/sci/ - Science & Math

First for OP is a fag.

>>10459702

Raptor installed today.
First Hops tomorrow.
Orbital next week.
Warhammer 40k like mankind empire end of april.
Just said.

>>10459700
I bet Musk cooks meth inside this caravan.

>>10459700
Trumptards and Muskrats ruined this board.

>>10459723
Just seemed like the most interesting thing going on in spaceflight this week, fuck off

>>10459723
Funniest thing is a lot of Trumptards are turned Muskrats now because they apparently think Elon "called out the jew" and they also think Mars colonisation will be some all-white-nazi-wet-dream. Maybe this explains why his fan base has become so uber-annoying in the last year.

Do they technically need a FAA permit for tethered hops

>>10459767
Of course they do. Raptors are loud and things can explode. They need licenses for everything they do.

>>10459766
lol wat.
Why are so many of you butthurt about Musk?

Anyway,
Toyota just released a sweet rover concept

>>10459766
The funnier thing is how SpaceX supporter shifted from liberals to centrists. While the liberals now hate Elon musk, it used to be the centrists/conservative that wanted his head.

>>10459793
>Toyota rover
I wonder if the stereotypes about Toyota cars will carry over to their rovers.

>>10459727
>>10459793
>>10459797
Stop responding to it for fucks sake

>>10459793
>>10459798
>Hilux on the Moon

>>10459793
Here's the link, I should have included it

http://global.jaxa.jp/press/2019/03/20190312a.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

>>10459798
You mean cheap, reliable and fuel efficient?

>>10459846
I meant something more humorous but I just realized that Toyota cars don't really have any humorous stereotypes other than their extreme reliability of their pickups, and the silliness of the Prius.

>>10459846
Well it'll be at least fuel efficient, the concept is using H2O emitting fuel cells and solar.

>>10459793
There is a big difference between being triggered by a thing and the fan base of that thing.

Wategay

It's a shame seeing SLS go the way it is. It'll probably only fly three or four times, and Orion won't fly crewed for ten or twelve years if ever.

>>10459913
Disgusting. It´s like i am in 1990 again

>>10459923
Can't Orion fly on a different rocket?

>>10459930
Not to the moon, a boilerplate version has already flown on a Delta 4 Heavy and Orion could be launched to LEO on a New Glenn or Vulcan (Falcon Heavy too but the width difference would make it look ridiculous and likely structurally unstable). Some people have proposed a Vulcan ACES Orion launch, which can reach the moon via an on orbit refuelling, also Vulcan is Boeing and Lockheed's booster. But I haven't heard very promising things about ACES recently, seems like ULA are content with making a Super-Centaur Mk5 Ultimate-Edition V2.0 instead...

>>10459923
I think SLS's massive delays would've been forgiven if it hadn't have gotten so expensive.

It was advertised as a super heavy launcher that could be done for cheap because it used legacy parts that were not only already designed but built and tested too. But now it's becoming more expensive than a Saturn V per launch while having less payload capacity.

SLS still has a purpose however. It's the only super heavy launcher that can be built right now if needed. Rockets like BFR and New Glenn are still in their initial design phases and their futures are uncertain.

Nomadd says their closing the beach on Saturday.

>>10459994
noice

>>10459913
Can Starship dock this?

>>10460010
I think LOP-G has the international standard docking adapter so if Starship has one too then I don't see why not unless it was unscheduled.

>>10459994
is there an official announcement yet?

>>10459793
could you live in these, they are already mobile shelters right?

>>10459925
You would eat its asshole out if Elon announced it as a SpaceX project instead of NASA.

>>10460032
Yeah, here's the bit from the article
" As envisioned in this project, a vehicle that has an enclosed body equipped with functions and space that enable astronauts to live in the vehicle for fixed periods without wearing space suits, that allows ingress and egress while wearing space suits, and that makes possible sustainable mobility on the surface of a moon or planet by way of astronaut operation, remote operation, or autonomous driving"

>>10459793
another pic

>>10460039
these look awesome I wonder if space suits designed for moon ops will differ greatly from simple eva suits. Might be that we are on our way to power armour or something

Falcon Heavy static fire is scheduled for March 30th

>>10459793
>>10459807
Just make one of these air-tight and send it up. I guarantee it'll outlast the solar system.

>>10459793
There is some irony in that both the far right and far left, and liberals/conservatives as well, both get triggered just as easily. I've seen a lot of the MAGA-tards go full liberal snowflake meltdown over pretty much the same tiny things

>>10460072
I blame the "Us vs Them" mentality that's so common nowadays.

"Oh? You have an opinion that's slightly different than mine? Fuck you! You must be one of THEM who seek to ruin everything I love!"

What happened to agreeing to disagree?

>>10460083
Completely agree
Just look at the past 20 years of us politics. Both sides blocking shit because the other side put it forth, just to spite each other

>>10460083
>What happened to agreeing to disagree?
Time war.

>>10459797
>While the liberals now hate Elon musk
wat

>>10460135
socialists who think that his altruism and goals paint capitalist centric pursuits in a positive light, or environmentalists who want focus on climate problems.

Those socs think he is setting back the prole revolution

>>10460135
Stop responding to /pol/tards. This board isn't for politics.

Let's talk about space

>>10460141
Praise him for making electric cars but hate him for making rockets?

>>10460151
they hate him for both. Because he is an outlier. He this awkward sounding goof with big ideas. He breaks up the norm in which lefties or tankies or whatever flavour socks you like view the capitalist hegemony. [even if there is enough freedom for co-ops and any structure. Without total converstion it'll never be enough for them]

>>10460145
>dock
>open hatch
>russian crew is overcome by the smell of lucky strike and mcdonalds-farts
>american crew passes out from cabage-farts and BO

>>10459797
This is completely untrue. I'm following space industries since the early 00s. Elon Musk was basically unkown to the general public 5 years ago and then he made the hyperloop statement and he seemingly really liked the public attention. From then on he concentrated more and more on being a celebrity and today this seems to be his main playing field.

>>10460145
I wonder how Russia will react to Dragon 2 and Star-liner.
Will they innovate or die?

>>10460173
USA is playing catch-up here. Though they will greatly miss the money from flying american astronauts up.

>>10460173
They’ll die

>>10459793
Thats a lot cooler than the truck NASA showed of a few years back

>>10460223
You mean this thing?
I kinda agree, something about it doesn't seem like it would handle very uneven terrain well.

>>10459923

Both should be cancelled ASAP.

>>10459992

>It's the only super heavy launcher that can be built right now if needed.

Not needed. You can do a whole bunch of stuff with smaller launchers and can procure a big launcher from better launch firms at any deferred point in time or right now.

So we have the gateway and the SLS. Any work or plans done on
-landers?
-habitats?
-rovers(manned/unmanned)?
-suits?
-epic lazers for fighting of the moon nazis?

>>10460254
small landers are being developed by commercial industry with the help of NASA

>>10460254

You spent your moonbase budget on SLS Orion and Gateway.

Moon development needs cheap access to the lunar surface and budget space for program content. Not only does SLS and Orion lock you into a high cost surface access model, it sucks up all the budget wedge air leaving you little for program content.

>>10460223
>>10460227

They have a new vehicle that currently works and runs very well. Its the thing on the left with the square like opening.
They have an outdoor "Mars" area to drive it around in for testing, it works pretty well.
I think Josh Gates got to drive it in one of his shows.

