/sci/ - Science & Math

one week to DM-1!

>>10414137
>one week
less than 6 days

>>10414139
damn month transitions

Controversial opinions?

I hope New Glenn is enormously successful and continues the cucking of business from European, Russian and Chinese launchers. I also hope Rocketlab and Virgin Orbit do the same for smallsat launches.

>>10414162
>Controversial opinions
idk how controversial this is but every single (((asteroid mining company))) that exists today and has ever existed in the past before fizzling out are all scams and will amount to less than nothing.

>>10414208
Didn't planetary resources or whatever they were called go bankrupt a few months ago?

>>10414162
It'll likely cuck Arianespace pretty hard in the GTO market; can't see it doing much else though because Russia and China don't really do commercial launches to GTO anyway. Europe might get cucked in GTO, but they've got Vega and Euro-Soyuz to cater to other markets. Russia's main moneymaker is launching medium sized satellites on the Soyuz, NG isn't really in the same ballpark so I'll doubt it'll have much affect. China's main customers are domestic companies and the government, barely any international commercial launches. NG will probably take a decent chunk of the GTO market (depending on prices) and steal heavy class C military payloads from ULA.

>>10414218
Russia's bread and butter was GTO launches on Proton/Zenit but those are mostly gone now. New Glenn is poised to take many of these LEO constellations away from other customers, whereas SpaceX basically can't due to developing a competing constellation.

anyone here into ksp?

>>10414319
no

>>10414233
Your mostly right about constellations but Soyuz and VirginOrbit are also launching the first wave of OneWeb satellites; OneWeb decided to buy a batch of 30 Soyuz launches (instead of a F9) because the CEO has a massive, autistic grudge against Musk due to a business deal gone wrong.

>>10414319
Yeah but I keep that shit to myself, also
>air intakes on Eve
pic related

>>10414382
>because the CEO has a massive, autistic grudge against Musk due to a business deal gone wrong.
hm?

>>10414382
lol

>>10414397
you know how Elon sometimes has retarded babyrage moments
it's like that, but instead of getting butthurt about dudes in caves it's about an actual meaningful business decision worth billions of dollars

>>10414382
>>10414397
>>10414410
Speaking of Oneweb, the first launch is 3 days from now.

>>10414397
>>10414407
The OneWeb CEO came to Musk with the idea of building a constellation, there were creative differences between the two which lead to a big falling out. It also didn't help that he wanted to make Elon bankroll the entire thing... now the CEO has to launch his constellation on faulty Soyuz rockets and using two launch providers who've never gone to orbit...
>>10414410
t.Greg Wyler

>space

>>10414428
I believe you misunderstand me, having babyrage over dumb shit like Elon is much more acceptable than having babyrage in a business decision

>>10414319
>not planting that flag 1m up hill

>>10414162
This is unironically going to buttfuck everybody sideways. BO is very focused on reusability and builds everything around reusability. At the same time, it will be the most capable rocket there is. So the odds will probably become the cheapest and best rocket on the market at the same time. This can be pretty much as revolutionary as BFR could be, except its not that ambitious/more realistic, plus has the world's richest man behind it.

>>10414483
>not planting the flag where you landed

>>10414215
They had to sell some shit, but they're still clinging to life
Deep space industries is where it's at

If spacex's engine dev team doesn't work on nuclear thermal rockets next, I'll lose all respect for them. NASA got $100 million in finding this year to reopen testing centers for just those sorts of engines.

>>10414597
nuclear thermal rockets could be useful but they're gonna be extremely expensive and thus not a very good fit for the private launch industry.

I think the logical next step for SpaceX will be to continue upgrading Raptor into even better performing versions and to start development of either a larger methalox FFSC engine or a hydrolox FFSC engine.

>>10414488
Except from the fact that it won't be that cheap due to the massive, Saturn V-sized, expendable, hydrogen upper-stage and that it'll only fly 12 times a year max.

>>10414597
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2018/07/x-spacex-raptor-designer-has-ready-for-development-designs-for-nuclear-rocket-that-will-be-2-7-times-better-than-bfr.html

>>10414597
Provide a source on that right now. Last I heard they were only investigating exhaust capture. Pronto. Get on it.

>>10414649
The second stage will be 20 million dollars approx. So all they need to do is keep refurbishing cost below 30 million dollars and they will be the cheapest option on the market.

>>10414672
"and $100 million to nuclear thermal propulsion research, including planning for a flight demonstration mission by 2024."
>https://spacenews.com/final-fiscal-year-2019-budget-bill-secures-21-5-billion-for-nasa/

>>10414642
>and to start development of either a larger methalox FFSC engine or a hydrolox FFSC engine.
Why would they do that?

>>10414673
Source? Oh wait...nobody even knows what NGs prices are, also it's quite hard to know the construction costs of a rocket that hasn't been built yet.

>>10414694
Building bigger is counterintuitive considering they need a engine small enough to throttle low and hover.

>>10414714
It makes no sense at all unless your engines are unreliable or extremely expensive. It makes more sense to optimize for twr.

>>10414686
>>10414597
Absolute mad lads, they actually did it! So basically that's all the bill says, other thing is that the bill says is that not leas than $70 million will be for the design of a flight demo unit. There's nothing about opening a test facility. This is great news. This is the sort of tech NASA should be developing. It's too risky(monetarily) for SpaceX or other private companies to pursue. Once NASA develops it, they can always transition it over to private companies. To give you an idea of how risky it is, the NRC has never approved a mobile civilian reactor.

>>10414723
oh wait within 180 days, the house and senate have to come up with a multi year funding plan. But money's on the table right now. How do we prevent the normies from flipping out and cancelling it?

