/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10406842
Hayabusa2 probably sampled asteroid Ryugu. With a gun.

>>10406842
israel is headed to the moon >>10404426

>>10406842
Why would you write "Starhopper watch" in the title?

>>10406854
soon

>>10406852
Are all of the basketball american gangs just taking samples with those guns?

>>10406862
since people like to talk about the starhopper

the new cone for hopper is under construction. They probably got their supplier up and running, since these are pre-formed sections of higher quality.

>Raptor prototype blew up on the test stand
>Raptor not expected to meet thrust to weight or cost design goals
Wew

>>10406881
>no, they 'expected' it and already have changes with the 2nd raptor unit that fix them
>no, just not to exceed that of merlin

>>10406879
did they not build that section in the tent?

>>10406886
maybe! they could have put in a sheet bending machine. the first one was hand-formed

>>10406886
too tall to build the whole thing in there and big sheets like that are annoying to transport carefully around a site

>>10406881
Wait what is it about raptor blowing up?

>>10406879
>>10406890
It's just more normal steel panels covered in foil.

>>10406881
>Raptor prototype blew up on the test stand

No it didn't? What are you talking about?

>>10406879
S M O O O O T H

>>10406896
they damaged the first full sized raptor engine they were testing at McGregor by running it too hot (they went pretty much straight for final operation pressure) and it burned up a little
we don't know much more than "we damaged that raptor we were testing - Elon Musk"
the second one is on the way and it has improvements

>>10406907
So, >>10406881 exaggerated to make SpaceX look bad?

>>10406898
>No it didn't?
Prove it.

virgin will try again tomorrow

>>10406914
I don't recall a Raptor test flight exploding. The worst I recall was it melting some copper because the cooling was set too low.

Wikipedia doesn't mention an explosion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raptor_(rocket_engine_family)#Engine_testing
And a quick Google search for "Raptor engine explosion" doesn't mention anything.

>>10406913
here is the tweet in question

>>10406915
>Virgin

>>10406924
>I don't recall a Raptor test flight exploding.
Oops, I mean't test FIRE.

>>10406924
they ran it even hotter after the test that we saw and we didn't see any video of that, so we don't know what they broke
it's probably more chamber erosion

some new F9 details
>20-30 flights per booster
>20 cores needed total for the rest of the F9 missions
>the in flight abort will use B1048, the booster for today's launch (first 4th flight!)

>>10407018
but will they land it?

>>10407022
for the in flight abort? hoooooooh, no

>At the point of breaking up, the stages would be carrying the following approximate fuel loads of LOX and RP-1:
>Stage 1 LOX: 631,300 pounds
>Stage 1 RP-1: 257,500 pounds
>Stage 2 LOX: 168,100 pounds
>Stage 2 RP-1: 65,000 pounds
>The extra LOX carried as ballast for the abort test would provide an environment that is oxidizer rich and would promote combustion of the remaining RP-1.

they did some Monte Carlo simulations of the debris field. It's going to be one hell of a (short) flight

Regarding the damaged Raptor, some eyewitness information:

>"Per Elon on Twitter I now feel comfortable sharing some details regarding raptor max performance run, however these are third hand information please keep this in mind and take it with several salt grains as I have. With that said:

>1. Test lasted for 8.5 seconds.
2. Test abort was called at 7.9-8 seconds due to "an abnormally loud high pitch whining sound".
3. Between 8-8.5 seconds raptor reduced power successfully to 85% ahead of shutdown however damage was already occurring.
4. At 8.5 seconds engine shutdown.
5. Raptor did not RUD as first thought or at least not completely or violently. Engine was taken to an on-site shop and dis-assembled to some extent.

>Sounded like the problem was either in the LOPB or LOTP bearings or was excessive back pressure on the LOTP. Given the nature of raptor's design these would have been some of the highest pressure areas in this test.
Supposedly, in the 8 seconds of run time prior to power reduction raptor produced an insane amount of thrust. On the order of 320mt or higher. Supposedly, this test was contrived to run the engine beyond design limits to "see what it does".

>There were some other details but they were not very relevant. The % power rating raptor reached before power reduction was not discussed.
I still have trouble believing it made anything over 260ish mt of thrust but IF TRUE it would be an amazing achievement.

>For reference a performance of 260mt thrust would exceed the maximum publicly listed thrust of the current BE4 engine (unless my conversion is off)."

>>10407018
>>10407029
>>10407037
nice sources, retard

>>10407040
fine

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098771535588777986
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1098773275314802688
https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/launch/media/Draft_EA_for_SpaceX_In-flight_Dragon_Abort_508.pdf (section 2.1.7)

dunno where >>10407037
got his info from tho

get your hayabusa2 coloring book today

>>10406893
each section will be built in the tent, assembly/welding will just be vertical I'm guessing

>>10406852
It fired this tiny bullet.
The next collection in March is the big one conducted with an anti-tank round.

we need more rocky object missions

>>10407179
What's that Canadian flag doing there?

>>10407270
Canadian shitposting is so prolific that traces of it can be found far away from Earth.

>>10407179
>>10407172
>tie fighter blasting roids with space bullets
we should let japan lead space exploration

Man if the whole hopper is as cleanly shiny as those new sections it really will be sexy.

>>10407428
Hopefully the reflected glare doesn't ruin most of the shots during the test flights.

this shows beresheet's location in space https://live.spaceil.com/

nasa also selected 12 science payloads for moon landers that should be launched as early as this year including:
>better solar arrays that allow for longer duration missions
>nav beacon for helping other lunar craft determine their location
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-selects-experiments-for-possible-lunar-flights-in-2019

>>10407447
Solar a shit. We’re literally never getting above 40% efficiency

>>10407454
Or like 45, whatever

>>10407436
I wonder if it'll be visible from earth while in orbit around the moon

>>10407458
Even at current efficiencies solar is being adopted in pretty substantial numbers by homeowners, if you hit 45% at the same price you will literally not be able to make panels fast enough to keep pace with demand.

someone asked how long beresheet will last on the moon. it can only survive for 3 earth days on the moon because the moon's day temperature (100C/212F) is too hot for it.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/nasa-is-aboard-first-private-moon-landing-attempt

>>10406842
What's the OP pic? Looks like the ISS airlock.

>>10407773
soyuz with a lunar module for tourists
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a22074215/soyuz-lunar-station/
https://twitter.com/russianspaceweb/status/1015308284344066054

>>10407583
With perovskites we could. Perovskite solar panels are made with common elements at near room temperature. The efficiency of perovskite solar cells is increasing every couple of months and perovskite solar cells can theoretically be 64% efficient.

Is it autism? http://arcticstardesign.com/gravity/2018/12/30/atmoelectric-converter/

DM-1 flight readiness review is today, like 6pm EST or something https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/02/22/demo-1-flight-readiness-review-begins/

>>10407624
Two months? That's a lot of time.

>>10408160
Not much delta V. The initial design was the size of a Pringle’s jar you know

>>10408160
It wasn't launched on TLI probably because it ride shared.

SpaceShipTwo/WK2 now at 23000'

>>10408278
Where can we get updates?