This is the Houston location

Is there any cheap moon habitats in the works? Well by cheap I mean relatively mass produceable and cheap for spacetech

>>10460304
Bigelow had some lunar concepts long ago.. but they are very quiet recently

>>10460254
Why would you need those if you've got yourself a killer space station and the largest most powerful rocket ever made?

>>10460254
>>10460282
NASA has plenty of R&D going on, just nothing really being advertised like SLS and Orion. Those are the big attention grabbers right now.

>>10460304
>buy starship from spacex
>land it on the Moon
>rename it to "Trump Base" (optional depending on context - "Pocahontas")

Congratulations you've got yourself a very large lunar base whose internal volume is similar to a small apartment building making it much bigger than anything you could have built using toy landers and it didn't even take a century. A miracle. You now may proceed to supply it with crew and cargo using multiple SLS launches over the next decades and even begin planning the ultimate step - finally sending people to man it before 2070.

>>10460308
Robert Bigelow still keeps open conversations with NASA and things are slowly moving forward.
Dragon2/Starliner has been keeping them busy as of late.

They've deployed a BEAM on the ISS. It arrived just under 2 years ago on a Falcon9, it was the CRS-8 mission.

>>10460350
Just under 3 years ago, not 2

>>10460254
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Lunar_Payload_Services

These are some of the payloads.
The catch with these is that NASA will not pay for R&D of them, and only pay to use them as a service.
Because of that, I'd expect a few of them to not make it to the Moon.

>>10460341
Starship isn't a thing. Why everybody here thinks we should bet all our money on a highly ambitious rocket actually getting developed is beyond me.

>>10460360
>inb4 orbital flight before SLS (EM-1)
EM2 would be too unfair so I'm generous here.

>>10460360
New Glenn is also in this weight class, so the odds of a non-NASA SHLV flying soon are pretty good still.

>>10460173
There is an immense amount of salt.
>https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/with-dragon-russian-critic-says-roscosmos-acting-left-behind/

>>10460350
I think Bigelow had an agreement to launch a 330m^3 station module on either a Vulcan or Atlas once the commercial crew vehicles began regular ISS flights.

>>10460379
Good luck to them lol.
Also, here's the latest starship pic from NSF forums.
Bulkhead access hatches have both been opened following some kind of tank test yesterday.

>>10460383
His current contract is to keep the BEAM on the ISS until next year. They're still checking it out for development.

I'd love to see more go up into space, I think if done properly the BEAMs will be very useful.

>>10460379
I wonder if they'll force the use of gasmasks on the starliner too and whether that will become a tradition every time some new hardware is introduced.

If the americans don't respond in kind it will be an admission of cuckoldry.

>>10460083
Well first of all, American politics is stupid through and through.
I'm not talking about the people in it. Just, the entire system of voting is completely broken. It starts at the way votes count different between states, the fact that it's first past the post, making more than two parties impossible and if you live in one of the red or blue states, you might as well not even bother going to the election at all. Then eventually you get down to shit like gerrymandering and find out voting is even completely fucked on the most local level.
And that's before Russia starts mounting fake news campaigns and people start changing voting laws to exclude as many voters of the other party as possible.

Then you take this broken system with its two parties and add billionaire run news media all sucking up to one party or the other respectively. Ultimately it leads to the entire country being unable to talk about any actual issue anymore. It's all just about WHO says something, not WHAT they say.
So when Trump gets tough on China or Iran, people start to actually defend those countries just because they don't like Trump.
Meanwhile a Republican hears the word green and immediately goes into a frothing rage. You could make a project that costs pennies and creates 5 million jobs, but if it's related to diminishing dependence on coal or oil a Republican wouldn't want to hear it simply because those are democratic ideas.

It's all completely fucked.

>>10460415
The reason is simple
>give them an inch and they'll take a mile or two
With that in mind the situation makes perfect sense.

>>10460297
>They have an outdoor "Mars" area to drive it around in for testing, it works pretty well.
google map coordinates are: @29.5649164,-95.0811083

>>10460379
Amusingly enough still lower salinity than ESA's extreme butthurt response to SpaceX

>>10460479
>Amusingly enough still lower salinity than ESA's extreme butthurt response to SpaceX
Which response are you referring to specifically?

>>10460479
Can you link a source on this

>>10460415
electoral college is dumb but it provides a counterweight to another stupid idea - lack of universal IDs and birthright citizenship, which makes importing illegal immigrants to influence elections and alter voting demographic easy

ideally both of these would be solve at the same time, as is the case in most of the rest of the world, but that would require reason and compromise

>>10460173
They have no money and most of the people who was working on soviet space program is way beyond retirement age.
Blatant corruption is also unlikely to help them.

>>10460494
Any interview by anyone in charge of ESA.
They keep demanding that Europe mandate any sattelite from there to go on Ariane 6 to justify production of the vehicle.
Then they complain about US government subsidising SpaceX by overpaying on their launches.
Oh and reusability is of course not proven to reduce prices.

I mean, I can kind of understand them. After having an overly expensive vehicle with an inefficient supply chain for a ages now, they're finally about to launch their newest rocket, it's looking pretty good over all with a bunch of effective cost-cutting methods in place and it's all retooled to exactly cater to markets.
Except the markets got disrupted in the meantime and everyone asks about reusability now. Must be pretty frustrating.
Ariane 6 would be pretty cool if it was still 2009.

>>10460402
Gas masks were to ensure that there wasn't something wrong with the air in an *unmanned* craft. For instance, what if something happened to cause a leak from the hydrazine maneuvering fuel in Starliner? I think they do basically the same every time they open up a Dragon 1. When Starship gets there someday, if the first docking is manned, it won't get the gas mask treatment.

>>10460544
>Oh and reusability is of course not proven to reduce prices.
I mean SpaceX is so far the only launch provider who does reused boosters, and if I recall correctly SpaceX hasn't actually disclosed completely if reused boosters are actually cheaper to fly than expendable boosters. For all we know, SpaceX can be fibbing about the cost of a reused booster and is only offering cheaper prices to increase launch volume.

Also Ariane had a point that even if reusable boosters are cheaper to fly than expendable boosters, then only a handful of boosters can meet all launches for years due to the very small yearly launch volume (I think Ariane used 14 launches per year). Meanwhile the engineers who built the boosters will have to be laid off because new boosters wouldn't be needed for a long time. And by the time those boosters need to be replaced that skill set is gone either hired by different companies or retired. So new engineers will have to be trained and new tooling will have to be acquired (or the old tooling will have to be taken out of storage) which could end up driving up the costs to the point that actually reusable boosters are more expensive in the long term than expendable.

I'm not saying that reusable boosters are not viable, but there are reasonable apprehensions to them.

>>10460151
>>10460135
>responding to polcels
stop
>>10460145
I think the real thing would have been more cramped than that illustration makes it out to be kek
>>10459994
Moon base when ;-;
Moon base alpha when :^)

>>10460594
>>Meanwhile the engineers who built the boosters will have to be laid off because new boosters wouldn't be needed for a long time. And by the time those boosters need to be replaced that skill set is gone either hired by different companies or retired.

ok we're never going to forget how to make rockets lmao relax, there will always be demand for new vehicles.

>>10460544
Stop drinking your own kool aid. Arianespace is doing better on the commercial market than SpaceX does and Ariane 6 will just increase that gap.

>>10460609
Lol if you believe that, stop accusing SpaceX of being at an unfair advantage due to subsided by the US government in your interviews Stephane ;)

>>10460141
A lot of commies also get mad when tech billionaires support ubi, since that ruins their plans to give socialism one more try.