>>10414728
>nuclear
>How do we prevent the normies from flipping out and cancelling it?
you can't

>100m for nuclear propulsion

So that buys them what? Half a dozen meetings and some paperwork? Lel

>>10414732
Fire up those hydrazin thrusters cause you won't with an attitude like that. We should target the IFL science normies who are in the middle.
>>10414736
Designing, developing, and testing the Kilopower reactor was done for less than $20 million

>>10414759
Who is that?

>>10414597
Nuclear obviously wouldn’t work well for reentry, so if they pursue nuclear it would probably be for permanent ships in space

>>10414772
Supposedly part of the BFC (Big Falcon Crawler)

This is just speculation btw

>>10414799
holes? a smooth collar? hmm. Vent ports? what is that for?

The inaugural flight of SpaceX's Starship Hopper, circa March, 2019 (colourised)

>>10414751
those normies don't matter
it's the unthinking unwashed masses that matter
the 51% hordes that still fucking think nuclear is oceans of glowing green goo that explode if you look at them funny

>>10414813
As soon as democrats take back power they will cancel anything with nuclear in the name.

>>10414825
nuclear power plants are generally in D states no?

>>10414825
this shit is bipartisan ignorance, for the first time in forever, it's not just the dems being twats

big coal flooded the airwaves with propaganda several decades ago, and continued ignorance on the subject has kept the momentum going to today
if people were willing to learn things about anything, we would not be in this mess

>>10414218
Only if they can beat Ariana prices by enough to matter, and maintain a decent launch rate
So far BO hasn’t launched anything yet

>>10414826
here's the 2016 election map over operating power plants, make of this what you will.

>>10414837
>this shit is bipartisan ignorance
no, not really

Greenpeace, Union of Concerned Scientists are about as far as you can get from being Republican interests.

>>10414825
Both r and d are against nuclear

>>10414865
Stop this retarded meme.

>>10414871
>53%

Lel what a joke

>>10414772
>>10414789
"I passed two of these crawler tracks around Sarita headed south to Space X ."

>>10414906
>le 53% face

Budding rocket engineer here, what do you think is a good performing yet simple injector for a bipropellant engine?

I'm designing an engine and I want to make sure that I'm using an injector desgin that, while simple to make, is reliable and has decent performance. Resistance to combustion instabilities is desirable. Throttleablity isn't needed but desirable.

>>10414910
holy shit are they bringing the crawler back? that looks like one of the crawler transporters from pad 39

>>10414813
Well then, probably best to keep quiet about it. Also clang. Did you know that if the ion thrusters in spengies consume uranium as reaction mass, it should be expelled at percentages of the speed of light in order to create the required thrust?
>>10414825
Nope, both the house and the senate supported the funding bill by a wide majority
>>10414996
do CFD. Good luck

>>10415018
it seems to be a generic minding operations track unit for big diggers and stuff. The original crawler(s?) are actually being fitted out for SLS right now

>>10415032
you're right, it's much too small to be part of a pad 39 crawler transporter
isn't SLS only going to use one of the crawler transporters and the other will be a museum piece?

>>10415036
Yeah, & they’re still considering spending another ~billion on a 2nd transporter unit. It’s crazy https://spacenews.com/nasa-seeking-proposals-for-second-mobile-launch-platform/

>>10415045
that's not a request for a crawler transporter, it's a request for a strongback and umbilicals

>>10415045
>>10415047
also apparently they cancelled the request
https://spacenews.com/nasa-no-longer-seeking-to-develop-second-mobile-launcher-for-sls/

>>10414811
>march is literally a week away

>>10415052
Ah yeah I forgot about that development

>>10415052
I wonder of it's still being considered for use with Omega

Why is it that the man who will take us to mars is also a 2008-era memer?

>>10415086
all rockets need a launch platform
>>10415109
2008 was a good vintage of memer, vastly superior to anything produced nowadays

>>10415109
because you fell for the professionally prepared optics stunt

>>10415129
Ah yes, stankmemes.com is for optics

>>10415022
>do CFD. Good luck
I honestly didn't do well in the CFD class, but thanks. I'll give it a shot.

what's with facebook and absolutely shit image resolution?

>https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=7339
slightly worrying that curiosity almost got completely bricked and they don't know the specific reason

B1048 is offloaded

>>10415207
Damn that's a spicy boi after that re entry. These boosters are going to be black as fuck when they start hitting 5-6 uses.

>>10415207
Will it go out in a blaze of glory or pull off a miracle and do a soft water landing?

Can't wait for June (April, Elon time).

>>10415036
It looks like the crawlers for a mondo 'mobile' crane.

>>10415331
of course it is

>>10415336
I guess they hoist it up and drive over to the launch site?

>>10415337
they can't drive with anything on the hoist

>>10415345
larger cranes can't move while hoisting? huh, didn't know that

>>10415350
there's usually a weight limit

>>10415207
Really wish we could have gotten a closer look at the grid fins that underwent the type of reentry that would have definitely melted the old aluminum ones.

>>10414803
Appear to be plug welds, just more weld surface area to attach the plate. Must be load bearing

are there any other manned moon missions scheduled before this meme mission ?

>>10415533
no

>>10415533
EM2 is scheduled for 2022 currently

>>10415533
still think he should chose Werner Herzog as one of the artists.

>>10415129
>implying his autism isn't pure and genuine

>>10415610
I bet you think his hair is real too

>>10415615
>you are now imaging Elon as if he pulled a Bezos and is completely bald

>>10414162
>Controversial opinions?
SLS, Orion, and other awful spaceflight options are necessary as a backup in case SpaceX fails (or gets delayed for a long time) for whatever reason. It's not good to have all of your eggs in one basket, so I hope SLS/Orion continues and succeeds. The same goes for other programs like Blue Origin's and China's. The more players we have that are trying, the better.