>>10408318
40,000 feet now

https://twitter.com/virgingalactic

>>10407458
45% efficiency is really good, most coal combustion plants aren’t getting near that high.

>>10408378
The point isn’t the number, it’s the fact that you then need acres of the stuff

virgin had three people on ss2 this time? is that a regular thing for them?

>>10408392
With 100% efficient panels you still need acres of the stuff. Photovoltaics efficiency is already high enough such that there will be no qualitative change from increasing it. What really matters is cost per kWh and that is where improvements by several orders of magnitude may still be possible.

>>10407102
hayabusa1-tan was cuter

>>10408492
Isn’t cost almost competitive with traditional now? I attended a talk about photovoltaics last year and they mentioned being very close to matching and exceeding cost

Today in space, some women tried to reenact scenes from the Matrix

And...

A ship got it's arms amputated...

>>10408763
Giving up on the fairing reuse, or making the bouncy castle bigger?

>>10408769
No, this is not the work of man...the arms got ripped off by 4m tall waves, which is why their was no fairing recovery yesterday.

Boca Chica got a big delivery today...

>>10406842
>30 March 2021 - Launch James Webb Space Telescope

Biggest happening first quarter of 21st century

>>10408845
Starship will be the biggest happening by far, assuming it pans out.

>>10408845
>believing that schedule

>>10408769
weather broke Mr Steven

>>10408825
must be from the SS supplier

what's the new stuff on the legs? holes?

It's official! March 2 at 2:48 a.m. EST

https://blogs.nasa.gov/commercialcrew/2019/02/22/demo-1-flight-readiness-concludes/

>>10407172
god bless those slit eyed bastard for doing this, they probably use the proceeds from the asteroids mined to finally pay of their ginormous debt

>>10408022
source on the 64% efficieny

>>10408881
It will just be a bigger Falcon Heavy but several times the cost and even less launches.

>>10409110
Crew to ISS for 50th Apollo anniversary?

>>10407863
>https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a22074215/soyuz-lunar-station/

i love how the fear of not letting rocket scientists in russia work for enemy nations is literally causing them and the us to work toward space tourism.

i still think the big future for space or the moon isnt tourism but ship building like orbital ships and proto enterprise type ships for exploration and surveying

>>10408323
>https://twitter.com/virgingalactic
lol 40k feet
for comparison iss is 400km thats 1,3million feet
can people bury this project already

even at 100km thats 325k feet..
vg is nonsense

>>10409136
It's entirely possible. They've been saying it'll be manned in July as long as shit stays off the fan.

Our boy Elon on meme review, autism and all

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpWYQ1YtgnI

>>10409145
It reached 90km you dumbdumb.

>>10409145
Bezos was throwing shade at them for that, lol
https://spacenews.com/bezos-emphasizes-altitude-advantage-of-new-shepard-over-spaceshiptwo/


>>10409154
300k feet IS 90km. what's your point?

oh no

>>10408845
If they even launch it at that date. I fully believe that european super telescope will be operational before WEBB.

>>10409159
Fuck the Karman line, the McDowell line is where it's at

>>10409183
>waaahhhh 100km is too hard so i'll move the goalposts

>>10409180
Seems like a manageable issue; also, they didn't even have to do the first apogee raising manoeuvre due to a "perfect" injection by the F9 S2, so more fuel.

>>10409180
lol

>>10409183
this is true

>>10409188
it's not "hardness", it's the top of the mesopause

>>10409188
There's literally scientific fact behind the McDowell line, the Karman line is just a nice, round arbitrary number with no scientific value.

WE LIVE SOON NIGGAS https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

>>10409195
>post-flight

>>10409195
NSF article

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/02/spacex-gains-frr-green-light-dm-1-iss/

>>10409200
post-(Flight Readiness Review)

new sharp pic of Ultima Thule

it is a snowball all right

>>10409212
snow-disk? they're thin bois

Russians are concerned about Dragon approach, no other concerns

>the "international partner" that had concerns about commercial crew was Russia
surprise surprise

>>10409240
>TMA-19M hides behind a bush

russia-kun is acting tsundere

>the chad Russian
>the virgin westerners

>>10409216
>>10409240
>>10409244
NO NOT OUR SOYUZ REVENUE AHHHHHHHHHH!

there will be a dummy onboard, suited up

>>10409244
>Russia doesn't like fault resistant compute systems
>"no you idiot capitalist, you must install separate box"

it begins

>b*rger

>Eric Berger

>>10409110
it begins

>>10409152
what the fuck is meme review and how is it science and/or math

SAVAGE

>Koenigsmann
Sweden yes

>>10409330
He's actually German, history shows that every good rocket team needs a German engineer if it wants to succeed.

>>10409353
you're right, German leadership is crucial

>>10409193
Yea the scientific edge of a curve lol

>>10406881
I dunno why, but the Rk-33 got me a boner

>>10409489
u mean NK-33

>>10409489
Here's some more porn for you, you deviant.

>wake up
>check arstechnica
>a dozen new space articles
berger is a machine today

>>10407447
>nasa also selected 12 science payloads for moon landers that should be launched as early as this year including:
moon lander companies are now coming out saying that they wont be ready this year even if nasa wants them to be https://spacenews.com/companies-skeptical-commercial-lunar-landers-can-fly-nasa-payloads-this-year/

>However, at a Washington Space Business Roundtable luncheon Feb. 21, several hours before NASA announced the payload selections, executives with two of the CLPS companies said their first missions won’t be ready to launch until 2020 or 2021.

meme review

meme review was kind of painful to watch. at least review some good memes.

>>10409770
watching elon laugh at a dead deer was great though, I don't think i'd ever heard him laugh genuinely before

>>10406842
>6 OneWeb Internet satellites
We don't need more space junk.
>uncrewed Dragon 2 to the ISS
ISS is a waste of money. We need to do a controlled orbit, save what would have been the budgetary expense on it for 5 or 10 years and build a moon base instead, or a real space station as Von Braun envisioned.

>>10406863
<iframe width="1280" height="544" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/n2RdSS4o88A" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Not Posting the clip, how shameful.

>>10406863
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2RdSS4o88A

>>10409159
point is virgin originally pitched docking at ISS styled module.
ISS is 400km...VG doesnt have the physics on their side, unless they put a module closer to earth*side eye emoji*

VG is just an expensive rollar coaster ride

>Didn't get into MIT AeroAstro for grad school today

It was all for nothing...

>>10409942
>https://www.geekwire.com/2019/firefly-aerospace-gets-florida-launch-site/
Get Job at Firefly
Go to didneyworl every other weekend
Be employable with several years of experience vs PhD faggots who are too much of an expert for any firm to risk hiring more than ten of, and you're making money for all of those years of experience

Soon

https://www.theverge.com/2019/2/22/18236771/nasa-spacex-dragon-commercial-crew-dm-1-test-flight

>>10410000
nice numbers, and it's going to be a tall motherfucker. The F9/Dragon 2 stack is the tallest US manned vehicle since the Saturn V.

>>10410012
What's up with SpaceX and all these meaningless "records"? I guess everything that produces is a headline is good enough?