>>10460617
he's been here forever just ignore it

>>10460010

>>10460617
*being

>>10460617
There is no "believe that". You can go on and count how many commercial contracts Arianespace has and how many SpaceX does. Each Ariane 5 launch are two F9 launch and Arianespace also launches Soyuz and Vega rockets. They have more commercial missions, period.

>>10460505
>lack of universal ID
i will never understand why this is such a big issue in the states. Its literally just a passport or piece of plastic like a driving licence, yet people on both sides act like its the end of the world

>>10460402
Its a,great concept, if they could integrate gudrogenated boron nitride and some water bladders it would also take the edge off radiation.

>>10460628
Extreme distrust of the government can do that.

Plus Americans already have a national ID, the Social Security Card. The problem is that it's a poor ID.

>>10460624
Fucking lol, what a monster

>>10460624
Starship's bigger than the damn station

>>10460634
more pressurized space than the ISS in one launch

>>10460594
>and if I recall correctly SpaceX hasn't actually disclosed completely if reused boosters are actually cheaper to fly than expendable boosters
I think they can offer maybe about a 10% discount due to the extra inspections they do at this phase, but the more important factor for many launch customers is being able to move up their launch dates.
A reusable first stage reduces the time between SpaceX having available 'inventory' for sale without demanding much more capital equipment. Having rockets ready to fly sooner than competitors means a customer like Orbcomm or Iridium can get their satellites on-station earlier than they would otherwise. That in turn means they start making money faster, so even if they don't have any direct or substantial savings on rockets right now they're still better off because their revenue stream starts up earlier than it would have with a different provider.

>>10459793
nice nod to the fj40 grille

>>10460633
then upgrade it?

>>10460635
It's bigger on the inside than ISS is right now.

>>10460642
If one launch gets delayed all the other launches that were supposed to reuse that booster will also get delayed. Refurbishing is also difficult to plan because the refurbishment each booster needs can vary greatly. Reusing boosters is definetely not good for having a high launch date reliability.

As to the cost cuts, the american government isn't getting any cost advantage between reused and new. I dont know if those are actually a thing.

>>10460642
You have a point but I still think that it's safe to be on the cautious side. The Space Shuttle made similar promises that SpaceX is making with their booters and look at how well that turned out.

>>10460644
Can't. Government mistrust, remember?

>>10460652
>Can't. Government mistrust, remember?
crazy how that works

>>10460651
No, they've shuffled boosters before. As long as they have their dispenser ready and don't need to change the other hardware (like taking off or adding fins and legs if it was going to be an expendable flight) customers have opted to switch to an earlier option when first stages become available.
>https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2017/10/iridium-4-flight-proven-falcon-9-rtls-vandenberg-delayed/

>>10460652
The Shuttle also needed a lot more intensive work because the orbiter was also part of the hardware that produced thrust. A better comparison for the Shuttle is how SpaceX has been refurbishing and re-flying Dragon capsules now. Because they go through an even rougher trip than the first stage (and get dropped in salt water), it takes a lot longer to turn them around.

>>10460642
The reality is for commercial launches, Arianespace still is cheaper than SpaceX. For cargo transport to ISS, Orbital ATK is cheaper than SpaceX. For crew transport to ISS, Boeing has the same price tag as SpaceX does.

I'm really curious to see what they will charge private tourists each. Because so far, SpaceX didn't really make anything cheaper, except for military contracts that previously went to ULA-monopoly.

>>10460669
SpaceX still is in a launch date mess because of that booster they lost last year during landing.

>>10460627
Are you serious? Are you literally deluded or just trolling? Ariane is being absolutely crippled by space x

>>10460643
lol wow good catch! I hadn't noticed that when posting it.

>>10460670
You seem to know a lot about the pricing structures. Mind posting them or do you prefer to keep speaking out of your asshole?

>>10460676
No, they are not. You can just look into each companie's launch manifest and compare who has more commercial missions.

>>10460672
That's true, SpaceX still needs to build up an inventory of boosters to be able to handle mishaps during their return.

>>10460624
how is the starship planning to generate power on board rtg? are their solar panels that we aren't seeing?

>>10460672
>>10460684
The event your referring to is the Radarsat launch being delayed by B1050 going in the drink, right? That's a very specific situation, where the contract with the Canadian government specifically says the booster should be lightly reused; the actual problem here is that SpaceX have too many boosters that have flown multiple times, as they've basically been circulating the same roster of boosters since mid-2018 minus a few exceptions. Therefore, SpaceX have been waiting for another new booster to come through the pipeline and fulfill the contract requirement of lightly reused, which B1051 only fits due to having been launched only once and to LEO.

>>10460682
Stop responding to the shill
He's been here for ages, spamming that very precise same line
Anything you say will be ignored
Any debate made, he will just pretend never happened in the next thread for the next round of perpetual shilling

>>10460725
Solar panels near the base is the current plan, but I could see that changing a lot. Having the panels that low on the vehicle are good for the interplanetary cruise, but it's inconvenient for surface operations.

>>10460682
NASA and military have to make it public how much they are spending on launches, so those info can be gathered easily with a bit of google-time. For commercial launches Ariane 5 had 5-7 launches each year between 2005 and 2009. Between 2010 and 2019 they also have 5-7 launches each year. This big market eruption caused by SpaceX doesn't really exist.

>>10460683
arianespace doesn't have their future missions posted on their website, so here
https://www.rocketlaunch.live/?filter=arianespace

scroll down to future missions
https://www.spacex.com/missions

idk I'm too lazy to go through and count

>>10460731
So how is this refuting the fact that reuse makes launch date planning much harder?

>>10460748
Because the original argument was that reuse makes scheduling launches harder, the other guy refuted by saying that they are able to mitigate delays by swapping reused boosters, then someone countered that by using Radarsat delays as an example of them not being able to swap boosters, I then explained why Radarsat is a unique situation due to mission requirements and not reflective of the norm.

>>10460746
Using future missions is dumb, use flown missions

>>10460624
>that space station

That's a penis.

>>10460778
We're trying to predict the future of these companies here, not compare histories. Obviously Arianespace will have the age advantage so will have flown more missions, no one is arguing they haven't.

what role will blue origin play in the future of space travel. Do we know anything about the new glenn? It's still several years off but it seems like their pace of development is much slower.

>>10460792
Missions per year for 2018, anon
Give me the numbers

>>10460823
I uhhhhhh

>>10460806
From the looks of it, New Glenn will be slightly higher performance than Falcon Heavy under full reusability, but it's uncertain if Blue Origin is ever going to willingly expend many if any boosters so it has a lower performance ceiling.
As an organization, Blue Origin feels like it's halfway between old and new aerospace. They're pushing the limits, but Bezos' deep pockets mean they can work on developing almost all the way to a design that doesn't need dramatic changes to meet their final requirements, unlike SpaceX with the Falcon 9.

>>10460806
bezos has infinite money to throw at it, the BE-4 appears to be doing well and the rocket itself appears to be a sound design. Not much else anyone can tell you right now.

The biggest question really is what they'll be launching once these vehicles become ready and if they'll be cheap enough to push ULA, arianespace and roscosmos out of the market

Ugliest rocket ever designed.

>>10460854
Idk man. Some of Goddard's pendulum rockets were pretty gnarly.

How difficult would manufacture be in space or on the moon. How long until we can build even small ships without really the same aerodynamic constraints for clearing atmospheres.