>>10415743
I don't think that's unpopular, just that SLS doesn't really belong in the bunch. BO has manned plans, ULA has a lot of stuff in the pipeline, there's plenty of backup stuff to go around. I don't think a billion-a-launch SLS is a justifiable part of all that.

>>10415743
considering the sheer volume of corruption that comprises SLS, it would be better we not go to space at all than let it and the hand rubbing parasites running it continue

I see new details about the Space Development Agency (SDA) got released. The SDA is the new agency that will develop equipment and capabilities for the US Space Force.
>SDA will be established next month (either in Wash DC or Huntsville)
>$150 million budget (not new money, but money taken from other military sources)
>the leader will be a guy from DARPA who has experience in creating new space systems for the military and NASA (e.g. Orbital Express (pic related))
https://spacenews.com/darpas-fred-kennedy-tapped-to-lead-space-development-agency/

I'm cautiously optimistic about the SDA since it's supposed to be a lean organization that rapidly procures new equipment for the military. Right now it can take a long time for current programs to get equipment into the hands of the military, so if the SDA succeeds in it's mission, then we will see alot of changes in space sooner rather than later.

>>10415805
Aside from brand new programs, I know that the group behind creating the SDA has also looked into taking some existing space programs (taking them away from other agencies) to try and deploy them faster, including DARPA Blackjack and the Space Sensor Layer. Blackjack would use about 20 satellites from a company like OneWeb or SpaceX to test experimental payloads for a LEO megaconstellation for the military. A commercial provider like OneWeb or SpaceX would then get a contract to build the megaconstellation. The Space Sensor Layer is similar to Blackjack, but focused on detecting missile and rocket launches.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-reorganization-could-raise-profile-of-darpas-space-missions/
https://spacenews.com/pentagon-analyzing-possible-missions-for-a-new-space-development-agency/

>>10414859
Map is superbly outdated. Trojan plant in Washington was decommissioned in 1992. There is *one* nuclear plant left in Cali, Diablo
Canyon, that will shutdown in 2025.

>>10414871
Disappointing numbers lads.

I left aerospace engineering for computer engineering and I regret my decision. I'm graduating in one year. What kind of jobs can I expect to get in the aero sector as a comp E grad? I have a year of research so far in machine learning with a paper under my name. Is there any hope or should I just go and get my masters in aero engineering instead?

>>10415892
Do your own research faggot, make some calls

>>10415902
Obviously I will not rely on 4chan to make these decisions for me exclusively, but there's always a chance that someone with experience in this area will chime in.

>>10415805
>US military imperialism world police bullshit now extends to space

Fuck this gay earth, fortunately 150m will only buy them a few toilet seats from their contractors

>>10414162
This thing is combining all the fators that make the other launchers succesful

* it has dual launch like Ariane 5
* it lands its booster like Falcon 9
* it shamelessly is lobbying for government money like ULA

All in all 10/10 rocket, will probably be a huge success.

For real ultra-cheap space access you need to go HTHL spaceplane though, Bezos will probably realize and hopefully pour billions into a Skylon-like project.

>>10415932
National security has been one of the primary drivers of spaceflight since spaceflight has existed. If anything this may spur investment and innovation across the spaceflight industry in multiple countries.

>>10414162
The salt of all the SpaceX fanboys when it flies while BFR has its 30th redesign will be so, so delicious.

>>10414474
I don't think people really care how or what people rage over these days. At the end of the day, space X is apparently the hottest thing in space and Donald Trump is 45th president of the United States of America

Sometimes being a cry baby really does get you what you want

>>10415988
I'm not so sure. New Glenn is supposed to be somewhere in the neighborhood of Falcon Heavy and Delta IV for launch capacity.
BFR is supposed to be 4-5x that capacity.

>>10416022
Falcon Heavy is a complete misdesign and because of that it is unwanted. New Glenn is a perfect design for an orbital launcher and will bankrupt SpaceX.

>>10416022
BFR's main thing is rapid reusability, it's supposed to be able to launch 100+ tons anywhere because the booster can be reused to launch several refuelling tankers a day. New Glenn on the otherhand is apparently designed for only 12 launches every year, meaning it's the definition of un-rapid reusability and limits the types of payloads they can launch. The NG booster itself is apparently good for 25 reuses, meaning on paper one booster can do 2 years worth of launches; this raises the question, what will Blue Origin's Florida workforce do in the meantime if they only have to build a booster once every 2 years?

>>10416025
The Falcon Heavy has actually found itself a nice niche, as the king of GEO missions. The vast majority of it's launch contracts are for GEO missions, including two Airforce missions. It's become an Atlas 551 killer, disrupting the latter's monopoly on GEO launches by offering similar performance for a much cheaper price ($90 vs $150 million).

>>10416054
>king of GEO missions

SpaceX tards actually believe that.

>>10414139
https://www.spacexstats.xyz/

countdown here, it is ~ 4 days 21 hours to launch

>>10416060
Just look at the FH's manifest kiddo

>>10415947
>HTHL spaceplane
>ultra-cheap space access
Try again, at given vehicle costs for Skylon and zero refurbishment cost it'd get similar $/kg as Falcon Heavy. Reusable TSTO is the future.

>>10415743
>SLS, Orion, and other awful spaceflight options are necessary as a backup in case SpaceX fails

Even if SpaceX fails, something like Vulcan + ACES could do all the SLS missions for a mere fraction of the price. SLS is just fundamentall bad, period.

>>10415805
wow, a DARPA but for space sounds great

>>10415932
You can say whatever about the US military as a whole, but advanced military R&D is unironically beneficial and some of the best spent money, period.

>>10416174
Lol no. Just sticking three boosters back together costs millions.

But anyways, SpaceX fanboys are impossible to discuss with, so move on.