>>10410088
It would have been more convenient if the rocket was shorter, but it's easier to increase the fineness than make the whole rocket wider. It's just a coincidence that it ended up this tall in the end.

>Virgin Galactic quasi-spaceflight
>Jews in Space
>Chinks on the far side of the moon
>decent-res animations of the cute little snowman out past Pluto
>Soyuz MS-10 crew will make another go of it in a few weeks

Jesus Christ there's a lot going on lately

>>10410117
imagine how people in the 1910s felt when passenger airtravel was just coming about. small very incremental steps then major leaps in infrastructure and development

>>10410117
the spaceflight industry has been booming for a few years now and is expected to maintain the growth for a long time. conservative estimates think the industry will grow at least 3 times it's current size over the next 20 years https://spacenews.com/a-trillion-dollar-space-industry-will-require-new-markets/

Russia should just beat all these "private" retards by sending Soyuz to Luna.

>>10409110
>on my birthday
nice

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UB9kkmwR5w

>>10409110
>inb4 delayed to April

>>10410354
They don't have a large enough rocket to do that currently. The Soyuz was originally designed as a lunar spacecraft to fly on the N1 but that never happened; however, several modified and stripped down models of the Soyuz called Zonds were launched on unmanned lunar flybys using the Proton rocket. The Proton still exists but due to it's troubled reliability it's never been human rated, until recently it was thought that the Russians would use their Angara A5 rocket as part of a multi-launch lunar architecture, but this is apparently not the case. Instead they plan to use a super-heavy rocket called the Yenisei, with an RD-180 core, asparagus staging RD-171 boosters and a hydrogen upper-stage; this rocket will apparently cost $22.3 billion to develop (yikes) and will carry Russia's new Orion-equivalent capsule called "Federation" instead of Soyuz.

>>10410393
Here's a concept render of the Yenisei

>>10410396
>6 side boosters

>>10410407
It apparently supposed to stage like a Delta 2...

>>10410393
Wait, Russia has deep space plans right now?

>>10410425

They always had plans, they just have corruption and no money to do anything. They'll probably soon lose any expertise since engineers get paid shit in Russia.

>>10410425
Plenty of typewriter power point plans. Always scheduled far enough into the future so that they have reasonable chance to be A: forgotten, or B:expected to deliver after dynasty change in the kremlin.

>>10410466
Sounds a lot like SpaceX tbqhwy

>>10410482
SpaceX have the opposite problem, their dates are too ambitious and not far away enough.

>>10410495
They both have the problem they make announcements they don't keep.

>>10410502
True, but the hardware survives. Falcon Heavy and Dragon 2 won't send crews to Mars, but they still exist and will be used for other missions.

>>10410482
>le everything is le same
Back to plebbit you retarded nigger.

>>10409278
The fuck is this?

>>10406881
what are the anime girls standing next to, a Kestral?

Cap assembly via panel stacking has started.

>>10410811
Rutherford engine used on Electron, it's that one that uses 3D printing and electric motors/batteries.

>>10410396
>no landing legs
Why?

Don't these people realize they're literally fucked if they don't get with the times soon?

>>10411078
Are you talking about the boosters?

I recall that the Russian space agency doubts the viability of flyback boosters.

>>10411098
That seems asinine since they were the ones who literally invented the concept.

>>10410915
mega shiny

>>10409657
*destroys your rocket*

>>10410729
The beginning.

>>10409110
>2:48 AM
Whyyyyyyy
How long does it take to approach the ISS? Under an hour I'd imagine.

>>10411141
About a day due to phasing, the shortest trip done was 4 hours by a Russian Progress cargo vessel, I believe this direct trajectory can only be done from Baikonur tho.

>>10411176
Oh cool, I can probably catch the docking then.
Unless they do that at 3AM Sunday...

>>10411295
wow, that already looks way better than the last one

I assume the launch pad for the hopper is finished.

>>10411727
rooks rike it

>>10411740
Shut the fuck up, racist.

What we believe are shock absorber kits have arrived, you can also see them in one of the drone shots.

>>10411763
>What we believe
Who is "we?"

>>10411767
The CIA, also it's not a shock absorber but some kind of tool or machine.

>>10411752
lol

>>10411767
uninformed speculation fags

>>10408022
Problem with perovskite solar cells isn‘t efficiency but longeviety.
They still deteriorate far too quickly.

>>10409657
So what is this, are the fuel and oxidizer turbos have a sharing shaft? If this is true, it would not be so hard to imagine why this anon is saying this >>10411111

>>10411830
That engine is the NK-33 which powered the first stage of the ill-fated N1 rocket and Antares before it blew up that one time. It was the first staged-combustion engine ever built, but doesn't have a very good reliability record due to the numerous N1 failures and single Antares failure, which caused it to be replaced by the RD-191.

>>10411856
Its also used in soyuz-2-1-v which replaces the 1st stage rd117 with a nk33 and gets rid of the side boosters. It also launched 3/4 times successfully

>>10411872
>>10411856
So what kind of rocket is the RD-191? Is the same staged-combustion design? Anyway, is the nk sharing the turbos shaft? because i see the RD, and it seems that both turbos are housed on different chambers.

>>10411882
Ahh forget about it...both turbos are housed in the same block, while the pre-heating chambers are outside, it seems....I may be wrong.

chemical rockets.... what primitive shit. watching the world around me is so boring... you are all retards...

>>10411955
BRB making a rocket fueled by weaponized autism.

>>10411955
>namefag
>retarded
it checks out

>>10411882
>>10411893
Here's a plumbing diagram of the NK-33, I hope this answers some of your questions.

Source: https://gravityloss.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/nk-33/

if this is the level of rocket tech humans wanna boast about, then it'll serve yourselves right when it all blows up in ya faces... its junk.. no, its a laugh.

>>10411763
But there’s more than three. 2nd hopper?

Four more pits found on mars

>>10411763
Looks like some sort of box for workers to do work in while the box is being hung by the crane?

>>10412078
Could be, there is already the issue you can see of the workers having to climb out of the new section and then get in the bucket truck

>>10412076
Cool, but how do people seriously propose we use these things for building bases? How the hell are a few guys with minimal equipment supposed to even climb into these things, let alone drop down habitat modules and stuff? Seems like a bit of a pipe dream when you can achieve literally all the same benefits except anywhere on Mars' surface just by piling up some sand on top of your habitats instead, and that'd be much easier.

>>10411977
I love anon posters.. we call them gutless wonders.. such integrity in the online community.. everyone hide, its what you're good at. that way your friends will never know how stupid you all are..

hurr dur helo i am petor i am very smeart an may-be a alien i know betr rockette type but don't akchewally make it to sel for brillium dolar because too big brian

>>10412116
hey , bigmouth.. get me a USD$billion & i'll make ya 'betr rockette type'... shit isnt cheap, isit? maybe u go ask bank for loan, they give lot of money to anonymous cowards all the time.. u b perfect candidate..

>>10412144
based shitposter

>>10412152
ohhh, so sowry, did bad tell u fuck off.. or is this different anon.. can't tell.. u all look alike...