>>10460806
Depends on what you mean with slow development. Blue Origin has going serious money towards them only since 2013, e.g. since Bezos has become filthy rich, while SpaceX has serious money going to them since 2008, e.g. since they got picked by NASA to provide ISS cargo. New Glenn will be an absoluetely amazing rocket, definetely has the potential to be THE backbone of american space industry in the 2020s. It can do anything from launching commercial satellites for relatively cheaply to doing deep space missions on its 3-stage configuration.

>>10460837
Blue Origin is 100% new space. They are building a reusable methane-rocket. Can't go more new space than that.

>>10459994
Kill yourself.

>>10460872
>Blue Origin has going serious money towards them only since 2013
2016

nice font

>>10460872
>Blue Origin is 100% new space.
I mean how the company is structured and run. SpaceX seems much faster to respond to potential design changes (like the sudden switch to stainless from composites for BFR).

>>10460897
that is a really odd place to have such a stylized font

>>10460910
SpaceX has 3-4x the money to throw around, and 6x the employees.

>>10460911
"We spared no expense."

>>10460872
>It can do anything from launching commercial satellites for relatively cheaply to doing deep space missions on its 3-stage configuration.

WOAH HOLY SHIT DUDE, NO ROCKET HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO BOTH THOSE THINGS!

>Blue Origin is 100% new space. They are building a reusable methane-rocket. Can't go more new space than that.

>Hydrogen-powered upper stage
Check.
>Low maximum launch-cadence (12 per year)
Check.
>Factory in Huntsville, Alabama
Check.
>Staffed mainly by industry veterans
Check.
>Receiving large amounts of government money despite being subsidised by the world's richest man
Check.
>un-economical decisions to maximise performance e.g. expendable H upper stage, over 700 people working on the launch pad and buying and maintaining a large ferry to land rockets on.
Check.

Seems like BO is an old space company approaching a new space concept: reusable rockets, they lack the frugality and scrappiness of a true new space company.

>>10460918
SpaceX needs more employees since they're actually building and launching more than a glorified grasshopper. I'd be careful to guess how much money blue origin has available. chances are Bezos is willing to drop whatever is required into it

>>10460946
>I'd be careful to guess how much money blue origin has available. chances are Bezos is willing to drop whatever is required into it
So you're just making up shit now?

>>10460806
>what role will blue origin play
catch up

>>10460942
SpaceX
>$6 billion in federal subsidies
Blue Origin
>$50 million in federal subsidies

Seems like Blue Origin is the only new space company, as admitted by your own metrics.

>>10460950
no. What's his personal fortune? Like $150 billion? Why wouldn't he drop a fraction of that into blue origin? Still more than enough left to do whatever the fuck he wants

>>10460954
It's already well known how much Bezos puts into Blue Origin.

>>10460959
and you decide that is "as much as he's willing to put into Blue Origin" as opposed to "as much as is required to be put into Blue Origin to keep developement on track" on what basis?

>>10460963
Why should anybody care what your opinions are on how much money Bezos "secretly" puts into Blue Origin?

>>10460969
point out where i said anything about him putting money "secretly" into blue origin. I said that chances are he's willing to dump whatever is required into it.

>>10460979
>"I'd be careful to guess how much money blue origin has available."

>>10460643
More like the Toyota FJ

>>10460982
context is king. We're talking about their future developement.

>>10460996
>We're talking about their future developement.
Who is "we?"

>>10460911
I would expect a cinematic of "The Engine that got man to Mars" might be made, and this igniter to be part of it. Gotta look cool.

>>10460494
>>10460497
Arsetechnica has had some good articles: https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/

"Asked about how the Ariane 5 compares to lower-cost alternatives on the market today, such as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, Stefano Bianchi, Head of ESA Launchers Development Department, responded with a question of his own. “Are you buying a Mercedes because it is cheap?”

Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of the world’s least expensive car. As he put it, “We don’t sell a Tata.”"

>>10461002
follow the reply chain and find out

>>10461006
lol now that's high salinity

>>10460494
>>10460497
And:

However, the US military says it pays more for launches because of its mission assurance requirements, which require extra steps to be taken for preparing and attaching the payload alongside myriad other system checks to ensure a safe ride to space for costly national security payloads. What does Charmeau think of this explanation?

“I would be surprised if SpaceX explained to commercial customers that they deliver bullshit to them,” he replied. “I would be extremely surprised by that.”

>>10461010
Kek I know, it's hilarious. I wish I could have seen the look on their faces watching Dragon last week. I bet the conversations about it over their no-doubt delicious lunch during their 2 hour lunch break were tres mauvais

>>10460911
Kaliningrad is not Russia it is occupied Prussian clay.

>>10461006
lol

>>10460870
Well they could potentially be made out of concrete and launched via a mass accelerator, but I think any in orbit or moon based fab is decades in the future. They would have to get so much kit up there it will take years.

>>10460870
Non-atmospheric-capable ships will be strictly limited to travelling within the asteroid belt. Won't be able to shed enough delta-v without aerobraking to do anything else.

>>10461030
i don't understand the focus on crew dragon, neither in relation to the russians nor now in relation to arianespace. The hit in commercial sat launches is far more paineful to both of them (well, arianespace doesn't even offer crew transfer, nor did the europeans plan for it since they killed hermes in the early 90s) and that has been going on for far longer. Crew dragon doesn't really change anything about that either.

>>10461014
>>10461014
>“I would be surprised if SpaceX explained to commercial customers that they deliver bullshit to them,”

Holy Kek the salt

>>10461059
Aerobraking is available on a total of two useful planets, Earth and Mars. Titan is too far for chemical rockets and no point aerobraking into Venus unless you feel like dying.

>>10461068
Yes so once you cross off earth mars and venus you're stuck with the asteroids. Which is exactly what I said.

>>10461063
well, you have to respect their determination. Arianespace is literally willing to potentially toast a bunch of spics instead of aborting a launch that is leaving safe parameters. Don't see SpaceX going that far

>>10460624
It would be kind of upsetting to see that big shiny bastard dock and then float across from the ISS to be greeted by Elon and a bunch of sexy space babes quaffing zero-g cocktails in the most opulent space ship imaginable, and then all too soon having to return to your stinky, creaky, duct-taped orbital hovel for another 6 months of muscular atrophy and pooing into a vacuum chute.

>>10461076
>Mercury
>Luna
>Ceres
>Phobos
>Deimos

Also the Jovian system is potentially doable with chemical rockets too.

>>10461093
>Phobos
>Deimos
Very hard without aerobraking. You're blasting in from Earth at a shocking speed. That's why I said moving slowly around the asteroid belt is about the best you can do.
>Luna
Doesn't count.

>>10461060
Well ok but it can hardly be good for morale either, can it? Just when you're trying to recover from the shoeing SpaceX delivered to you with Falcon Heavy and reusability really proving viable, they come back and stamp on your head with human-rated flight, and then threaten to come back later and finish you off completely with BFR.

>>10461077
>Arianespace is literally willing to potentially toast a bunch of spics
Eh?

>>10461093
You need nuclear energy past mars. As solar power doesn't work anymore. So you might as well use a nuclear drive too.

>>10461100
Phobos requires only a 1 k/s deceleration to match from Earth, you would waste tremendously more fuel aerobraking into mars then matching all that speed again taking off from Mars

>Luna
>Doesn't count

Ok buddy

>>10461124
Luna doesn't count because we were talking about building ships on the Moon. We're already on the fucking moon so it doesn't count as a destination.