>>10416184
This. Aerospace has and always will be the leader in technological innovation. Defence/military being the primary beneficiary - adoption by consumers trickles down as a by product of those industries, period.

>>10416200
Have you ever thought that you will look like a democrat after the 2016 US presidential election when they eventually make the boosters stick themselves back together mid-air, before landing upright on the same launch platform for refuelling, also done autonomously?

>>10416211
Nah man, they are actually going full transformers and make Teslas that turn into heavy lift launchers. Have you ever considered you will look like a 2012 republican when Elon sells Tesla-Falcon-hybrids for 1$ a piece?

>>10416200
you dont have to be a SpaceX fanboy to recognize that hydrogen spaceplane is a very questionable idea, to put it lightly

TSTO single stick is where it is

>>10416234
Yeah, no. You shouldn't believe the promises of Elon. Transporting and reassembling the rocket, then putting on a launch pad and preparing the launch is something like 20-30 million per launch minimum. Then put refurbishment cost on top and you won't be able to go much lower than 50 million (which, ironically, is exactly where Falcon 9 reusable is at).

A spaceplane on the other hand can go as low as hundreds of thousands per launch.

>>10416251
what fuel gets launches into the $1*10^5's? Because my car is $50 a week. Over 40 years that's like an entire launch were looking at that I could have invested in instead

>>10416251
>Transporting and reassembling the rocket, then putting on a launch pad and preparing the launch is something like 20-30 million per launch minimum. Then put refurbishment cost on top and you won't be able to go much lower than 50 million

Wow, you are clueless. I dont even know what to say to this bullshit. There is no reason why entire refurbishment process could not be on the order of a few $ million.

>>10416278
he does not know of slave labour capabilities

>>10416278
it depends on launch rate really, launch enough rockets and the cost will approach the cost of propellant

Someone needs to invent something to get rid of all the shit in space before they go putting more shit up there

Like if u agree

>>10416286
No it doesn't. "Le econoies of scale will make everything 99% cheaper" is among the most clueless and retarded things Elon keeps saying.

>>10416291
This. The underlying reason anyone wants to go into space is to launch satellites and those cost fucking hundreds of millions.

>>10416291
Completely wrong you idiot. Economies of scale are proven to work in greatly reducing costs, and in fact this is even more relevant in rocketry where most of the cost goes for paying the standing army of qualified labor. Launch rate is THE crucial metric in determining LV economics.

>>10416302
Satellites for mass produced low orbit constellations are down to $ few million already, courtesy of economics of scale.

>>10416311
Like Tesla, amirite. Those masses of cheap cars coming off the assembly line is really mind blowing.

>>10416323
Yes in fact, rather low production volume of Tesla compared to gas cars is main reason why it is more expensive. Large battery is another.

>>10416324
Lol no, mass-producing Teslas made them more expensive, because as a matter of fact economies of scale is actually not applicable everywhere, and there where it is applicable, it absoluetely never gets even close to the 99% bullshit Elon keeps feeding his clueless fanbase with.

>>10416331
>mass-producing Teslas made them more expensive
dumbest post in the thread, congratulations

>>10416314
And how much longer is that sustainable before the substantial number of orbiters which are not operational start posing a hazard and organisations want to guarantee thier satellites safety?

>>10416251
>A spaceplane on the other hand can go as low as hundreds of thousands per launch

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahaha

Hahahahaha

Ha

>Launch SSTO spaceplanes
>Close to zero payload
>Massive refurbishment costs because lol Hydrogen dissolving your components

>Launch TSTO spaceplanes
>Why even bother because you have the exact same issues as a TSTO reusable rocket except you also carry a bunch of plane dead weight and rip your payload

>>10416345
It is sustainable indefinitely because these are satellites that have redundant systems for deorbiting themselves, and also are generally part of low orbit constellations so they will fall back to Earth on their own due to atmospheric drag in less than a century.

>>10416334
It's literally you idiot. Mass-producing them led to bottlenecks in battery supply, which drastically increased the prices. Plus, all the factories that were supposed to produce them cheaply didn't work out and the production ended up being less efficient than beforehand.

>>10416348
The hydrogen is going to burn up within minutes you mongrel.

>>10416356
>The hydrogen is going to burn up within minutes you mongrel.
What has that to do with hydrogen corrosion you moron?

>>10416356
>The hydrogen is going to burn up within minutes you mongrel

As if this is even relevant to the problem at all

>>10416357
>>10416358
>a hydrogen tank that will hold no hydrogen for most of the time will experience a lot of corrosion

You are just repeating some bullshit you read in any SpaceX safe space as to why le hydrogen is evil and le methan is good.

>>10416356
>Mass-producing them led to bottlenecks in battery supply, which drastically increased the prices

No such thing happened at all, yes there were issues with supplying battery packs but the cost was not significantly affected and price of batteries is steadily dropping for years, with some fluctuations.

>>10416359
It is the engine and plumbing corrosion, not the tank, that is the issue, lol

>>10416359
Ok so you have no idea what you are talking about and just deflect with some random tangent. Good to know.

>>10414125
Earth is

>>10416360
>price of batteries is steadily dropping for years
and economies of scale are the main reason why

>>10416363
The corrosion on the engine is literally irrelevant, you are so clueless it's incredible.

>>10416372
>Hydrogen corrosion is like not even a problem bro, you can just reuse the vehicle as often as you want for the cost of fuel lmao

>>10416372
hydrogen is especially corrosive when at high pressure you dumb fuck

Sigh, can we please have one single thread without this shit flinging retard?

>>10416375
Your engine will break and dozens other parts before CORROSION does anything to it you fucking idiot.

In fact, because hydrogen burns 100% clean hydrogen engines are the ones with the longest life span.

Go take your corrosion bullshit back to your SpaceX safe spaces.

