not going to have to build some sort of VAB? They obviously can't build the full starship stack in a tent especially with the proposed cooling system

>>10405415
Out in the open I suppose. The recent job postings describe welding at height for the full orbital vehicle construction

>>10405446
That's very interesting. I'm trying not to be doubter of Starship, considering how cool it is, but it does seem odd to build the real thing outside.

>>10405478
They'll probably make a building for it once they lock down precisely where they want their permanent factory to be
Since they're negotiating with local government, they're probably setting up all the permits and logistics they need to make a permenent factory worthwhile

Musk tweeting about spaceflight again

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies

>>10405831
>Raptor was damaged by the max pressure test
>the 2nd raptor (almost done) has changes which will help prevent that
>"SpaceX Merlin architecture is simpler than staged combustion (eg SSME or RD), but it has world record for thrust/weight & thrust/cost engine. Raptor has better Isp, but I’m worried it may fall short on those two critical metrics."
>antimatter drives aren't memes
interesting

Today's Soyuz launch had a problem
>As a result of the anomaly, the Fregat fourth stage and its payload was apparently tracked in a wrong trajectory with a lower-than-expected perigee. Soon thereafter, multiple reports, including an official statement from Roskosmos, confirmed the successful release of the satellite into its planned orbit and its normal communications with ground control. The spacecraft also deployed its solar panels, Interfax reported. However RIA Novosti reported that the Fregat had successfully compensated for the lack of performance of the third stage.

https://twitter.com/RussianSpaceWeb/status/1098662270291374080

>>10405831
Wouldn't it not matter if the Raptor was more expensive than the Merlin if the Raptor is going to be reused more than the Merlin?

new rods in the concrete assembly jig for hopper

>>10405932
correct

>>10405940
forgot pic

>>10405945
is that for new fairing?

>>10405969
If by fairing you mean hopper then yes? I don’t recall them using that frame for the first hopper cone. They built it separately off to the side

>>10405415
we don't know

>>10405909
>but I’m worried it may fall short on those two critical metrics
wew, spacex meme rocket and engine unironically blown the fuck out

BTFO

>>10406715
>Elon is the only person who designed the rocket

>>10406765
Elon's reply was literally that he designed the rocket himself.

>>10405926
Russia's space program is such a disaster these days.

>>10406807

new
>>10406842