>>10461108
Sure, but petty squarrels change nothing for their plans. Commercial Falcon 9 and Heavy launched hurt them bad and force them to seriously adapt in order to stay competitive in the future. The crew launches are completely irrelevant (arianespace) to a minor inconvenience (Russians) to SpaceXs competitors.

>>10461091
Such is life in gov space

>>10460042
stiffenable roll-able solar panels that's really cool? Looks like we begin a new age of sail. Any bets on what year the first act of space piracy occurs?

>>10461118
>Solar doesn't work past Mars

Meme for brainlets. Solar film has a light enough energy density to make it viable.

Could a space green house environment work? moon cottage sounds cozy.

>>10461112
SES14/Al Yah 3 tandem launch should have been terminated after it went 20° of course after launch

>>10461133
The surface area required would be creeping into sail territory.

>>10459793
Great now we're gonna have moon terrorists.

>>10461147
>solar sail doubles as energy generation

whats the problem

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

>>10461147
Good thing they weigh next to nothing then. Even if thin film solar doesn't live up to its promises, a mylar sail concentrating light onto regular panels is even lighter again.

>>10461129
>to a minor inconvenience (Russians)

Kek, you know they used to launch Soyuz for free if they had one foreign astronaut on board? Now they have lost almost all their foreign astronauts. They are in deep shit.

>>10461165
Yes, I do know that. And it's still peanuts compared to the shit they're in due to loosing commercial launches to cheaper options, combined with the bad PR of recent reliability problems.

>>10459994

>>10461129
Oh come off it - if the situation were reversed there would be no end of self-satisfied crowing from ESA. Dragon is a massive achievement by any measure, and has been hailed as such. SpaceX is making ESA look like mugs, hence the off the scale salinity

>>10460946
>chances are Bezos is willing to drop whatever is required into it
Chances are he'll have to ask the ol' ball and chain first.

>>10461130
Lol

>>10461138
Ah

>>10461150
Heinlein predicted this!

>>10461193
Didn't he got divorced not long ago?

>>10461191
All I'm saying is that they have way more reason to be salty due to lost commercial launches since it's hurting them a lot harder
>>10461193
Even if she leaves with half his shit he has more than enough left

>>10461193
I can't believe Bezos let the little head set space exploration back potentially decades

>>10461209
>75bn could have been dumped into blue origin
>will probably get dumped into ineffective african development aid instead

>>10461208
>All I'm saying is that they have way more reason to be salty due to lost commercial launches since it's hurting them a lot harder
Well true. Wtf is going to happen to Ariane when BFR is sorted? Surely they have to go for reusability and fast

>>10460897
Like an early '80s futuristic sci-fi font.

>>10460624
is this scale real? will a private company really eclipse the combined efforts of all leading world governments and $100 billion of spending in a single launch?

>>10461341
it's a big ship

>>10461345
For you.

>>10461384
Show me a bigger one thats gonna get built tough guy

>>10461341
And this isn't even as big as Musk wants to go. He'd like to revisit the old ITS-sized booster when BFR is a commercial success.
For reference, BFR/Starship/Superheavy/Stainless Steel Heinlein Rocket is a 9m diameter vehicle. ITS was a 12m diameter vehicle.

>>10461341
That is if BFR launches without any major screw-ups. Although personally, my hopes are higher with BFR than SLS.

>>10461384
The flight plan I just filed with NASA lists me, my men, and Elon Musk here, but only one of you. The first one to talk gets to go to Mars.

>>10461341
It will cause NASA/Senate to suicide if Starship succeeds in orbit before SLS even launches.

>>10461442
As funny as it would be to see BFR beat SLS. I highly doubt that this will happen. EM-1 is set to launch on June of next year, and BFR is only just starting it's scaled testing.

Unless somehow, the proposal from the White House to cut the SLS's budget made the contractors go full "milking mode" on the project to squeeze as much money from it before it gets canceled which results in heavy delays.

>>10461467
>EM-1 is set to launch on June of next year
>He hasn't heard

>>10461475
Of what? The budget cut proposal from the White House? You know that the cuts will only effect versions of the SLS beyond Block 1.

>>10461475

>>10461483
they also won't even happen, because it was a budget proposal after all

>>10461483
No, they're re-assessing the launch date for EM-1 because of more delays.

Someone needs to fund a moon based water mining company to sell hydrogen and oxygen to spacecraft in moon orbit, it's going to be such a lucrative business opportunity.

>>10461439
SLS would probably work quite well - it's proven technology
It's the bureaucratic pace with which they are advancing that is slowing them down
Meanwhile SpaceX marching forward with new tech. Good shit.

>>10461497
I know, that it will most likely not happen, but if the President of the United States says that a project needs cuts, then his request will be taken seriously.

>>10461500
Do you have a source on that? Because all I can find on the EM-1 date says June 2020.

Does anyone think the shiny bfr looks far more imposing. Like you are dabbing on the rest of the worlds space program

>>10461506
john madden

>>10461512
this but unironically

>>10461510
https://spacenews.com/nasa-reassessing-date-for-first-sls-launch/

Vritually every valid space news has a story about it from what I can find.

>>10461506
There will definitely be market for liquid oxygen cracked from water but no one will buy the Hydrogen because everyone will be using methane engines on their reusable vehicles so you will need to find some Carbon somewhere on the moon.

>>10461521
You could sell it to Jeff Who, since he's still in love with hydrolox.

>>10461521
Moon-launched cryogenic rockets. Crack the water for the fuels, tank em, then when ready pump into the rocket for lunar launch.

Hell since there's no atmosphere one could make them reuseable, too.

>>10461521
>no one will buy the Hydrogen because everyone will be using methane engines on their reusable vehicles
Source?

>>10461521
Dude since this is all in the future we can just use fusion reactors to smash 6 hydrogen atoms together, 6 Protons, and bam there's your carbon.

>>10461511
This is what China thought of the Falcon Heavy, and it's not nearly as imposing:
>What really shocks us Chinese is not only that our country currently doesn’t have rockets of such magnitude, but the fact that we are almost 10 years behind; more importantly, what our country has to desperately catch up with is actually a private U.S. enterprise…

>To put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power that why they are still the strongest country in the world and how wide the gap really is between us and them
https://thediplomat.com/2018/02/china-has-mixed-feelings-about-elon-musks-falcon-heavy-success/

>>10461521
Why will everyone be using methane?

>Liquid Hydrogen--the Fuel of Choice for Space Exploration

Despite criticism and early technical failures, the taming of liquid hydrogen proved to be one of NASA's most significant technical accomplishments. . . . Hydrogen -- a light and extremely powerful rocket propellant -- has the lowest molecular weight of any known substance and burns with extreme intensity (5,500°F). In combination with an oxidizer such as liquid oxygen, liquid hydrogen yields the highest specific impulse, or efficiency in relation to the amount of propellant consumed, of any known rocket propellant.

>>10461535
It diffuses into tank walls and turns them brittle.

>>10461535
Yeah I think for inter-body vehicles Hydrogen is almost a no-brainer, for example a lot of second stages on current rockets use hydrogen.

>>10461506
Call Dasani on that.

>>10461518
Thank you. It's odd that a specific month isn't given for EM-1, that doesn't inspire confidence.

Also...
>...the Block 1B version of SLS, be ready for flight no later than 2024.
This was funny to me.

>>10461545
They want 2020, but not sure which month, so chances are the months will slip from mid to late 2020. And then by next year, it might slip to early 2021.