>>10416380
>In fact, because hydrogen burns 100% clean hydrogen engines are the ones with the longest life span.

KEK

>>10416380
>Shits on SpaceX
>The only other company developing reusability is also using Methane engines on reusable stages and Hydrogen on expendables

Yeah must totally be a SpaceX safe space thing.

>>10416383
New Shepard isn't methane you shit stain.

>>10416386
>Durr what is NG
>Durr what is BE-4

>>10416380
Methane also burns clean.

>>10414425
wut? is a photoshop, right?

>>10416380
>>10416383
>>10416386
>>10416391
>>10416421
Hydrogen burns very clean and it doesn't corrode. However, the problem with hydrogen is that it likes to find holes in stuff, so that means if there's the tiniest defect in your plumbing you'll quickly know about it and even if there's no defects, it'll still boil off by escaping through the tank walls eventually.

I want my NTR SSTO rocket now.....

>>10416437
It does corrode, hydrogen embrittlement is a big problem in the engine and one reason why SSME refurbishment was so costly.

>>10416541
Your right, soz

>>10416348
An HTHL SSTO doesn't have to be hydrogen necessarily. In fact, as they probably are going to be rather small, hydrogen is a bad choice, despite the higher specific impulse. The difficulty of HTHL SSTOs is reaching at least Mach 10 in airbreathing mode, once you do that the rest is pretty straightforward and "easy".

>none of my friends care about DM-1 or space in general
I just want to have a launch party...

This morning they are using the welding machine. - NSF

>>10416571
You will ride eternal, shiny and chrome!

>>10416541
I have seen this claim here before and it's bullocks. All materials that were prone to hydrogen embrittlement where shielded by copper plates. The most cost-intensive aspect was the refurbishment of the Turbopumps, which had seen no embrittlement at all.

>>10416571
Are they building a new hat?

why is there no info on New Glenn? we haven't seen any hardware as far as i know

>>10416603
BE-4 had a flight profile test recently (2,5MN thrust for 200 seconds) so they are wrapping development up and will start production by the end of the year.

>>10416619
They haven't even gone past 70% thrust yet though, the engine is being redesigned so the next version can go full throttle (which is 2.4MN). But they have done long burns at 70%.

>>10416602
yes, and it seems to be from higher quality pre-polished sections

>>10416623
That was in septembre. I'm talking about the one they did recently. That was a full flight profile burn.

>>10416663
is there a video?

>>10416623
New Glenn will fly the BE-4s at "70% thrust" in the sense of that they innitially planned to have 400k pounds of thrust but ULA asked them to increase that to 550k. So 70% thrust of their new configuration is enough for a New Glenn.

>>10416663
>>10416669
They've been stuck at 70% since then

>>10416674
Your quite the clever disinformation shill aren't you?

>>10416698
>It's the annoying clueless Muskrat again

>>10416709
>"I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling Muskrats!"

>>10416729
Yes, your tweet from a month ago that says that soon there will be 100% thrust test really completely disproves everything.

>>10416731
>the tortoise will magically build a new redesigned version of the BE-4 in just a month and immediately test it with a flight duration burn.

>>10416736
Before I post the source I just want you stinky Muskrat to further tangle yourself up in your own clueless bullshit.

>>10416744
Post the source then lol

stop replying to him ffs

>>10416779
It's really cute how you think only one guy on 4chan thinks Musk is a fraud

I bet you are the same guy who keeps claiming that reddit is an anti-Musk site.

>>10416779
I'm sorry

>>10416742
RANSOME

>>10416779
Implying it's not the Muskrats going mad whenever somebody even mentions NG or BO ayy lmao

>>10416799
>reddit is an anti-Musk site.

Not just an anti-Musk site, the ONLY anti-Musk site. There are pro-Musk people everywhere (including reddit), but it takes a contrarian redditor to actually be retarded enough to be anti-Musk. Try that shit on NSF and see what happens.

>>10416811
Nah, BO is the best thing in aerospace after SpaceX.

- a muskrat

Just ignore anyone who utters the phrase "Muskrat" for further notice.

>>10416819
sounds like a good use of the filter, done

>>10416815
People who I know personally that have a genuine dislike for Musk

* Every actual engineering professional I ever met
* Almost all leftists I ever met
* A whole lot of investors
* Almost every european I met
* The SEC

The only crowd that is pro-Musk is actually the 12-18 year old "science is so cool!" teens and increasingly right wingers who seem to think Elon is a white supermacist.

>>10416838
I am an engineer in Europe working in a large aerospace company and I have yet to meet someone who is anti-Musk. Most colleagues either like him or dont care.

>>10416850
yeah sure thing buddy

>>10416838
>* Almost all leftists I ever met

This is true, socialists hate him. But then they are some of the dumbest people ever, so I would wear that as a badge of honor.

>>10416856
What I noticed is that the pro-Musk shilling on this board drastically increased after he allegedely "called out the jew" (or atleast poltards think he did). Before that, this board was mildly anti-Musk.

>>10416868
>Before that, this board was mildly anti-Musk.
huh? those Falcon 9 launch and first landing attempts threads sure were not anti-musk at all

>>10416868
/sci/ was less anti-Musk, until the *ayy lmao* reddit troll showed up when hopper construction began. Then it kinda went downhill.

>stop
>replying

will be funny to see the reactions for the in flight abort; lots of people watching in Florida probably won’t know that it’s supposed to blow up a minute after launch

>>10416907
Hmm, I hadn't thought about that before. There's always going to be someone watching who wasn't paying attention to the mission objectives. This could even be fun.

Seems that they spot weld the panels, then run a joint weld along the seam. Then a 2nd SS strip is added on top of the weld. I guess the machine does the joint weld?