>...
what’s with mental illness and ellipsises? Seems like it’s a common writing quirk for that class of individual. Seem to see it all the time.

>>10412219
>Seem to see it all the time.
Well this is 4chan(nel) after all. I wouldn't be surprised of the crowd here is not representative.

>>10412219
waz he name 'anon' too? maybe it waz friend of yours.. maybe.. it was u... maybe u lose track of your own posts.. u all look alike..

>>10412095
Moon tunnels at least have the advantage of sometimes being super long

>>10412233
Still, the problem is how to get down. Even just a dirt ramp would represent a pretty huge construction project when your entire workforce is less than a dozen people and you have a couple golf cart sized machines to use with at best.

>>10412219
Maybe some... anons... like to... talk... like famed Canadian ... actor... William Shatner.

>>10412249
simplifying the forces to move dirt to F=mg, excavation equipment on low gravity bodies could be really efficient no?

>>10411763
automated welder crawler rig?

>>10412255
Don't forget about automated or semi-automated robots, that should help.

>>10412250
shit.. i actually chuckled.. I remember that series from way back.. not a bad comeback.. both funny and nostalgic.

>>10412261
human being welding box

>>10412339
no, robot welder box

>>10411988
Thank you very much, very interesting talking in the link.

I don't know if anybody's noticed, but we've had a lot less shitposters since we've stopped putting the word "spacex" in the title

>>10412255
More efficient but huge nonetheless. If you're looking at a 10 meter deep hole, and you can only drive down a 10% grade, you're looking at a 100 meter long ramp. Also, when figuring the amount of regolith you'd have to dig out, consider that you'd have to also give the interior walls of the ramp a slope otherwise they'll be prone to collapsing inwards. If we want a 5m wide road down this ramp with walls sloped to 45 degrees on either side that means we need to excavate roughly 50,000 cubic meters of regolith, which is a lot.

At best I could see parking a surface base nearby a known cave and killing two birds with one stone by using the regolith dug out by the ramp construction project to cover the surface base modules in a protective blanket layer. It would take a long time to finish even with automation and the lower gravity.

>>10412383
shhh

they sure have a lot of stuff lying around at Boca Chica

>>10412415
that's fucking smalltime

>>10412428
that's coming together quick

>new nose cone is being assembled
now all we need is the engine to arrive

>>10412441
plus a NOTAM

>>10412444
don't forget some clean undies..

I wonder what GayseX plans on doing with this now that Starship is steel...

>>10412441
engines, plural
they broke one at McGregor and have another on the way
I wonder how many prototypes they'll break before they give the okay for the Hopper's engines

>>10412475
carnival ride

>>10412475

Damn it! You jinxed it, >>10412383 !

>>10412475
haven't they already liquidated the large composite tooling in Los Angeles and cut their lease short?

>>10412487
yes, partly because unions a shit

>>10412482

>>10412489
fuck commiefornia

>>10412475
Ultralight expendable upper stage for BFR to satisfy government heavy-lift-to-outer-planets contracts where money isn't an object

Name a more dynamic duo

>>10412490
do I need spare undies?

>>10412531
how about... tweedle dee and tweedle dumb

>>10412553
Depends on how well you can control your bowels, you're pulling like 4 g's in that thing.

>>10412566
it must be somewhere in the USA... u people have all the best shit..

>>10412595
where are you? there's a few gravitrons dotted outside the US
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitron#Locations
if you're in china, there might be a knockoff or two, but it'd likely throw you out the ride and into mongolia or something

>>10412597
China?.. not even close.. in fact, I don't think you could of been any further off.. there are a few here, but more than 3000miles away..

Will SpaceX establish a Mars colony before the world fiat currency system collapses?

>>10412475
This looks unironically way more profesional than the hovering water tower they are assembling in that tent at the border to mexico

>>10412724
have you seen the new tinfoil hat coming together? It looks much better than the old one (that fell over)

>>10406842
Earth is flat

gonna do some reading on the nanoracks/ula commercial space station module. is anyone familiar with it? is it actively being worked on is it stuck as concept/proposal?

https://www.starposts.space/
https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/space-flight/nasa-funds-partnership-to-explore-making-space-habitats-out-of-used-rocket-fuel-tanks

>>10412760
>skylab, but worse in every way

>>10412762
probably, but nanoracks has been actively developing modules for the ISS, so i wonder if it's still in the works

>>10406842
couple questions related virgin galactic
1)does virgin galactic plan to get to ISS
2)can an ISS type station be lower in orbit without completely falling to earth.
3) ive looked at VG spaceship two specs. the rocket they used rocketman 2 dont compare at all to spacexs merlins.
the rocketman 2 is 270 kn while the merlin is 800 to 900 kn thrust. wouldnt it be more feasible for virgin to buy spacexs rockets and use them on their ship

>>10412780
1. no
2. eh
3. the amount of thrust isn't important, the important number is the fuel economy (measured in seconds, the amount of time a set amount of fuel can produce a set amount of thrust for)
also spacex wouldn't sell a Merlin if you begged them for it

>>10412762
maybe it'll fall on Australia, too.. or too small a target.. maybe practice on the broad side of a barn, for luck.. sure, lets all trust the USA private industry.. disaster waiting to happen.

>>10412760
why is no one looking into rotating modules. im getting that until we are capable of building shit in space from materials mined and fabricated in space the orbital infrastructure will always be earthbased

btw i look at the bigelow project...they seem to be the most viable candidate for commerical spacestation until we can actually build shit in space

>>10412827
it looks like the nanoracks module isn't focused on keeping people in space, but more like a robotic research station that is sometimes manned. the goal is a microgravity research station to replace the ISS for when it finally gets abandoned.

>>10412780
>wouldnt it be more feasible for virgin to buy spacexs rockets and use them on their ship

Two completely different kinds of vehicles, so no.


>>10412798
>also spacex wouldn't sell a Merlin if you begged them for it

It's not like anybody would buy those crappy engines.

>>10412839
>Merlin
>crappy engine
learn some rocket science, retard

Bezos spoke about his spaceflight plans.

https://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-blue-origin-wings-club-presentation-transcript-2019-2

Damn, two multibillionaires with huge egos competing may be just what the doctor ordered to make humanity a spacefaring species.

it doesnt seem like there has been any new information posted about the nanoracks ISS module in awhile. i only saw that they hoped to have a test article launched by 2021 or maybe 2022. if it's still a thing then we may not hear anything until after their bishop module is already installed on the ISS later this year.

>>10412875
>282 specific impulse
>not trash

Even the indian RP-1 engines are above 300 ayy lmao.

>>10412875
I'd have to agree with the other guy; sounds like national pride cometh before the fall.

>>10412880
Merlin is 311 vacuum impulse, which is respectable for a gas generator RP-1. More importantly, it has very low cost, high reliability, ability to be restarted and reused, and highest thrust to weight ratio of any engine. These are even more important than mere specific impulse.

>>10412890
It's a piece of crap engine. Nobody would seriously buy that, because every space agency or launch company could develop something like this in a year.