>>10461545
lol we need to solicit coal mining companies to turn their efforts towards the moon!

>>10461527
>>10461535
>What is Hydrogen embrittlement

>>10461554
>die of moon dust poisoning instead

>>10461550
That's really disappointing. The SLS does serve a purpose beyond just a jobs program, and it's sad to see how poorly it's being managed.

>>10461554
Forget coal mining companies, call the oil companies.

>>10461571
They still have money to make here on Earth, oil has a good 60-100 years left. Coal is being killed NOW

>>10461558
When has hydrogen embrittlement ever been a problem in aerospace applications?

>>10461614
>SLS would
Never only because it doesn't stay around long

>>10461621
so It's both a problem for metal tanks and composites? Or just one?

>>10461558
I'm not sure if hydrogen embrittlement is a major issue unless for ultra long missions with little maintenance. However, hydrogen does leak out of tanks through the molecules which can be tricky for long term storage like in a propellant depot.

>>10461625
it's a problem for metals/alloys that aren't used in aerospace, I.E. is a musktard meme

the reality is spacex isn't using it because methane ISRU is easier, and they only want one propellant type on their vehicle

SpaceX is run by a man
the SLS program is run by a woman
really makes you think

>>10461676
SpaceX is run by Gwynne Shotwell, idiot

>>10461676
>SpaceX is run by a man
Gwynne Shotwell is a woman

>SLS program is run by a woman
I can't find who specifically is the head of the project.

>>10461686
>>10461690
>SpaceX is run by Gwynne Shotwell
Gwynne Shotwell is the equivalent of the door-to-door sales(woman) for Elon's products.

>>10461694
>CEO
>just a door to door salesman
your image is a selfie

>>10461700
Explain her duties in detail then, idiot.

>>10461614
It's fine when you load it and then immediately shoot the vehicle and dump it in the ocean, not when you have to continuously reuse components being dissolved by pure liquid acid fuck you fuel.

>>10461703
Source?

>>10461701
she has a math and engineering degree and has a history of managing aerospace companies before spacex. Why do you hate women?

I just heard from a friend of mine in Brownsville that the SpaceX pad just exploded.

>>10461717
any sources on this?

>>10461724
Nope

>>10461694
She was back during Falcon 1. She's now president and COO, so day-to-day business dealings are left to her. And i doubt Elon has the aptitude to handle that as well as her.

>>10461694
>Gwynne Shotwell is the equivalent of the door-to-door sales(woman) for Elon's products.
No, she is the President and Chief Operating Officer of SpaceX

>>10461701
What does that entail?
She is second in command only to Elon himself. Before you conclude that this means that Elon is in charge of SpaceX, remember that Elon is only the CEO of SpaceX. Gwynne, being the COO, actually manages the operations within the business. Her Bachelor's in Mechanical Engineering compared to Elon's Bachelor's in Economics along with her assigned role shows that Gywnne manages the engineering side of SpaceX.

While Elon is great at coming up with ideas and getting money to fund them, he hires people to do the "gritty detailing" for him. Gritty details such as project management and the engineering behind the project.

>>10461714
>she has a math and engineering degree and has a history of managing aerospace companies before spacex
and?
>Why do you hate women?
Projecting much?

>>10461732
>No, she is the President and Chief Operating Officer of SpaceX
and that changes what I said how?

>Explain her duties in detail then, idiot.
>What does that entail?
Are you literally retarded?

>>10461737

>>10461747
>>Explain her duties in detail then, idiot.
>>What does that entail?
If you look a bit further down, then you'll see what I have explained about her duties from a light research on the topic.

>>10461749
>that shitty as fuck watermark

>>10461754

>>10461758
>posting a shitty meme actor

>>10461761

>>10461768

>>10461781

>>10461781
ok start posting space things

>>10461786
ok

>>10461786
Okay.
Apollo 11 playlist for those who want to hear some cool synth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFrbz4_gYx0&list=PLfzW_wEeYxk6artt0fYd-l-ciNeEe2OVI

>>10459718
Wouldn't you?

>>10461717
A SpaceX pad just flew over my house

>>10461800
would anyone be interested if I dump my space music

>>10461809
do what makes you happy man

>>10461806
same

>>10461809
Sure, my dude! As long as the mods are fine with it. My old "space time" playlist needs some updating.

where’s our L2 lad with the nice snaps
He usually posts a couple each thread

>>10461717
The SpaceX pad just stole my Klondike bar.

>>10461717
OH NO IT'S ALL GONE BLACK
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7zia2HqOOc
Seriously though, what are those five flickering lines?

>>10461837
The gas pipeline relief valves that run up to the pad, all spewing flames
jk no idea but thats wild

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-space-usa-spacex/european-officials-reject-spacex-complaints-over-launch-subsidies-idUSKCN1QF2AF
>>arguing the much larger U.S. market is virtually closed to Europe’s Ariane satellite launch vehicle
Hmm maybe try building a competitive rocket

>>10460042
>thatsnicecat.exe

>>10460173
Musk must die

>>10461940
At some point it'll just be financially stupid not to use spacex's services

>>10461992
I doubt that this will happen. A monopoly in the launch industry should be avoided.

>>10461998
Tht's fair enough. but isn't that what blue origin is for? Though they're only a contender in the super heavy lift category

>>10462001
SLS (quit laughing) also has a leg in the super heavy category. Granted, its out-of-date and isn't reusable, but it is an additional option.

ULA is a contender against SpaceX in NASA commercial crew program.

Araine and Soyuz still compete with SpaceX in satellite launches. Geostationary orbit payloads by Araine especially due to the Falcon 9's lackluster upper stage performance.

And while some can find issues with some of SpaceX's competitors, they serve an important role in ensuring that SpaceX maintains their quality.

>>10462012
>maintaining quality
agreed
even though engineers want to push for max quality, the fuckers holding the purse strings will always be like fuck that we can charge as much as we want for passable quality - do it now or you're fired
good point with SLS but i doubt they'll be flying payloads before BFR at this rate
You're right about F9's inferior upper stage performance. Anything interplanetary will need F/H or better

American space is getting huge budget requests, far above normal. Trump has been the best president for space in a long time.

>>10461014
I mean, it's the military
if you don't feed them bullshit they'll ask where you're hiding it

>>10462038
It's good, but he cut the education portion of the budget. I guess he's a real businessman after all.

>>10461717
Sad

>>10461124
aerobraking with Mar's atmosphere doesn't mean you need to land on the surface of Mars
the shuttle did tests with using aerobraking to do inclination changes

I guess watch for Elon's jet to land in Texas to see when the hop will be?