>Space Force expected to bring in an additional $500 million per year to space
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2019/02/22/heather-wilsons-commitment-trumps-space-force-was-questioned-now-she-leads-effort-build-it/

based

>>10416939
CoDominium when

New cool hayabusa2 pic from 25m
discoloration is where they landed

>>10416937
So the upper section was just an aerodynamic structure?

>>10416992
yeah it’s always been for aero and looks

>>10416571
Thats raptor assembly.

>>10417003
It is an automatic girth welder

https://www.koike.com/agw

>>10417010
Just poking fun at the one who was claiming that last thread.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6RDbBTpN3A4

awww https://www.wacotrib.com/news/business/spacex-nighttime-test-fees-pay-for-park-upgrades-in-mcgregor/article_7678f8b9-d3ae-5b56-b80f-4fdeed5a14a4.html

>>10416992
Those spots are from strongbacks, arched pieces of metal welded on to hold the 2 sides of the cylinder in place so they don't warp when welding. Their the yellow/orange bars in the previous pics

>>10417127
That machine sure is fast

>>10414125
Fucking moon toddlers got their way again.
Literally no advantage going there rather than Mars.
Orbital station seriously limits where you go, and makes the whole rendez-vous thing fucking retarded.
Look, momy! we found helium3! too bad fusion is not a thing.

>>10417300
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a26513651/elon-musk-interview-spacex-mars/
Elon says a moon base should probably come before a mars base. Also, hydroponics confirmed for food?

>>10417303
Elon says, he'll take the money.

>>10417300
>Literally no advantage going there rather than Mars.
A mission for SLS is the only advantage that matters.

New Musk interview:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a26513651/elon-musk-interview-spacex-mars/

>>10417379
Is that a new image from SpaceX? I don't remember seeing that one before.

>>10417385
It does say "spacex" under it, and reverse image search turns up nothing, so probably. Here is a bigger version.

>>10417379
There is also this pic, by Tristan Bassingthwaighte.

>>10417409
Olympus Mons is so huge. It would be interesting if the volcano was basically the entire territory of future Martian country.

>that feel when you realize your crush is at least gravitationally attracted to you
>eventually, our atoms will find each other
>later virgins!

>>10417299
it needs to be fast, because the sheets are so thin
they probably have it cranked up as high as it can go

>>10417442
will be interesting to see how they weld the tapered top portion. The machine wouldn’t be able to do those sections

new aerial photos

>>10417525

>>10417532

>>10417442
looks like ~10 min per revolution

>chevy bel air

>>10414996
Why is having an injector preferable to both fuel and oxidiser mixing as gas?

>>10417562
how do they mix? that's your injector, however you put the juice in the banghole is called an injector

>>10417561

it sure is close to the ocean

They are covering the dome with shiny foil. Now why would they do that? It will not be visible under the fairing..

>>10417597
looks insulating. maybe prevents ice from forming or something

>>10417540
>>10417525
so there's one concrete pad with the three leg mounts, but then there's also a smaller one behind it. one for fueling one for launching?

>>10417597
thermal insulation for cryogenic fuel? maybe the foil is not just for show then..

looks like the old model in this render. Don't think you can deduce anything new from it

>>10417599
There's only one pad, the area behind is just for the tanks and GSE which is why there's a big dirt wall between it and the actual pad. In other pictures you can see where the fuel umbilicals will be attached to reach the hopper.

>>10417607
Elon has said that the silhouette of the new version is the same as the 2018 presentation.

>>10417636
I mean the truss stuff under the red arrow vs the blue pad with the three mounting points and umbilical hardware. Looks like those truss things will be for concrete or something? They piled up dirt around them

>>10417650
Oh that, I believe their storing those trusses for future construction, as there doesn't seem to be an apparent use for them currently. Some people believe the area where they are might be used for a bigger pad to launch the entire stack, if this is true it suggests this is what they'll be used for.

>>10417715
the only reason you'd need a bigger (as in wider) pad is for landings

>>10416152
>plugging your shitty website
fuck off and die
reported

>>10417759
Spacexstats is useful bruh, it’s one of the better spacex data aggregate sites. I use it if I forget how many landings there have been or whatnot when making launch threads.
Not everything is a shilpost you know

>>10416815
This is starting to border on mental illness, anon.
I hope you seek help soon.

>>10417769
Fuck off reddit nigger.

Daily reminder that muskrats have no refutation for this.

>>10417783
The nice part about 4chan is that telling someone to leave doesn’t actually make them leave.

>>10417723
I’d imagine that down the line they’ll have to make a landing pad some distance away to test landing at a different spot as takeoff.

>>10416926
15 mile altitude is when it pops off. will have a big viewing area

>>10416175
ACES isn't even being funded.

>>10415988
>implying
I, just like Musk, can't wait for more companies to come to the launch business and start competition, it's healthy for the market
More competition = better prices, development of new tech etc = faster conquering of space = best time to live in

>>10417812
don’t they first use BE-4 for Vulcan? Wasn’t the plan to wait on ACES until there are some flights done?

>>10417823
>BE-4
>ACES
Are you retarded?

>>10414125
.......

>>10416043
SpaceX didn't launch 12 missions in a year until 8 years after their first launch.

>>10417821
>Elon Musk likes competition

Elon Musk is trying to sue missions away from ULA while at the same time whining that Arianespace is getting more subsidies than them.

>>10417830
My bad, I got the bidding for the 1st and 2nd stage mixed up. BO has the contract for the 1st stage engine, AR got the 2nd stage engine (RL10CX). I always thought that ACES comes after they do some flights with the RL10CX and BE4 combo

>>10417856
Don't forget also suing NASA and refocusing on the moon in order to kill SLS.

>>10417865
Funny thing is New Glenn is perfect for lunar gateway missions and BO is also developing a lunar lander. It's almost as if Bezos is some sort of business genius who knows exactly how to grow a business to market domination.