>>10412876
it's funny because Starship might be flying sooner than NG and has both a bigger and heavier lift capacity (based on both company's public figures because this shit don't exist yet)

>>10412902
>Starship might be flying sooner than NG

You guys are so fucking deluded ayy lmao

>>10412876

Interesting quote from that article:

>In fact, the bigger the vehicle gets, the easier it is to land, because it's the inverted pendulum problem.

When you're balancing a broomstick on the tip of your finger, that's doable. Try doing that with a pencil or a toothpick. It doesn't work because the moment of inertia is just too low. So vertical landing scales really well; the bigger the vehicle, the easier it is.

Another thing is that payload fraction goes up in larger rockets. Large rockets seem to be the sweet spot for reusability. And once you have a large reusable rocket, you can put thousands of tons to LEO every year, making for some very impressive $$ per kg figures.

>>10412906
I want the big penis anon

>>10412906
Well, not really. The more massive the ship is, the more it will heat up during reentry. To counter these effect you need a longer reentry burn which means more fuel for landing which means less payload.

New Glenn is going to land way differently then Falcon 9 will though. It will glide for very long in the upper atmosphere and slowly bleed off speed there without building too much heat up. This way they don't think they are going to need a reentry burn at all, instead doing a fuel-intense hover landing, like they do with New Shepard.

>>10412925
>The more massive the ship is, the more it will heat up during reentry.

No, because it is also bigger and thus heat will spread over larger area. It really depends on the specifics.

>>10412925
making rockets bigger actually improves reentry, due to several effects, notably larger diameters pushing the shock heating farther away from the skin and more empty space in the vehicle making it fluffier

>>10412904
NG is vaporware

>>10412926
>>10412927

A rocket goes ass first, so the surface area of a New Glenn is less than twice that of a Falcon booster, but the mass will be many times the Falcon booster.

That being said, the landing of the New Glenn is probably the least stressful on the rocket you can do short of going full delta-wing and gliding back.

>>10412929

It has a factory, a launch pad, and secured financing, BFR has none of these things.

>>10412943
>It has a factory, a launch pad, and secured financing, BFR has none of these things.
Ah yes, a concrete block, a concrete slab, and some money. Truly Muskrats are BTFO with their actual prototype rocket and nearly completed engine.

>>10412943
>a rocket goes ass-first
THINK AGAIN BITCH
https://youtu.be/zu7WJD8vpAQ?t=2476

>>10412929
Fucking this.
The only good thing that will come out of this is the be-4. Watch it have >= 10 launches per year

>>10412948
how's the BE-4 production coming along? They were still testing, just like Raptor, except they haven't been to operational test pressure, flow, or thrust yet. Unlike Raptor.

>>10412948
Those investments cost a few billion, while the BFR "hopper" is being assembled in a tent by mexican welders.

That being said, I think SpaceX is fully aware that Ariane 6 and New Glenn will push them out of the commercial market for a while (the commercial starts for SpaceX are going way down already), so they are increasingly lobbying and pushing for government contracts. ULA also obviously won't compete for commercial payloads, so in the next 5-6 years we will see ULA and SpaceX competing for government contracts and Blue Origin and Arianespace competing for commercial payloads. Eventually though, Blue Origin will also get licensing for government payloads.

>>10411763
Raptor gimbal assembly? -NSF

>>10412964
you're full of shit it's obviously the jizz pump for your mom's dildo, visible in some other pics of the site

>>10412953
I'm not really sure, last time I heard about a test fire was a year ago and it's not supposed to fly until 2021. BO tends to keep to themselves on most things.
>>10412954
Only poking some fun, although do keep in mind that pieces of an orbital BFR likely already exist in warehouses waiting to be put together, what with SpaceX's increasingly rapid development cycle following the whole Falcon Heavy debacle. Not to mention that most of their funding is in house, so they're not restricted by investors like BO may be. I wouldn't be surprised if BFR's upper stage is doing sub orbital tests before the year is out.
Honestly, I don't think ESA or BO are gonna be taking chunks out of SpaceX's profits anytime soon, since Ariane 6 isn't even being tested for another year, and NG until 2021 atleast. Don't forget that with every landing, F9 and FH bring down flight costs just a bit more.

>>10411763
>>10412964
Looks too beat up. Welding tool, with experience, and meant to weld the new hat.

>>10412954
That being said you are a moron.

Where is the shit flinging retard? How have we managed to talk about SpaceX for several threads now without him just fucking ruining them? Are there literal shills that search for SpaceX in the thread title?

>>10412978
SpaceX not having many commercial launches anymore is a fact. From today onwards, SpaceX is going to launch 18 commercial missions, while Arianespace has 31 including 4 for Ariane 6. Even New Glenn already has 10 commercial missions, and that rocket will only start flying in 2021.

>>10413006
Post below yours. The other one might be here too if you haven't filtered aiii lemaos, deluded, and other fermented maymays redditors have finally picked up.

>>10413007
>Arianespace has 31

More like ~20, and almost all are GTO sats.

Meanwhile, SpaceX has over 40 missions on their manifest.

>>10413006
HE'S RIGHT THERE, YOU DOUBLE NIGGER
>>10413025
what's even the deal with Ariane 6?

>>10413032
>what's even the deal with Ariane 6?
It is a solid and well designed rocket. Assuming this is the 90s, that is. Obsolete in 2020s, along with all expendable rocketry.

>>10413037
I think expendable high-energy third stages make sense, but expendable first stages have been demonstrated to be a waste. However, reusable second stages have proven to be a bigger problem, with only Buran even hinting at success or achieving the design goals. Shuttle was a swing and a miss (and a stage and a half system anyway) and nobody else has even tried yet.

>>10413025
Are you really this retarded or merely pretending?

Ariane can do dual launches. So Ariane needs one launch for something SpaceX needs two.

Also, I was talking about commercial missions. SpaceX has 6 for the remainder of 2019, 6 in 2020, and 6 for the period beyond that (and 19 government launches from now on). Arianespace has 31 commercial missions from now onwards, some of them on Soyuz and Vega rockets (and an additional 9 missions from government). And BO has 10 commercial missions, despite the fact that they aren't even launching until 2021. So yes, until the BFR launches, SpaceX is going to lose the commercial market. And the BFR, even if you are very, very generous, won't launch before 2025. So you have 3-4 years for SpaceX at least where they are barely going to get any commercial launches. So they need to focus on government launches. If you read the news, you can see how much SpaceX is suddenly shooting towards getting government launches. They also upped their lobby game. After that, it completely depends on how the BFR turns out to be. If it becomes cheap, they can reclaim market shares in the commercial market. If it turns out to be expensive, SpaceX will either turn into a second ULA, feeding off having a few very overpriced launches per year, or disappear completely.

>>10413069

>>10412475
Repurpose it into the hull for BFR 2.

>>10413069
>Ariane can do dual launches. So Ariane needs one launch for something SpaceX needs two
not true, FH has twice the GTO lift capability of Ariane 64 when fully expended (26,700kg over 11,500kg). Still cheaper than Ariane since it only uses 2 stages, and they can expend boosters that have flown before to save on cost.

something about space these days is that it's difficult to predict the next 6 months let alone the next 6 years. what might seem like a safe bet now may not be that way within a few months.

>>10413090
2.5 stages* sorry, i've got F9 on my mind.

>>10413090
If you can do dual launches or not does not depend on payload capacity, but if the second stage is designed to do it. Falcon Heavy has the same second stage Falcon 9 does, so it can't. Dual launches btw does not mean simply ride share, it means putting two satellites into two different orbits. Falcon Heavy can only do those single launches that Falcon 9 can't do at all (heavy satellites into certain orbits).

>>10413095
ah, sorry. for some reason, I read that in my head as
>"FH would require dual launch"
am rarted, carry on

>>10412827
A rotating module for ISS? It would probably end up vibrating the rest of the station. You couldn't easily make it big enough for humans anyhow. If it's not big enough you would get all sorts of fun tidal effects in your head when you stand up. Rotation has to be designed into a space station from the start.
Also...
>put a station up in free-fall
>add gravity
why not just do your experiments on the ground if you want gravity?

>>10412880
>specific impulse
That's like choosing a sports car by looking at its MPG.

>>10413100
How expensive can it be two tie two small habitat modules together with a 500-1000m cable and make them spin? Put some monkeys in there and see how it works.

>>10413100
what if you want a value for gravity that's less than 1g?
>>10413102
it's almost like efficiency and top speed and therefore distance are intrinsically linked in spaceflight

>>10413102
Specific impulse, unlike thrust-to-weight and other meaningless bullshit, is an actual performance parameter.

>>10413100
You can't do sub 1g experiments on earth you fucking retard, you can add but not subtract gravity. Agree that a human spinning contraption would be very difficult, a rodent centrifuge however would pose very little issue and would give us some very good basic results to work with, the fact that this hasn't been done while the millionth "rats in 0g" experiment gets launched is fucking offensive.

>>10413108
>TWR
>Meaningless

Are you fucking retarded?

>>10413107
>what if you want a value for gravity that's less than 1g?
>>10413109
>You can't do sub 1g experiments on earth

>>10413111
>he thinks saving a few hundred kilogram on the first stage dry weight matters

>>10413113
You can't do sub 1g experiments on earth, why did you even bother replying to me?

>Implying a fucking MOON BASE is easier than 10 rats in spinning cages

>>10413100
>why not just do your experiments on the ground if you want gravity?
Because zero g experiments are not the only reason for manned station? Settlement of space is also a reason, and you need rotating stations for that.

>>10413117
TWR is literally the figure that will tell you if your engine can get off a fucking planet or not, no one cares that that VASIMIR can do a gorillion ISP because it's functionally worthless because of a TWR of 0.000000000001

>>10413108
Thrust to weight and cost is more important for first stage than specific impulse.

>>10413123
How is this relevant for combustion engines you babbling idiot?

>>10413127
No one specified combustion engines dickhead you just moved a goalpost.

>>10413125
Lol, no. If Merlins TWR was bang average (like 100) Falcon 9 1st stage would be a whooping 3 tons lighter. That makes almost no difference at all to the payload you can put into orbit, while having 20 extra specific impulse actually does.

>>10413117
>he thinks saving a few hundred kilogram on the first stage dry weight matters

Are not thes few kiligrams saved mean more kilograms for the payload? At the end is the payload what is paying the launching , right?

Be gentle with me anon. I'm not an expert.

>>10413134
Having 100kN of extra thrust would do more to increase payload than having 20 extra specific impulse. When it comes to first stages, thrust > specific impulse.

>>10413146
On the second stage, yes, weight saved on fuel or vehile translates almost 1:1 to payload. On the first stage, not so much, more like 5:1, depending on the rocket. However, as already said, getting more specific impulse is way more important. Getting 10% more specific impulse means you can save 10% of the fuel, which is dozens of tons, not a few. This is especially true for the second stage. If your second stage needs 45 tons of fuel instead of 50, that's 5 tons extra of payload. So that's worth a lot.

>>10413069
>>10413090
>>10413095
>>10413097
None of the rockets listed (e.g. NG, A6, Vulcan) have enough GTO payloads manifested to actually make dual rideshare pragmatic due to the slowdown. NG has one genuine GTO sat manifested, they have another but it belongs to some Japanese shell company with no experience. A6 supposedly has two commercial contracts manifested, I assume will be GTO and Vulcan has no commercial contracts so far. The commercial and military markets are moving away from GTO birds and towards smaller satellites due to miniaturisation, rockets such as NG are good for mega-constellations but small and medium launch vehicles (e.g. Electron and Falcon 9) look to be the real winners here for the majority of launches. Remember GTO birds are usually ordered years in advance, so it's easy to predict future trends in 2020, 2021 etc from what's currently happening.

>>10413184
Welcome back booster

>>10413183
Seems like the canards might be one if the items on the chopping block for ss starship. How important is that extra nose control authority?

>>10413175
Meanwhile, omegaA languishes in the corner

>>10413184
Couldn't wait until we get a closer view after that spectacular reentry.

>>10413316
They need to offload it pretty quickly for DM-1. Hopefully gravitas can get to the east coast soon, they really need more than one drone ship out there

>>10413336
oooh this one's leaning slightly

>>10413356
crush core is just unevenly crushed, not a big problem

>>10413356
The last one that came down this hard was the BulgariaSat booster, it broke a leg...

here comes the lifting cap

>>10412798
>(measured in seconds, the amount of time a set amount of fuel can produce a set amount of thrust for)

>>10413408
imagine landing on mars and this happens...or worse...

>>10413090
>FH has twice the GTO lift capability of Ariane 64 when fully expended (26,700kg over 11,500kg). Still cheaper than Ariane since it only uses 2 stages, and they can expend boosters that have flown before to save on cost.
Ariane 6 is cheaper in expendable form ($120 million vs $150 million) and can launch dual manifested payloads.

>>10413464
>>10413464
I'm guessing you didn't read this:>>10413175

>>10413175
What a load of horseshit, lol. Miniturisation or size of the satellite has absoluetely nothing to do with orbits. The rest of the post is also just some deluded babbling by a SpaceX fanboy who has no clue and just deludes himself into thinking that SpaceX surely will come out at top in the end.

>>10413475
Why would I give a shit about your post, retard?

Imagine unironically repeating the same ariane shilling posts for over a year

It’s getting boring, dude. Just leave. You’ve been crying over the dual launch capability, manifest truths, and cost nu-uh’ing since like two octobers ago. It’s absolutely pathetic

>>10413509
>L-leave my s-safe space p-p-p-please

>>10413514
I’m just wondering what his goal is by spending time here, obviously with a very narrow and specific agenda, trying to win the hearts and minds of the /sci/ community by blathering the same 4-5 points over and over and over for more than a year?
Does he think that a couple anon’s opinions will save arianespace and make A6 some popular workhorse? Like wtf, it borders on mental illness

>>10413509
I know you're new to 4chan, but you need to learn how to reply properly before posting here, otherwise your attempts at discussions will get lost in the mix.

>>10413525
TANSTAAF(Yous), faggot

>>10413477
How many small GEO satellites are there? They all range from 3 to 7 tons in mass. Nobody is sending smallsats to GEO (unless your the US airforce) and even if they were, their not going to use a NG to launch a cubesat.

>>10413485
Because it shows why dual rideshare is currently obsolete for Ariane 6 due to market forces. Dual rideshare is great for something with a sizeable backlog like the Ariane 5, but not for a rocket with only 2 manifested commercial launches.

>>10413529
Oh, you have autism? Sorry I didn't know.

>>10413538
Plus, Europe needing their own launcher for their own spooky payloads is a moot point nowadays. Germany is launching spy stuff with SpaceX now

>>10413538
>Because it shows why dual rideshare is currently obsolete
Source?
Anyways, the point of my original post was to correct the spacex shill on his blatantly false diametrics. I couldn't care less about what your opinions of "launch market forces" are.

>>10413549
You’re not correcting anyone. You’re fulfilling your personal fantasies of proving the evil spacex people wrong.

Meanwhile in the real world https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=47489.0;attach=1544964;sess=0

Arianespace a shit, lmao

>>10413552
Projecting much?
You children have been crying about shills for years and years.

>>10413561
Yes, because you exist. You are literally a shill. A misguided, sad, obsessed shill.

>>10413564
>You are literally a shill.
Why do you think that?
>A misguided, sad, obsessed shill.
More projecting

>>10413552
>You’re not correcting anyone.
Ok, where's your source that FH can launch dual manifested payloads, and that FH will be cheaper than $150,000,000 in fully expendable mode?

>>10413538
So commercial market forces moving in SpaceX favour is why it is has only 6 commercial launches and even less for the following years, I see.

>>10413543
There is probably more behind that. For the last satellites, they also let the russians fly them instead of the french. For some reason german secret service doesnt want the french to fly their satellites.

>>10413560
>Elon Musk: I want to make space access much cheaper
>Arianespace: *lowers prices*
>Elon Musk: Hey stop wtf are you doing, I'm going to tell mommy NASA that

>>10413575
expendable FH will never happen, spacex needs to have enough F9 cores to last them until starship takes over in a couple years

>>10413583
The only FH that flew so far was involuntarily 1/3 expendable, so there's that.

>>10413583
>expendable FH will never happen
Source?

>>10413578
>Elon Musk: I want to make space access much cheaper
>Arianespace: *lowers prices*
>Elon Musk: Hey stop wtf are you doing, I'm going to tell mommy NASA that
It's obvious that Elon is all talk when it comes to his "wanting competition in space." Spacex's history is littered with anti-competitive shit year after year. He wants a monopoly because his fragile ego won't substantiate anyone else but himself being the sole creator if his "vision."

>>10413591
Reminds me a lot of the thing with the Thai cave, he suddenly got really, really salty when they dared to save those kids without him.

>>10413591
He jsut wants to go down in history books as the guy who put people on Mars.

Even when it's makes literally no sense for a Mars colony before space economy with moon base and asteroid mining are fully going.

>>10413602
not true, he got salty when Verne told him to stick stuff up his ass. All of the anger was between Verne and Elon

>>10413607
No, the rescue team in general all told him to fuck off, which was when he started throwing around the childish insults on twitter.

Sure is spaceflight in here

>>10413605
He just has a massive ego and his rocket company and millions of devote "fans" have the sole purpose of feeding it. Elon is a typical billionaire who has huge villas around the world, fucks actresses and singers as a hobby, while exploiting workers and leeching off government money as much as he can. The only difference between him and other billionaires is that he is making his billions exactly by portraying himself as some kind of non-typical billionaire but instead "real life Tony Stark who only wants to advance mankind". Meanwhile he is lobbying politicians to give his companies more money.

>>10413614
It's funny how it's generally pleasant discussion here until a spacex shill shows up, starts shitting on everything not spacex and generally ruins the thread.

>>10413619
Except literally the opposite happened.

>>10413626
The shitstorm was started by this post >>10412902

>>10413636
what’s wrong with that post? Starship will definitely fly before ng

>>10413636
>>10413636
>>10413626

The shitstorm was mainly caused by the replies to it, it was one comment.
This is shill spam and samefagging:
>>10413591
>>10413602
>>10413605
>>10413609
>>10413618
>>10413619
One minute we were talking about GTO rideshare not being a big deal, now it's just a bunch of baseless shitting on Elon. What does Arianespace have to do with Mars and pedophiles?

>>10413646
>what’s wrong with that post?
baseless shitflinging

big boi

>>10413655
>One minute we were talking about GTO rideshare not being a big deal
The discussion started long before any talk about "GTO" retard

>>10412760
>module named independence
>clearly depends on the ISS for power and most likely life support

>>10412798
Merlin has a higher Isp than VG's engine

>>10412890
>respectable for a gas generator RP-1
Literally the second most efficient gas-generator RP-1 engine ever, with the most efficient being the Merlin 1D Vac at 348 Isp

>>10412880
>implying specific impulse actually matters for a first stage booster
In any case Merlin 1D is more efficient than the F-1 engines that powered the Saturn V and is WAY more efficient than literally any solid rocket booster ever, so fuck you. Merlin 1D also has the highest TWR, the figure that matters most for a booster engine, of any rocket engine ever, so fuck you doubly.

>>10412894
>most efficient RP-1 gas generator engine ever, highest TWR ever, multiple in-flight restart capability, deep throttle capability, extreme reliability
>piece of crap engine
lol

>>10413766
>In any case Merlin 1D is more efficient than the F-1 engines that powered the Saturn V and is WAY more efficient than literally any solid rocket booster ever, so fuck you. Merlin 1D also has the highest TWR, the figure that matters most for a booster engine, of any rocket engine ever, so fuck you doubly.
Wow, triggered much?
F-1 has 9x the thrust of merlin and was developed more than 60 years ago.

>>10412902
>NG will stand out in its ability to take less volume to space than Starship, and by throwing out the upper stage with every launch

>>10412925
>The more massive the ship is, the more it will heat up during reentry.
Wrong, all objects experience the same heating at a given velocity.

>>10412954
>Ariane 6 and New Glenn will push them out of the commercial market for a while
>Ariane 6
>pushing out SpaceX for a while
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>10413786
I think he means total energy, i.e. a more massive object has more kinetic energy to burn off

>>10413782
and that's why superheavy/starship launches are selling so well

>>10412964
Raptor, like all rocket engines, has its gimbal assembly built in. It'd be retarded to mount each stationary Raptor onto a separate, pivoting mount.

>>10413791
If Arianespace isn't a threat, why are SpaceX lobbying the US government to sanction Europe for favoring them?
>https://www.lesechos.fr/industrie-services/air-defense/0600742488315-exclusif-spacex-accuse-arianespace-de-concurrence-deloyale-2246659.php

>>10413797
People on that "forum" the anon is quoting are absolutely retarded. Anyone who goes there for real info is a complete idiot.

>>10413062
Buran was essentially a three stage rocket (Energia boosters, Energia core, Buran), Shuttle was a two and a half stage, not 1.5 (Boosters, Shuttle main engines + ET, Shuttle OMS engines). Either way neither vehicle represented an actual step towards upper stage reuse, Buran and Shuttle orbiter reuse was analogous to capsule reuse.

>>10413062
>I think expendable high-energy third stages make sense
It makes sense as an option for payloads to very distant targets where reuse is simply impractical to the point of being infeasible. A reusable third staged could technically send a payload to Uranus if it had the performance, but to be reused it'd have to do a free return trajectory and wouldn't be back for like 40 years. In that case just make a dirt cheap hydrolox stage and expend it.

>>10413810
>Either way neither vehicle represented an actual step towards upper stage reuse, Buran and Shuttle orbiter reuse was analogous to capsule reuse.
You're right. Upper stage reuse is vastly simpler and easier than the reuse that Buran and Shuttle used.

>>10413069
>Ariane can do dual launches. So Ariane needs one launch for something SpaceX needs two.
So you're saying they actually only have like 10 launches planned, and that they'll be bankrupt in three years, whereas SpaceX's steady cash flow using their more economical rocket and greater payload manifest will allow them to triumph.

>>10413108
>Specific impulse, unlike thrust-to-weight and other meaningless bullshit, is an actual performance parameter.
>>10413107
>it's almost like efficiency and top speed and therefore distance are intrinsically linked in spaceflight

Go ahead and build me a launch vehicle that uses ion drives and tell me Isp is always the most important metric.

>>10413127
Delta IV heavy uses enignes that are much more efficient than the Merlin 1D but Delta IV Heavy gets less than half of the payload to space compared to Falcon Heavy which has a much higher TWR, you can't explain that.

>>10413134
>bang average (like 100)
Try 70. Merlin 1D has roughly 2.5 times the TWR of the average engine. It has more than twice the TWR of the RD-180.

>>10413870
Falcon Heavy has far far more propellant mass than Delta IV heavy.

>>10413800
Lol, SpaceX trolling Arianespace after all that bitching from the CEO about subsidies.

>>10413156
>Getting 10% more specific impulse means you can save 10% of the fuel
No you dummy, it means you can carry a heavier payload. 'Saving fuel' is an idiotic shorthand for 'needs a smaller and thus cheaper rocket', but if you already have a rocket of X size and you improve the engine efficiency you leave the rocket's mass alone and you get more performance out of it.

>>10413249
>omegaA
The shittest rocket tbqh

>>10413414

>>10413460
Good thing the vehicle that will be doing the Mars landings will have plenty more fuel margin, will be landing more slowly and with more control, and won't use legs that are hinged in that manner or even deploy at all.

>>10413896
Source?

>>10413575
SpaceX says FH expendable costs $120 million and that in center-core-expended-boosters recovered mode it gets 90% the performance of fully expendable FH but costs ~$100 million, so like 57 tons to LEO at ~$1800/kg.

>>10413583
That's unless someone pays them for a fully expendable FH.

>>10413900
Source?

There's an interesting post on NSF about how SpaceX have been constantly tweaking the performance and reentry of Block 5 boosters to progressively gain extra Delta V. Apparently the recent launch of NS was able to garner a few 100 m/s of extra Delta V compared to earlier launches by using more atmospheric breaking and less engine burning.

>>10413915
>There's an interesting post on NSF
nobody cares, fucktard

>>10413915
reminds me about how up until recently every single F9 has been slightly different in its construction and design

>>10413918
I'm not a nobody and I care. Iterative perf increases is useful. Lots of .5% improvements can easily turn into a 5% improvement.

>>10413924
if you like nsf so much then stay there you chimp

>>10413776
>F-1 has 9x the thrust of merlin and was developed more than 60 years ago.
8x the thrust but 18x the mass, 19 seconds lower Isp at sea level and 7 seconds lower in vacuum, couldn't be throttled at all, and cost close to 100x more. Not salty, just true facts.

>>10413795
More kinetic energy but more surface area as well, in real life a bigger reentry vehicle just takes longer to slow down instead of experiencing higher temperatures.

>>10413932

>>10413927
why do you always call people 'chimps'? That's been your go-to insult in these threads.
Also, could I please have a list of websites that I can browse, beside this literal shithole anime image board, without making you angry? After all that would be the polite thing to do.

>>10413936
That's a complete 180 from what you were saying earlier. Stop moving the goalposts.

>>10413944
Nobody cares what you browse, just don't post about it here.

10413942
Your point is grade A retardation, if it even existed at all

>>10413800
There's regarding someone as a threat and then there's coveting someone else's unfairly awarded launch contracts.

>If the native Tasmanians weren't a threat why did the British Empire wipe them out?

>>10412475
dildo 4 ur mom

>>10413949
just don't post what here? you do realize that 99% of the images in these threads of the starship hopper are ether from NSF or twitter right? does everything have to be OC in your mind?

>>10413872
Because it has more liftoff thrust and therefore thrust is more important for a LV than Isp, I rest my case. Oh, and Falcon Heavy is also ~3x cheaper than Delta IV Heavy so 'muh lighter rocket cheaper' argument doesn't work.

>>10413956
I don't see any images in what you posted. At least the other anons have the good sense to not say "look at these neat pictures I found while browsing NSF forums XP"

Just kill yourself and don't come back, retard.

>>10413965
why does mentioning where something originated necessitate suicide? Why are you obsessed?

>>10413897
Obvious from the design of Starship, the legs don't fold out they are mounted to a lateral hinge to work as flaps during atmospheric entry, Raptors can throttle down more than Merlins and they will be mounted to a much larger and thus heavier vehicle carrying a heavy payload as well which allows for lower TWR landings including hovering.

>>10413964
I'm saying that anon's argument that "FH has more payload capability due to higher twr" is complete bunk and factually incorrect. It's simply a more massive rocket. FH doesn't even use its twr since it throttles its core to minimum immediately after launch.

Honestly you people are functionally illiterate on all of these topics. Why do you even post here?

>>10413942
The point is that Merlin is a superior engine to F-1 in every way except for total thrust, and to get more thrust you can just cluster the engines together.

>>10413970
no rocket "uses their TWR", hah. Throttle-downs are common in lots of rockets. Talk about being illiterate on the topic, lol

>>10413969
>the legs don't fold out they are mounted to a lateral hinge to work as flaps during atmospheric entry
it has "feet" that extend out from those fins
>Raptors can throttle down more than Merlins
Source?
>and they will be mounted to a much larger and thus heavier vehicle carrying a heavy payload as well which allows for lower TWR landings including hovering.
Elon has stated multiple times that Starship will land using three engines firing, so no, you are completely wrong here.

>>10413945
No it's literally the same thing I said earlier, that all objects experience the same reentry temperature at a given speed. The only change with a bigger object is that the dynamic pressure doesn't scale up at the same rate as the mass, so it takes longer to slow down a bigger object than a smaller one of the same density.

>>10413980
from one of the IAC presentations.
Why is it that everyone critical of SpaceX demands sources, but they feel it's fine to spout off nonsense without sources of their own? This spoon-feeding is becoming annoying