>>10459858
>silliness of the Prius.
explain

>>10461634
hydrogen ISRU is easier, but hydrogen re-use is harder

>>10462114
Prius is fucking dumb

>>10462121
>hydrogen re-use is harder
What does that even mean

>>10462128
That's not an explanation

>>10462139
yes it is, nigger

>>10462142
Then you don't belong on /sci/ i'm sorry to say

>>10462137
hydrogen engines don’t lend themselves to high numbers of refurbless reflight. Now you could argue that no one has bothered trying to design them to do that, but the fact that both BO and SpaceX are going with methalox for their reusability is telling

>>10462144
Practicality probably
Methane is easier to store and store long term than hydrogen
Liquid methane is also much denser at higher temperatures than liquid hydrogen

>>10461535
in addition to embrittlement, hydrogen also has lower density, which offsets most of the advantage of higher specific impulse

then there is the issue of liquid hydrogen being very cold even by cryogenic standards

>>10462147
the density of methane gets you so many benefits
more thrust per area, more fuel per liter of storage, methane is really good

>>10462161
Yeah I'm starting to see it that way
the "why not just hydrogen" question from the other anon really forced me to think about it
It's really the potential for H embrittlement, colder cryogenic temperatures to keep it liquid that qualitatively won me over to methane. A qualitative analysis would be better but I feel like that's out of my depth.
Because naively it definitely sounds like just cracking water into H2 and O2 is the easiest. No combining it with carbon dioxide step required. But like it was mentioned, increased engine complexity, all the shit with storage and tanks.. that sounds like a major hurdle for overall minimal performance changes
The other thing that i'm curious about is the amount of energy it requires to synthesize both components of fuel assuming you have both free carbon dioxide and water
>CO2 + H2 -> CH4
>O2
vs
>H2
>O2

>>10462173
Well at least the methane side of the reaction was easy enough. I've heard of the sabatier process here and there
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction

>>10460946
New Shepard is not a "glorified grasshopper". It's a 20m tall super sonic rocket and landing it was more impressive than a Falcon 9 landing, because it is shorter and therefore harder to land, and they also did it with only one engine, so the overall difficulty is much higher and they still nailed it first try.

>>10460942
>WOAH HOLY SHIT DUDE, NO ROCKET HAS EVER BEEN ABLE TO DO BOTH THOSE THINGS!

The Ariane 5 can, but no american rocket. Falcon 9 can do cheap missions, but not deep space missions (not even all GTO missions). Falcon Heavy can do all deep space missions, but not cheap missions.

Opening a factory in Huntsville if that means you are going to sell a lot of BE-4s is fair play, dont be bitter about it just because you are fanboying over SpaceX and think BO is your enemy.

Hydrogen in the upper stage is also a good decision. It enables dual launch capability and a 3-stage configuration. This effectively cuts in half individual launching costs. Therefore the launch rate is also pointless. 12 launches of New Glenn are equivalent to 24 launches of Falcon 9, in terms of how many missions they complete (which is the only metric that matters).

And yeah, if "receving large amounts of government money" is the deal breaker than SpaceX is the oldest old space company in business.

>>10460952
What are these "federal subsidies" for SpaceX? taxes?

>>10462215
They got almost 300 million seed money in 2006 and then almost 2 billion in 2008 and then also received 3 billion for deveoping the dragon capsule, and then also some extra money for Raptor development. They also got several billions worth of government contracts, those aren't direct subsidies though.

>>10461570
When life gives you lemons...

>>10461571
Can we actually make a suit that insulates enough to keep a human alive in such a dense atmosphere that is that cold?

>>10462191
using one engine makes it easier but also less reliable
three engines is harder but more reliable

>>10462291
No, one engine is harder as the control over the engine needs to be more precise. With three engines you have a bigger error margin concerning precise thrusting and gimbaling.

>>10462303
>>10462291
Guys, it's a little more complicated than 1 engine better/worse and 3 engines is worse/better
it's a series of trade offs

>>10462308
It's not about what is better/worse, but what is harder. More than one engine is definetely better, because it is easier. In other words, if you can do it with one engine, you are probably going to be able to do it with more than one engines. If you can do it with several engines, that does not automatically mean you can do it with only one.

>>10462317

>>10461341
Of course it's fake a private company could never eclipse the efforts of the Government.

>>10462161
>methane is really good
what is isp and why is it more importsnt than density

>>10460173
>something "bad" happens
>a week of occasional roscosmos rejects gently criticizing corrupt leadership because they are jealous of being kicked out of the kleptocratic party
>silence (leadership dead drunk in despair from losing face in front of great leader)
>silence (leadership wakes up and begins implementing counter measures)
>russia engine stronk russia rocket best america no rockets xaxaxaxa no moon land xaxaxaxaxa cyka cyka blyad
>repeat

>>10462398
But it literally is fake, it's a CGI.

>>10462408
SpaceX and BO engineers>you

>>10462408
what is mass fraction?
ISP is only important for very high energy shit, like the outer planets

>>10461341
no, Starship sitting there is like twelve launches of refueling

>>10462173
The hardest most energy intensive part in the isru is the water electrolysis and that will be the main energy hog until heavy industry is going. Probably 90%+ of the power generated will be dumped into that process.
Hydrogen might seem simple at first as in less steps to reach fuel but that's very deceptive because it is harder to store and use than methane. It's difficulties outweigh the benefits.
The reaction to turn it into methane, aside from providing more usable fuel, is also exothermic meaning the heat generated can be reused in melting more ice or some other beneficial process.
Hydrogen may be considered in places where carbon is not available.

>>10462418
For first stages hydro isn't really worse or better, but definetely more expensive. For second stages hydro is still more expensive, but also much better. So it makes sense to use hydro for the second stage.

It's obvious that NASA doesn't care for SLS but how do they feel about the Gatewat station?

>>10462421
that makes sense. thanks. I was ready to go full Wesley Snipes if my tax dollars were being wasted that egregiously

>>10462443
Gateway*

>>10462443
I mean yeah, the New Glenn does render the SLS kind of pointless, but it's not like NASA could have known 10 years ago that Jeff Bezos will become the worlds richest man and will pay for a rocket of that size out of his own pocket.

>>10462439
hydrogen is worse for first stages because it needs a lot of dry weight tankage for the fuel mass and doesn't produce much thrust per area/weight of engine to lift said tankage
also pale blue flames look lame

>>10462488
More dry weight but less fuel, the overall mass advantage is in favour of hydrogen for most rocket sizes, but only by a small margin and building costs are way bigger so it's not really worth it.

>>10462444
>>10462421
Oof embarrassing samefag.

>>10462520
no u
also who the fuck is Wesley Snipes

>>10462528
You need to learn how to samefag better, here's a protip. Don't reply to a post way up the thread on a slow board and then almost immediately respond to your post pretending to be the original guy using the exact same posting style you just used.

Oof.

>>10462536
no u, nigger
that faggot used a period, if I'm going to bother using a period I'm going to bother finding my goddamn shift key

>>10462539
Embarrassing, your agenda pushing is obvious and you have been exposed. Bye.

>>10462544
>>10462539
>>10462528
>>10462520
>yfw this was an elaborate samefag trying to frame some other poster as an incompetent samefag

>>10462554
I'd believe it if I wasn't exactly half of those posts

>>10462408
>what is isp and why is it more importsnt than density

It is not. Even for upper stages. performance advantage of hydrogen is modest at best, while all the downsides still remain. Hydrogen upper stage can make some sense if it is expendable. For a reusable stage, no way.

>>10462610
Saving 5-10% of the fuel weight is not a "modest" advantage. For the upper stage that means trading fuel weight and payload capacity almost 1:1. I don't know why you think it's bad for reusability, the hard part of reusing upper stages is making it survive reentry from orbital velocities without being a total economic loss, not which fuel you use.

>>10462634
You are so retarded it hurts, educate yourself and come back.

>>10462645
Maybe I am, but that still doesn't refute the argument. The bigger the second stage is, the more the sense hydrogen makes. This means that especially for such a gigantic second stage as the Starship is hydrogen would considerably increase the payload capacity.

>>10462443
>obvious they don't care
On the contrary. The gatewat is just a reason why they need the sls.

>>10462656
There are reasons why hydrogen is avoided in the upcoming spacex rockets and even others' proposed takes on reusability. You may not understand them, you may not want to understand them, it changes nothing.