>>10417865
Pretty sure that’s not what’s happening. SpaceX doesn’t exactly have to do anything special to kill SLS anyways other than build starship at a reasonable price.
Nonetheless SLS will still be better for extra fat payloads, at least if the block 2 extendo fairing ever flies

>>10417877
That's completely false. The only leg up SLS will have is being man-rated for NASA astronauts, whereas starship/super heavy will never be.

>>10417875
NASA's moon programs will get cancelled as soon as Trump is out of the office, so they are functionally irrelevant.

>>10417895
hmm? SLS block 2 can definitely launch single larger payloads; the fairing size is larger than current starship.

>>10417902
SLS block 2 is vaporware, and starship/superheavy should be able to exceed it in everything except payload volume with just one refueling flight

>>10417907
>SLS block 2 is vaporware
Starship Super Heavy is vaporwave

>>10417915
NASA doesn't even have a pen and paper design for block 2 that would let it meet its claimed 130t to LEO.

>>10417907
Calling other rockets vaporware while shilling for an unfinanced steel-rocket that can only do useful stuff if they nail multiple orbital refueling is really brave.

>>10417923
I'm not denying that bfr is also vaporware, it's just several years closer to not being vaporware than SLS block 2.

>>10417723
Wouldn't the full stack, BFR+BFS, need a flame trench?

>>10417927
*Several decades now work on the EUS has been halted

>>10417920
What exactly do you mean? The upgraded sideboosters?

>>10417920
read my post again
>>10417931
a whopping great big one, yes
almost as big as Pad 39A, but much stronger

>>10417931
That's why many believe they'll need to build a second bigger pad

>>10417933
it won't hit 130t even with upgraded boosters

>>10417932
EUS was funded this year

>>10417931
The won't launch it there, because it would literally collapse the nearby houses from noise alone.

>>10417875
New Glenn is large enough that they could do some serious damage in the Lunar market by having a hydrolox tug and reusable 7m tanker 2nd stage.

>>10417943
>EUS was funded this year

It's construction has been halted according to multiple inside (SLS workers) and outside sources (Eric B*rger) tho

>The won't launch it there, because it would literally collapse the nearby houses from noise alone.

I think that's how SpaceX intend to get the inhabitants to move

>>10417970

>lunar market

constrained by SLS and Orion to hardly anything

>>10417985
Source?

>>10417988
What?

>>10417999
L2 SLS

>>10418015
nice cop out, fag
source your claims or don't post them at all

>>10418025
Here's a screenshot

Hmmm

>>10418081
oh yes, that's the shit I need
>>10418090
they're not talking about theft, they're talking about cannibalizing parts from something that seems useless to make something useful, it's common practice on job sites
the parts frequently outlive the usefulness of the tools

>>10418081
>>10418090
Needed for Hopper **** Checkouts

>>10418096
Wetwork?

>>10418115
Vehicle

>>10418124
Oops

>>10418136
there's a piece of grass near the letter 'h' that throws everything out of wack

>>10418090
fuck this whole operation is so jank and I love it

first hop when

>>10418171
soon after the raptors arrive

>>10416880
the problem is that you don't make the distinction
the insufferable man that is elon musk has a lot of stupid ideas
but he has good ones too, is dedicated AF and has had some luck as well
=> SpaceX
it is impossible to hate SpaceX
Tesla deserves some admiration
Watch some thunderf00t videos if you want to see some really over-the-top reasons why the tunnels and the hyperloop are a waste of time and money. spoiler alert: he's real salty and repetitive, but his points make sense

>sec-asks-manhattan-federal-court-to-hold-elon-musk-in-contempt

Welp, its officially over, folks.

>>10418234
Can't wait to see this guy rot in jail.

>>10418232
apparently one of SpaceX's lawyers is named Dane Butswinkas

>>10418249
should that ring a bell?

>>10416674
Meanwhile Raptor reached over 3.2MN.I guess Mueller can't be replaced with stacks of money

>>10418262
Butswinkas is a fucking hilarious name

>>10418267
oh. ok

>>10418268
also I'm retarded, he was a Tesla lawyer and he quit

>>10418005
He means there's no lunar anything unless SLS gets to play.

>>10418274
says who? Falcon 9 just put a small payload on a lunar intercept course

>>10418286
If you want to play moon with NASA involved, you'll have to make room for the big boi.

Starship is being designed with Unigraphics NX and Teamcenter CAD apparently.

>>10418234
the jews are pulling out all of the stops to prevent white people from leaving the earth

https://www.indeed.com/viewjob?jk=640952b4d891990e&q=Spacex&l=Texas&tk=1d4jbm7gp0e3f01b&from=ja&alid=5746ab5ee4b0d3b9cdfc52dc&utm_campaign=job_alerts&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jobseeker_emails&rgtk=1d4jbm7gp0e3f01b

"The Build Engineer role is responsible for design for manufacturability concepts through integration and testing of the full vehicle, and everything in between. Build Engineers will be highly engaged on the primary and secondary structures of the vehicle, including designing tooling (assembly aide, welding, part fixturing, etc.) and processes (welding, large part movement, large structure integration) to rapidly build early versions of the Starship and Super Heavy vehicles. Further along in the build, this role will be responsible for items such as integration operations sequencing, and working with technicians on installing flight-critical hardware on the vehicle. Throughout the build, engineers will be responsible for documenting processes, and driving continual improvement to them for future builds. Furthermore, Build Engineers will be expected to sometimes act as de-facto supervisors and advisors to production technicians, welders, and other skilled labor partners. Build Engineers will spend time both in the office and on-site (local production floor and remote build sites) to execute on the mission to build an orbital-capable Starship and Super Heavy faster than anyone though possible. "
> build an orbital-capable Starship and Super Heavy faster than anyone though possible

/hype/

>>10418402
the tank fab job also implies that they're using flux-cored arc welding, submerged arc welding, & gas metal arc welding

>>10418407
just call it "machine welding" anon

>>10418402
wtf does "faster than anyone though possible" mean?
though possible?

>>10418431
spellcheck a shit?

the interesting takeaway from the postings is that they all show that the starship design will change and improve rapidly. The construction crew makes suggestions, those go into the next batch. also, the tank jobs say that they will later assist in transitioning to large-volume production.

which part of this 36580×37640 1.5gb image should I zoom into

>>10418478
also that grey hole exists it just didn't load since my viewer was being weird

>>10418431
Spelling error, I think they are of the opinion that the shift to SS has massively accelerated their timetable, seeing the hopper come together so quick with just some random water tank welder dudes I can fully believe that, in fact I think they will be able to crank out an absolute shitload of them once they get geared up, the raptors and tanks will be the limiting factor for sure.

>>10418478
This might be a stupid question but... what's the purpose for having pipes bent like that?

>>10418049
fuck that sucks. If SLS gets canceled or Orion never flies it'll probably add 20 years to manned deep space missions.

>>10418509
To reduce hydraulic shock?

>>10418509
There's some crazy bends in the pipes at the launch pad too. >>10411727

>>10418509
expansion https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/steel-pipe-expansion-loop-d_1069.html

>>10418478
these would be nice

>>10418558
huh. neato.

>>10418567
huh

>>10418561

>>10418588
aawww yeah that's some ghetto-ass pipe rigging if I've ever seen any (I have, it used to be my job)

>>10418592
I'm pretty sure I have that same c-clamp

>>10416251
>A spaceplane on the other hand can go as low as hundreds of thousands per launch.
Too bad they don't fucking work

>>10418666
>>10418651
>>10418618
>>10418588
These photos are fucking excellent. Too bad the thread is already auto saging.

>>10418618
trace those taps please

>>10418666
>"star hopper will be autogeneously pressurized"
>*installs helium COPVs*

>>10418515

The reverse. NASA can get fully on board with SpaceX and Blue Origin and move the state of human spaceflight ahead by a century within your own lifetime.

>>10418692
they said the final design is autogenously pressurized, but didn't say anything about the hopper

>>10418515
Dude SLS was never going to fly. No one seriously thought it would. It was always irrelevant to what happens in the 21st century.

>>10417303
>>10417379
>a26513651/elon-musk-interview-spacex-mars/
>For having an outdoorsy, fun atmosphere, you’d probably want to have some faceted glass dome, with a park, so you can walk around without a suit. Eventually if you terraform the planet, then you can walk around without a suit. But for say, the next 100-plus years, you’ll have to have a giant pressurized glass dome.
>the next 100-plus years

>>10418706
pretty sure there's literally an elon tweet saying they were going to use it on the hopper

>>10418716
yeah he's full of shit on that one
he's full of shit on a lot of things lol
at least his companies seem to do good work

>>10418716
Well technically 100-plus covers a lot of ground.

>>10418716
>early 21st century ground-dwellers comment on the practicality of planetary scale engineering.
God their arrogance knew no bounds. I'm glad they all perished in the third earth world war.

>>10418722
Well, technically anything above 100 is still "100-plus". But that's bad form. Although that might be the kind of populist bullshit a CEO has to feed to modern media.

>>10418730
>>10418734
Yeah too bad there's no space SEC, they'd be all over him for this one.

>>10418734
the sort of habidomes he was talking about earlier are really way more practical than full-on terraforming anyway, although the future is mole-people in space, for radiation protection

>>10418732
>>10418742
You don't need to be this defensive, not everyone is a vehement anti-Musk poster.

>>10418743
Eh, eventually you really need to have breathable air for your colony. Less points of failure. We are not roaches or mold, we are rather fragile.

>>10418755
no
mole-people

>>10418680
vertical one goes straight up and just ends in the air, not connected to anything. Other two just go right in the hopper

>>10418763
do they all go to roughly the same place?

>>10418765
yes

>>10418777
probably the brains of the whole operation with a complicated sensing package

>Mars is the best world in the solar system to start a colo-
blocks your path

>>10418794
Ganymede has like zero gravity because it's made of frozen farts. Don't like its girth fool you.
Relevant fact: Ganymede is the roman version of the greek Catamite, referring to a boy of astounding beauty whose role in mythology was to be fucked in the ass by a series of gods.

>>10418794
For a first colony, Lunar south pole is still where it's at.

Proximity eliminates the need for immediate operational independence, there's plenty of water ice, and developing a mining/manufacturing infrastructure on the Moon is critical for cheap large scale construction of ships or stations in space.

>>10418081
Top right - stage sep?

>>10418794
>try to do anything nearby in something less than a mega chonk rad shielded ship
>get fried by radiation from Jupiter
you need some more resources and tech before you can readily fuck around in the Jovian system

is this man fucking trolling the SEC

>>10418887
If you’re outside the plane of the equator it isn’t as bad

>>10418908

>>10418908
I thought somebody is supposed to be monitoring his tweets from now on?

>>10418716
In his defense, he did say 100+ years and not just 100. He's inviting the idea that what we think about the possibility and processes of terraforming could be completely wrong.

>>10418049
What a shitshow.

>>10418675
>Too bad the thread is already auto saging.
>7 hours ago
Yeah, what a terrible problem that is.

>>10419235
it's almost like they're fucking retarded crossboard posters who don't know a thing about /sci/, right?

new thread

>>10419229

>>10419240
you fucking DOUBLE NIGGER you SAID THE GODDAMN WORD why would you do that oh my god anon how could you