May I suggest something else in your hunt for "increased payload"? Ditching all reusability will do wonders on that front. The payload will increase noticeably.

>>10462677
The reason is that SpaceX wants to use the Starship as a transporter to Mars, and storing hydrogen for that long is difficult. That has nothing to do with the advantages of hydrogen upper stages in ordinary spaceflight.

>>10462656
>Use Hydrogen on gigantic upper stage reusable rocket
>Think you saved shitloads of weight but in reality the cyrogenic storage, insulation, larger tank size and other hydrogen related bullshit still imposes a considerable penalty because it needs to be stored much, much cooler than Methane
>Now you have shitty Hydrogen fuel that is fucking your tank up as it sits there and degrades the shit out of every single comonent it passes through whenever the engines fire
>Now you have shitty Hydrogen fuel that cannot be contained for any serious period of time thanks to boiloff, even going to the moon trying to keep the shitloads of Hydrogen needed for a retro burn is ridiculously hard, let alone Mars or anywhere beyond immediate Earth space

Again, you are retarded, people much smarter than you who actually do this every day for a job have come to the conclusion that hydrogen is only good for high energy expendable kick stages and Methane is the go to for anything reusable.

>>10462703
>Think you saved shitloads of weight but in reality the cyrogenic storage, insulation, larger tank size and other hydrogen related bullshit still imposes a considerable penalty because it needs to be stored much, much cooler than Methane

No, it doesnt, the net weight gain for hydrogen is there even for small upper stages and the bigger the second stage gets the bigger the net gain is.

>>Now you have shitty Hydrogen fuel that is fucking your tank up as it sits there and degrades the shit out of every single comonent it passes through whenever the engines fire

Irrelevant, because you wont be able to bring a ship down from orbital velocities without practically destroying it anyways.

>Now you have shitty Hydrogen fuel that cannot be contained for any serious period of time thanks to boiloff, even going to the moon trying to keep the shitloads of Hydrogen needed for a retro burn is ridiculously hard, let alone Mars or anywhere beyond immediate Earth space

No, a few days for a moon return is no problem. Several months is difficult, but for Mars missions we are eventually going to use nuclear engines or ion engines, anyways.

>Again, you are retarded, people much smarter than you who actually do this every day for a job have come to the conclusion that hydrogen is only good for high energy expendable kick stages and Methane is the go to for anything reusable.

That's pretty weird, because never has a methan vehicle ever flown let alone being reused. There was a hydrogen vehicle that was reused, it's called Space Shuttle, and the breaking point for that concept was definetely not the choice of fuel.

>>10462726
>There was a hydrogen vehicle that was reused, it's called Space Shuttle, and the breaking point for that concept was definetely not the choice of fuel.

The Shuttle never was iterated on in the degree needed to turn it into a truly reusable launch architecture. Instead, it flew as a very expensive spaceplane that could be refurbished between flights at great expense. The RS-25 is not a very good reusable engine, as it requires a lot of post-flight inspection and work to make it ready to fly again. It's also an engine that would only ever light once in each mission; after orbital insertion, the RS-25 would not light again until the next liftoff.

The Shuttle was a wondrous machine, but it was only technically reusable, rather than viably reusable.

>>10462752
The RS-25 was fit for several reuses without major refurbishment. On test stands it did dozens launch burns without any refurbishment done to it. What killed the Space Shuttle was the heat shield and re-assembling the STS every time. These two things alone exceeded the cost of building a new one.

>>10462173
This is the other fun party trick hydrogen does:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_isomers_of_hydrogen
>As a result, ortho liquid hydrogen equilibrating to the para form releases enough energy to cause significant loss by boiling.
Oh yeah, it's cool bro, I'm liquid now. Oh wait, FLIP! Fooled you, what a gas!

>>10462191
>It's a 20m tall super sonic rocket
Oooh, it's suuuuuuper sonnnnnnic! Gotta go fast!

>>10462775
Liquid methane boils-off, too. Not as much as hydrogen, but it's still going to be a problem.

>>10462781
The way SpaceX-"fans" constantly belittle everybody who is not SpaceX does not exactly scream confidence into the ability of SpaceX.

>>10462771
The engines did not fly without significant post-flight dismantling, bore-scoping, and other rigorous verification, which was performed whether the engines needed to be refurbished or not. This contributed significantly to the operating costs of the vehicle, despite being engineered for multiple flights.

>>10462799
Those were done after Challenger, although the reason for the failure of Challenger were the side boosters, not the RS-25. Before Challenger the turnaround cost of the Space Shuttle was actually somewhat reasonable, approx. equal to building a new one.

new bread
>>10462821

>>10461506
Or an even cheaper launch method than SpaceX - which is why I've wondered about a space gun in the past

>>10462789
Nah, just everybody who is already selling launches when they still haven't had a single orbital flight yet.

>>10461534
>>To put it more bluntly, this time the Americans showed us Chinese with pure power that why they are still the strongest country in the world and how wide the gap really is between us and them

..but then that applies to every single space effort in the world apart from SpaceX, even NASA, so I don't think the Chinese need to feel too bad. Seems to me like somehow every single space player in the world managed to end up with the same complacent attitude apart from SpaceX. Anyway we should at least get some decent innovation now that Elon's given them a good hard kick up the arse.

>>10462825
>page 6
Hello, newfriend.

>>10462861
SpaceX sold its first launch to the government in 2004, and didnt achieve Orbit unti 2008.

>>10462771
Can't use CFCs when making that tank foam, it might kill the ozone layer!

>>10462114
I kinda can't explain. The Prius was always made fun of where I'm from. Maybe because it was one of the first hybrids that got popular, and the concept of a hybrid car was seen as silly to some.

>>10463053
I think its rear end looks dumb, and in a unique, identifiable way that you can tell from a mile away. I call it "Pri-ass". Well, almost unique, since the Pontiac "Ass-tek" also had that shape.

>nasa told congress they want to launch orion on falcon and delta
sls is getting the axe

>>10463366
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/03/nasa-to-consider-use-of-private-rockets-for-first-orion-lunar-mission/

this comment though
> Perhaps we are seeing the beginning of a new movie, "The Frank of Bridenstine".

>>10463366
I thought it was too wide to launch on F9/FH? No matter, if they axe SLS, they can afford to spend a billion dollars on a custom fairing!

>>10463384
It's going to go on a Delta 4. The upper stage of Delta 4 and SLS B1 are the same.

>>10463377
Oh shit. SLS is fucking dead.

>>10463440
>The upper stage of Delta 4 and SLS B1 are the same.
Why did they ever even develop the Block 1 SLS again?

>>10463498
>Oh shit. SLS is fucking dead.
Confirmed, an SLS just flew over my house.

>>10463498
>Why did they ever even develop the Block 1 SLS again?
because MUH ICBM ENGINEERS

>>10461410
inb4 he snorts a line of coke and goes for 15m or higher

>>10463498
Corruption and embezzlement

>>10463558
Won't they eventually run into the sea dragon issue where the craft would just annihilate any pad it starts on?

>>10463583
if you designed the pad specifically for it, it could probably work
it would just be so fucking expensive it's not even funny

>>10463583
They are thinking of sea launch platforms anyway.

>>10463498
The DIV upper stage was called "interim cryogenic propulsion stage" and was literally meant as a quick and dirty upper stage prop for a single test flight before the real upper stage is ready. The real upper stage never got ready and never will be.

OH NONONONO HAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH