/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10474283
in other news: New research module Nauka for ISS to undergo pre-flight tests — Roscosmos chief

http://tass.com/science/1048982

>>10474288
ISS is getting a new module?

hot damn

>>10474288

>>10474283
latest hopper image from yesterday, new ones should pop up in the morning Texas time

>>10474294
it is, summer 2020 launch date is planned

>>10474302
>The Nauka module has a launch weight of over 20 tonnes and can accommodate up to 3 tonnes of scientific equipment. The module is designed to provide a docking port for Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, ensure the pumping of fuel from Progress spacecraft’s fuel tanks to the ISS and take care of the station’s roll control with the help of engines. The module is also expected to generate oxygen for six people and regenerate water from urine.

Fucking cool, first time I ever heard of it too

>>10474288
>>10474294
>>10474297

>>10474304
Holy fuck thats exciting

>>10474303
It's been in development since 1995

>>10474283

OLDSPACE IS SEEETHING!!!

Looks like Nauka will replace Pirs

>>10474288

What the fuck.. Another rigid ISS module in the age of Bigelow expandables?

How much more oldspace can you get?

>>10474313
1995

>>10474313
This module started development in 1995 and Russia doesn't even have a NewSpace", let's just be grateful Russia is actually going to launch something new. Also, Bigelow hasn't launched a proper inflatable module yet, BEAM is a glorified storage cabinet.

>>10474323
>"Oldspace" rocket engineer with decades of experience: Reusing rocket vehicles is simply not possible, we spent decades and hundreds of billions researching it and there is no chance

>"Newspace" Silicon Valley guy who got rich with some online banking or retail: HURR DURR THOSE R JUS OL CRANKAY FARTS DEY DUN KNO LEMME POUR MUH BILLIONS INTO THIS REUSABLY RACKET

>>10474296
Top post m8

Who invited the Schizo?

>>10474334
Who are you talking with?

>>10474283
it is dawn on starship cam, fucking get to work already

>>10474331
Though I don't agree that reusing rockets economically is impossible, I do agree with the general sentiment of this post. Silicon Valley nu-billionaires are truely the world's biggest cancer, and Elon Musk is the king of that cancer town.

Let's talk about Gateway

How hard is this thing going to fail?

>>10474344
we renamed it Gatewat a few threads ago

>>10474344
Why exactly would it fail? Fuel station at the moon makes a lot of sense.

>>10474341
the fact that a "silicon valley nu-billionaire" has a leading company in spaceflight industry tells you everything you need to know about the awful state of the industry after the end of Apollo

in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king

>>10474352
He received subsidies worth the whole SLS programme to develop one shitty Falcon 9.

>>10474349
Gateway could serve to incubate commercial deep space and lunar industry, the same way as ISS does it right now for LEO. It is not a bad idea, just disappointing that this is all we get after so much time and effort spent.

>>10474357
>He received subsidies worth the whole SLS programme to develop one shitty Falcon 9.

Are you an idiot? We have spent $15 billion on SLS and it has yet to fly. SpaceX does get subsidies but it is peanuts in comparison.

>>10474309
What ever happened to this module? Is it still on the ISS and being used or what?

>>10474360
He received 6 billion in government money and 2 billion in privat investment. SLS is going to cost 9 billion until it launches in 2021, so the figures are comparable.

>>10474373
Its whole purpose is to sit on ISS for a few years to see how well the materials survive in space.

>>10474357
>>10474360
Contracts for developing things are not subsidies, ULA's launch readiness payments are a form of subsidy. Boeing don't actually receive subsidies for building SLS, they are payed as part of a fixed-price contract.

>>10474376
>SLS is going to cost 9 billion until it launches in 2021

No, SLS got $14 billion ($15 inflation adjusted) in 2011-2018 timeframe alone. This is without counting the funding spent on Constellation and Shuttle (a lot of it is relevant to SLS such as SRB and engines).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Program_costs_and_funding

>>10474373
>>10474377
Yes, it's basically being used as a storage cabinet. I've tried to poke around for information regarding Bigelow's B330 module as part of NASA's NEXTstep program, apparently it's been put on the backburner due to LOP-G but is still planned to launch in 2021.

>>10474378
Those are not more of a subsidy than maintaining the nuclear stock is a subsidy. They are also basically being handed over to the russians for RD-180s because Airforce wants them to use those engines and always have enough on reserve.

>>10474384
>In October 2018, NASA's inspector general reported that the Boeing SLS stages contract portion (accounting "for over 40 percent of the $11.9 billion spent on the SLS Program" as of August 2018) is expected to cost a total of US$8.9 billion by 2021, which is twice the initial planned amount

>>10474376
In other words, the gov spent 6 bil to create a new launcher capable of 5 tons to GTO and also servicing ISS without using russian engines. Sounds like good investment to me.

>>10474288
>Nauka has its own solar panels, radiators, docking port, robot arm, engines and life support, etc
Nauka will likely be the main segment of the new post-ISS Russian space station. Will Canada let Russia keep the robot arm it if they try to take it with them?

>>10474404
Not just a new launcher, but a partially reusable one, and a new engine and a new spacecraft.

>responding to MUSK BAD

Let's discuss radiation shielding.

Evidently, polyethylene makes really good radiation shielding because its hydrogen atoms help block primary and secondary particles, unlike other types of similarly thin shielding materials. Nasa has ideas in everything from more plastic to liquid hydrogen used as shielding. Plastic is easy to make, use, and contain, but what molecules pack in the most hydrogen atoms? Obviously metallic hydrogen would be best all around, but that isn't going to happen. There's trihydrogen cation, but it is unstable, though in the cold of space it is far more stable. There's good old H2 and H20. The later being super simple, but requires meters of thickness for shielding.

Also, fuck all those H2 snake oil products clogging up my general searches.

>>10474404
In the corner sits the forgotten Antares rocket that only cost around a couple of hundred millions to develop and costs 80 million to launch.

>>10474344
Gateway is actually a good idea. There's a shitload of exploration work needed to determine the exact nature and distribution of lunar water and decide on a location for the permanent moonbase. A space station orbiting the moon could support that mission much quicker and easier than trying to do everything from Earth.

>>10474412
Well until we get more news out of Boca Chica, not much else to discuss is there? We can talk about Nauka, but I doubt Russia will scrounge up enough money to complete it.

>>10474349
>Why exactly would it fail?
It could end in development hell like the SLS and waste billions of dollars for nothing

>>10474449
The SLS "hell" is such a meme though. It slipped 2-3 years and increased cost by 4-5 billion.

>>10474428
But it really packed a wallop!

>>10474433
>There's a shitload of exploration work needed to determine the exact nature and distribution of lunar water and
So why not send a few more robotic rovers? It worked well for Mars, imagine not having a 20+ minute comms delay, allowing real-time operation from Earth!

>>10474470
I mean, at least it didn't get knocked off by the wind.

Any cost projections on the Omega rocket though? It's basically a SLS-side booster with a hydrogen stage on top, so it should be fairly cheap.

>>10474474
>So why not send a few more robotic rovers?
They need to do this. But you can control the rovers much better from lunar orbit because there's almost zero communications latency. Even with all the advances in AI these probes still don't handle unexpected situations well and human intervention is often required. Astronauts may even need to go down to the surface and do things that unmanned probes have a hard time with. Look at what's going on with the Mars Insight Lander and its attempts to take a core sample. It's taking them weeks to accomplish something an astronaut could probably do in a few minutes.

>>10474419
>There's good old H2 and H20. The later being super simple, but requires meters of thickness for shielding.

All of them require meters for shielding cosmic rays. Water and polyethylene are good, and you are not going to find anything significantly better than that. Even pure hydrogen is a cryogenic liquid and has low density, so it sucks as radiation shielding material.

Obviously soil is the best solution if you are on the surface.

>>10474470
Thats the legendary nk-33 engine, isn't it?

>>10474536
No, it's the mighty Aerojet Rocketdyne AJ-33™ built by the US's finest rocketry engineers!

>>10474419
Shielding where? In space you gotta suck it up and you are better of halving travel time than halving radiation with shielding. On the Moon and Mars in particular things are different.
>>10474433
Gateway is redundant and makes moon missions harder.

>>10474545
USA USA USA

>>10474552
>Shielding where?

Space stations obviously.

>>10474331
>opinion i like: i am calm and collected
>opinion i dont like: I AM LOUD AND SILLY
ok retard
>youre just a musk fanboy
ok retard

>>10474357
this is objectively false

>>10474587
the irony is that the second opinion makes much more sense, even when presented like a retard, and is what is actually happening

>>10474552
>Gateway is redundant and makes moon missions harder.
There needs to be a lunar space station to quarantine astronauts in case they encounter any strange shit on the moon
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zMlga9nDq8

>>10474594
>count everything SpaceX has ever done with NASA, including paying production missions
>only count Boeing's commercial crew stuff
So when are we getting Starliner CST-100MAX?

>>10474594
On behalf of >>10474357 I request this post be deleted. I do not think he will be able to recover otherwise.

>>10474552
>Gateway is redundant and makes moon missions harder.

The fuck?

>launch crew vehicle to gateway
>crew boards lander docked at gateway
>land on moon

vs. launching crew vehicle and lander in one go Apollo style

>>10474470
>packed a wallop!
ho ho

>>10474676
>eats up HSF budget
>eats up rocket launches
>adds 1km/h delta v requirement to landers (reusable ones HEAVILY penalized)
>adds launch window consideration from the surface
>will be rarely manned
>increase danger to astronauts

Apollo style or dual launch variation is easier if the goal is the Moon. If the goal is not going to the Moon and avoiding doing anything of value then the Gateway is perfect.

I'd like to mention former NASA administrator Mike Griffin as well as the famous astronaut you might know as "Buzz Lightyear" are against it. Griffin outright called the gateway a stupid architecture. To say nothing of Zubrin who somewhat accurately refers to it as a tollbooth.

>>10474612
Absolutely ridiculous. If that's the best you've got to defend it might as well not bother.

>>10474717
>1km/s*

>>10474676
He does have a point. Chasing after a station, docking with it, leaving it to land on the moon, lifting off to chase the station again, and redocking takes extra deltaV (and thus more fuel that is needed to be brought to gateway) compared to just going straight to the moon. The extra fuel required means more launches, more launches means that more money is spent. It's overall cheaper to go straight to the moon if you just want manned missions than to have this midway station.

However, NASA doesn't want to just do manned missions to the moon, they want to do long term research which will hopefully lead to a permanent (or semi permanent) base on the moon. In that context, gateway makes more sense. NASA already knows how to do space stations, so doing something like the ISS but near the moon isn't that much of a stretch. There they can do the necessity research without the need to completely develop a lunar base before sending people to the moon.

For me personally, I don't care which way NASA handles it as long as they make reasonable progress on it, and don't pull another SLS.

>>10474724
>as long as they make reasonable progress on it, and don't pull another SLS.
Same

>>10474331
>we spent decades and hundreds of billions researching it and there is no chance
Any sources on this? I'd like to read about the history of research into rocket reuse

Also, haven't they already reused a bunch of Falcon 9's? That would say to me that it is possible at least to a certain extent

>>10474725
>American astronauts have their own room
Chad move

>>10474724
Considering the main suspects behind both the SLS and the LOP-G, and their motives, I wouldn't put too much hope into it.
But we can always given them another decade or two to see if they had a change of heart.

>>10474728
Don't reply to the Schizo's bait...

>>10474728
We still don't know the true extent of refurbishment that takes place on a re-flown F9 core.
Some say it costs nearly as much as a new core and SpaceX is eating the cost for publicity but there's no source on that. I personally think they ARE able to economically refurbish the cores.

>>10474594
I really don't think posting a picture that shows SpaceX getting the most government money by a longshot is helping your case here.

>>10474747
That's SpaceX's entire NASA budget vs single programs from competing companies, it looks pretty good.

>>10474753
>BAITED

>>10474742
>cost as much as a new one
That meme is pretty much dead with cores flying 3-4 times and various competitors beginning to consider F9 clones.

>>10474724
>He does have a point. Chasing after a station, docking with it, leaving it to land on the moon, lifting off to chase the station again, and redocking

You do all of this with a regular Apollo-style mission, too.

One could argue you should put the fuel producing facilities first, and the fuel depot in orbit second, but really, it doesn't make much of a difference.

>>10474762
What companies are looking at clones? That's new to me

>>10474753
SpaceX received 7.24 billion for cargo and crew to ISS.

Orbital ATK and Boeing received 8.8 billion dollars combined for cargo and crew to ISS. That's more, but they also deliever more. Starliner can land on land and Orbital ATK actually delievers more payload to ISS than SpaceX does. So that considered, SpaceX is actually not making anything cheaper.

>>10474775
Nobody, which should give you an idea about if it's really cheaper not. If you could save a lot of money everybody would be doing it, especially since landing a rocket isn't acutally that hard.

>>10474770
You need a fuel depot in LEO and on lunar surface. Fuel depot in lunar orbit is questionable and a possible detour.

>>10474742
>>10474762
I think part of the problem with figuring out if the Falcons are better reused or expendable is that SpaceX isn't revealing much about how much refurbishing a booster costs. Sure, they offer cheaper rides on reused boosters, but that doesn't tell the whole story.

>>10474770
>You do all of this with a regular Apollo-style mission, too.
Not really, an Apollo mission is only doing the later half (leaving to land on the moon, lifting off to chase the spacecraft, and redocking) which still needs less fuel than a mission requiring LOP-G.

>One could argue you should put the fuel producing facilities first, and the fuel depot in orbit second
While I'm in favor of ISRU, the applicable technology simply doesn't exist yet. Maybe smaller scale test involving a Lunar sample return may convince the budget makers to invest in this.

>>10474783
Transporting fuel from lunar surface to the lunar orbit takes a few minutes, transporting it to LEO takes a few days.

>>10474781
It absolutely is cheaper to reuse a booster than to build a new one. Anyone who understands the technical matter and LV economics will tell you that.

The question is, is it cheaper when reusability development costs are taken into account (which were significant, $1 billion or so) and also is it significantly cheaper, especially at lower launch rates and only a handful of reuses?

In the long term tough, reusability will win. Especially if launch market grows (and if not, then there really is not much point, is there).

>>10474793
Not really, an Apollo mission is only doing the later half (leaving to land on the moon, lifting off to chase the spacecraft, and redocking) which still needs less fuel than a mission requiring LOP-G.

Wrong, compared to Apollo you need less Delta-V per mission because you are not launching the commando module from earth, since it is already in lunar orbit.

>While I'm in favor of ISRU, the applicable technology simply doesn't exist yet

You will have to develop that technology anyways because you won't be doing shit beyond LEO if you can't ISRU.

>>10474775
>What companies are looking at clones?
Blue Origin, Ariane (Themis), Chinese startups

>>10474798
LEO depot will be fed from Earth.

>>10474810
>It absolutely is cheaper to reuse a booster than to build a new one.

Maybe the first reuse is a bit cheaper but refurbishment costs increase with every reuse. Also note that making a booster able to land makes the booster more expensive + you need a dronepad. So really you shouldn't compare "reused booster vs new booster" but "reused booster vs new booster that has no landing hardware and also no drone pad costs".

At this point in time there isn't enough data about lunar resources to pinpoint exactly where to set up a moon base and start extracting them. There needs to be an extended "Lewis & Clark" type expedition(s) to figure out exactly what's there first. If LOP-G helps to do that it should be built.

>>10474812
>
Wrong, compared to Apollo you need less Delta-V per mission because you are not launching the commando module from earth, since it is already in lunar orbit.
So how did the command module get there? The amount of fuel and hardware needed to send stuff to space doesn't go away because it got moved to a different launcher, it has only been moved around.

>You will have to develop that technology anyways because you won't be doing shit beyond LEO if you can't ISRU.
Agreed.

Also...
>commando module
"S.S. John Matrix is approaching LOP-G for docking, we are detecting high levels of cheese and Austrian energy."

>>10474825
>>10474783

Starting deep space missions from highly elliptical lunar orbits has the obvious advantage that the space ships can be much smaller because you need much less Delta-V.

>>10474856
It barely saves any delta-v over just launching from LEO depot and then refueling once in high elliptical orbit around Earth (again with a tanker from LEO depot).

>>10474856
You need less Delta V to reach LOP G than the Lunar surface, but require more to reach the surface from NRHO. It's a double-edged sword, but seems viable with refuelling.

>>10474849
>So how did the command module get there? The amount of fuel and hardware needed to send stuff to space doesn't go away because it got moved to a different launcher, it has only been moved around.

For Apollo, each mission had to send up its individual commando module every time. With LOP-G, you send the commando module up once and that will be reused. This means that every mission except the first one will use less Delta-V than Apollo missions.

For Zubrin's moon direct, he says the reusable commando module should instead taxi between lunar orbit and ISS. However, this also requires more Delta-V, because you need to refuel the commando module before every mission.

>>10474873
High eliptical orbits around earth spend a lot of time in the van Allen belts so they are not really an option.

>>10474880
>tfw no lunar commando module for commando raids on space nazi bases on the far side

>>10474910
The astronauts and cosmonauts can at least have snowball fights with each other using frozen moon ice

>>10474913
Lunar snowball fights would be so cool. Imagine doing Olympic jumps while dropping snowbombs.

>arguing with a schizophrenic over comnandos and his deluded view on reality
Every fucking thread. You never learn.

>>10474920
If the lunar base is ever built they could also construct a huge pressurized recreational dome where people can jump and fly around in the reduced gravity without needing spacesuits. It would be a big tourist attraction for rich people and raise a lot of money to support space exploration.

>>10474929
Who the hell are you talking to? You really sure you are in a position to call others schizo?

Some friendly thread reminders:
>1 SLS B1 and 3 FH or equivalent for a single landing, after a decade of building the porkcan
>If you respond to /x/ ramblings you'll get more of them
>if you are from reddit kill yourself

>>10474968
I legit think you are crazy.

>>10474929
Who are you talking about? That anon who keeps misspelling command module as "commando module"? Or the one who mentioned Nazi moonbases?

Either way, no one is arguing with them. You seem to be acting antagonistic just to try to start a fight. Don't do that.

>>10474344
The one thing that will definitely happen is the hall effect tug on one end will be launched. NASA's been moving it from project to project to keep it alive for years, they want that thing up there really badly.

>>10474979
Why aren't they launching it to the ISS?

>>10474979
>hall effect tug
That would be cool as fuck, how long would such a tug take to go from LEO to Gateway on average?

>>10474987
Because the ISS isn't designed to change orbits, gateway is, that's why NASA keep stating that it's not a space station but a service module.

>>10474979
The tug's propulsion system is being tested in May btw.

>>10474987
Because ISS isn't getting boosted anywhere that demands a hall effect tug.

>>10474991
I'm not sure, the specs for the tug listed during the Asteroid Redirect mission called for a set of thrusters that top out at 30-50kW each, and they would have enough to put the vehicle at between 100-300kW. It would carry 13 tons of xenon as fuel.
Odds are very good that those numbers haven't changed, each time the tug gets shifted to a new project all that changes is the front adapter/end effector set-up.

>>10474979
Could they use the tug to send Nauka to moon orbit instead of attaching it to the ISS?

>>10475000
But it does do boosts to re-adjust its orbit every now and then.

>>10475015
Yes it does, but it can also move the entire gateway into different orbits if needed. For example, it could be moved to a LPO from NRHO in the future.

>>10475025
That it's such an efficient method of propulsion may also hint at a consideration behind switching to commercial boosters for LOPG construction: if you build the thing mostly autonomously in LEO, the tug can save you a lot of flights by just taking the whole thing from LEO to its desired lunar orbit.
I'm sure once this was pointed out some manager scratched their head and wondered why the hell were they planning to use SLS to launch the tiny gateway pieces.

>>10475036
You could do that but the station will be toasted because it spent months in the van Allen belts.

>>10474283
>that window
Good news, everyone!

>>10475044
This is a pretty punchy little tug. I'm not sure it would actually spend much time in in them. Its thrust is going to be two orders of magnitude higher than current hall effect thrusters, and 50% more fuel efficient. Its orbital transfer is going to look a lot like the Israeli lunar probe that's up there right now.

>>10474873
The Delta-V saved is tremendous, consider how little Delta-V you need to transport something from lunar surface to lunar orbit. To fuel, let's say the Starship, you would need 6-7 launches of a super heavy lift launcher like the SLS Block 1B or the BFR while on the moon you could have something like New Shepard doing the fuel transport.

>>10475001
>13 tonnes of xenon
Christ thats a lot

>>10475051
We need a Starship named Planet Express

>>10475058
If you can manufacture thousands of tons of propellant on the Moon, and do it more cheaply than just launching it from Earth, then maybe. However that is a big if. It aint gonna happen anytime soon. We dont even know if there is lots of water ice on the Moon, much less methane.

>>10475056
The Israeli lunar probe does take months to reach the moon. The hall thrusters would be more capable, but they also would need to life a lot more. So it's difficult to estimate how long lifting it would take but it would certainly long enough so that the modules need additional shielding at least.

>>10474358
Yeah I thought it was badd idea at 1st but then I realized, the big heavy Lunar lander they want to build can just stay at LOP-G (fucking terrible name)
And making reuse it anytime they want they just have to park it back at LOP-G and board their Orion or Soyuz etc. and return to Earth in that ceaft... Meaning they don't have to discard abandon or burn up parts of their lunar lander module the way Apollo did.

The current idea of the lunar gateway isn't the most asinine thing in the world so long as they insist on also using it as a fuel depot, and attach appropriate modules to do so.

>>10475073
Current estimates say 1.3 trillion pounds/600 million metric tonnes of water ice in polar craters, based on the radar returns Chandrayaan-1 got.

>>10475058
You're also forgetting that you can cheat on the Moon: you can launch things to orbit with electromagnetic cannons/sleds.

>>10475056
>>10475080
Remember, this tug is pushing a 75 ton space station and not a 150kg lander, it needs 13 tons of xenon fuel for a reason...

>>10475092
Ran the numbers on the ice. That's over 5 million SLS Block 1 launches worth of ice.

A pic from late this morning. -NSF

>>10475106
>That's over 5 million SLS Block 1 launches worth of ice.
>Senator Shelby salivating over the idea of getting the pork funding for 5 million SLS's

>>10475072
https://www.change.org/p/elon-musk-name-the-first-spacex-bfs-planet-express

>>10475137
Retro high-vis might also be nice

>>10475140
Or TWA Moonliner (tomorrowland showpiece) for full mindfuck when historians try to figure out what the hell we were doing

>>10475128
Wtf are the taxmoney in alabama going to? Another creationist museum?

>>10475180
looks cool but
>painting the windward side of a heat-shield
But maybe it would be possible since the heat-shield is methane gas an there's just small pores in the surface?

>>10475204
And anyway, what happens when there is a smudge on the windward side fucking up the reflectivity, or a bird shits on it? Will it burn through lol?

we may be getting a full size prototype after all..

>>10475226
Yeah, using millions of microscopic pores as your heat shield is going to cause issues. Checking each time each pore sounds even more man-hour intense than the check-up on the Space Shuttle heat shield tiles required.

>>10475092
Is there any idea in what form this water ice exists? Is it just laying there on the interior surface of these craters as massive ice sheets that are easily harvested or will they have to send Bruce Willis and his roughnecks to drill for it? Or is the ice mixed in with the regolith so they have to process thousands of tons of lunar dirt to extract it in useful quantities?

>>10475200
A massive project of significant importance to the culture and pride of the great state of Alabama. A reconstruction of the family trees of as many Alabamians as possible. That way any one can trace their lineage back to any of the greats in Alabama's history. Our geneticists however keep mumbling to themselves about "ladders fucking everywhere", but we are very proud of their work.

>>10475232
the point of using a fuckload of pores is to ensure that a bunch being fucked will not cause a failure
they're not going to need to clean out each and every one like a surgeon
they would be able to just blast that shit with a power washer and be done with it

>>10475255
Yes, they will. The redundancy pores will also be cleaned before every launch because those will be needed for unexpected clogging during launch and mission. You don't take bets with the heat shield, because small damage will destroy your ship (the damaged area that destroyed the Columbia Shuttle was a few inches big).

>>10475269
Maybe they're betting that anything that's not supposed to be on the heat-shield will just get vaporized from reentry and clean out the pores along with it.
The issue probably comes from residue left over from the now vaporized bird shit, even if the pores are clear the reduced reflectivity could be an issue.

>>10474349
if you're going to put a fuel station in lunar orbit put it in the 83 degree frozen orbit

>>10475241
Most ideas for rapid mining involves building a tent over a section of regolith or pulling material into a tent-like chamber, and shining sunlight or microwaves on it until the temperature gets above -60C. That will cause the ice to begin to sublimate, and you can just pump the vapor out as a gas.

>>10475282
Generally speaking, it will be really, really hard to get a heat shield like that to work reliably. And yeah, you don't take bets on your heat shield.

>>10474770
Apollo is in low lunar orbit, which is much cheaper to leave from and chase too and a necessary step anyway going to the moon

>>10475232
I dont think the pores will be literally microscopic, but a millimeter or so

we will see after the hopper fires up, there was supposed to be speech by Musk describing the new BFR in detail

>>10475323
I think you're right. The reusable heat shield is going to be the hardest part about this project. This combined with the lack of LES makes me skeptical about flying dozens of people at a time on these things, especially with little inspection/refurbishment time like they have been saying.

>>10475323
Speculation about the heat shield is pointless until it's actually built and tested, we have no idea how prone or not it will be to clogging. We don't even know if it will work in practice, or sufficiently enough to survive lunar return reentry.

>>10475342
This. Low lunar orbit is not much of a detour. This is where a propellant depot would be nice to have, especially when fueled from lunar ISRU (at least oxygen ought to be possible to make on the Moon, and oxygen is most of the weight anyway). The caveat is that low lunar orbits are unstable except for a handful of frozen orbits.

Why this is not the case already? The answer is that current Gateway location is selected so that Orion can get there, and it cannot go directly to LLO.

>>10475354
yeah but it's fun to speculate, isn't that why we're all here lol

>>10475137
The first one will be Starship Heart of Gold

>>10475342
From the station to the moon it's practically a free walk and much easier it's why nasa wants to build it.

>>10475360
Orion can't but Apollo could?

How are we this backwards

>>10475396
>fat capsule
>shit rocket

>>10475396
Well Apollo didn't have to lug a 15 ton lunar lander so it was much ea... oh.

>>10475396
Orion can do it with Block 1B.

>>10475415
I thought that everything beyond a plain Block 1 was canned?

Looks like there might not be enough space specialists currently available to fully man the Space Force:
>The Pentagon is seeking special authorities from Congress for the Secretary of Defense to be able to transfer up to 15,000 service members from other branches into the Space Force. The Air Force analysis suggests that there may not be enough space specialists to fill all those slots and warns that in many cases space is a “partial responsibility for an individual and may not be transferable.” It estimates that about 10,000 people would transfer, which means DoD will have to find other ways to fill Space Force jobs.
https://spacenews.com/air-force-analysis-sheds-light-on-why-the-space-force-could-be-more-expensive-than-envisioned/

The time is ripe if anyone wants to gear up for a space job.

>>10475423
Block 1B just has a longer second stage, that's it.

news

>>10475459
Suborbital, but not supersonic, I assume.

>>10475464
3 engine hopper can probably go supersonic

>>10475459
This means the hops could happen much sooner than I thought since they already got the engine installed.

>>10475467
I doubt the nosecone would survive that.

>>10475459
more tweeting from Elon
Q:...first hops are happening next week?
A: Hopefully. Always many issues integrating engine & stage. First hops will lift off, but only barely.

>>10475467
If it went super sonic it would hop higher than 5km. They only have a license for 5km though.

>>10475473
Q: Is throttling raptors pretty difficult?
A: Raptor is *very* complex, even for a staged combustion engine. We’re simplifying as much as possible with each iteration. Throttling down to ~50% is hard, but manageable. Going to 25% would be extremely tough, but hopefully not needed.

>>10475516
here's a big one!

Q: Where will the first orbital flights of Starship occur from?
A: Working on regulatory approval for both Boca Chica, Texas, and Cape Kennedy, Florida. Will also be building Starship & Super Heavy simultaneously in both locations.

>>10475513
they could probably get another license easily enough if they need it

>>10475529
I think if they planned to do supersonic hops they would already have it.

Also as somebody already said the hopper doesn't exactly look like it could survive supersonic flights.

>>10475459
Wasn't the raptor only capable to do like 10 second burns at a time? How do they want to land it with an engine that is still in development/unreliable?

Q: Theoretically, can you throttle more with closed cycle since the lox / methane pumps are on separate shafts / systems and maintain the proper ratios?
A: You can deep throttle on single shaft system by choking flow of fuel or oxygen between pump & combustion chamber. Problem is more with the tiny rocket engine that powers the pump, called a gas generator. That has to throttle *way* deeper than the main chamber.

Q: Will the nosecone be used for the hop test?
A: We decided to skip building a new nosecone for Hopper. Don’t need it. What you see being built is the orbital Starship vehicle.

>orbital starship is literally being built by punisher-sticker-welding-mask wearing workers in bumfuck Texas with panels of sheet metal
literally everyone else BTFO

>>10475560
>A: We decided to skip building a new nosecone for Hopper. Don’t need it. What you see being built is a mock-up of the orbital Starship vehicle because we hope somebody will give us money to develop a real one.

Q: After hopper planning on going straight to superheavy full size? Or intermediate development vehicle is planned?
A: Full size

>>10475572
cope

Q: Is transportation cooling still how you plan to actively cool the windward side of Starship?
A: Only some of the hottest sections
interesting

>>10475573
Deluded. This thing will be a mock-up.

>>10475577
can't tell if you're retarded or attempting to troll
you got a (you) out of it I guess

>>10475579
Not a troll. You don't build a rocket by building the shell first. That thing will be a mock-up and the tweet from Elon sounds like a typical Elon-lie.

just don't reply to him

Q: Will you have an extra cooling system incase the transportation cooling system fails?
A: Hexagonal tiles on most of windward side, no shield needed on leeward side, transpiration cooling on hotspots

>10475583
That's literally how they build every Falcon 9.

>>10475602
So back to heat tiles? What?

TBF what are these tweets worth if they are apparently making complete design overhauls every month.

>>10475609
>incase the transportation cooling system fails

>>10475609
the difference now is they're building it

video of hex tile testing

>>10475609
He even tweeted a video of the tiles now. I think I'm going to stop following BFR development because obviously they are taking the piss.

>>10475620
don't let the door hit you on the way out
you know they prescribe pills for chronic denial nowadays

>>10475619

>>10475624
Chronical denial of what? That they keep changing the design on a weekly basis?

I'm just saying there's no point in following the design process if they keep re-designing it so often. Call me when they finally settled on one and actually start building it.

will be interesting to see how they integrate the three different skin sections. I assume they'll be flush, so how will the transit between the hex tiles and no transpiration holes / no holes at all work?

>>10475629
Umm dude...

>>10475629
they are building it you moron
for fuck's sake how stupid are you

this is the orbital starship mid-section

>>10475629
ring ring

>>10475583
>You don't build a rocket by building the shell first.
that is how every rocket is built you moron

2 more tweets
Q: Why hexagonal shape?
A: No straight path for hot gas to accelerate through the gaps
>shuttle cries in distance

Q: I thought you were going with transpiration cooling so you wouldn't have to replace them after each flight. Will this system be the backup for the transpiration cooling, something in addition to the transpiration cooling, or a replacement to it.
A: Transpiration cooling will be added wherever we see erosion of the shield. Starship needs to be ready to fly again immediately after landing. Zero refurbishment.

neat

>>10475649
that's smart; use regular shielding to figure out where exactly you need the transpiration. That way down the line with revisions you can minimize unnecessary heat shield components etc

>>10475649
>A: Transpiration cooling will be added wherever we see erosion of the shield. Starship needs to be ready to fly again immediately after landing. Zero refurbishment.


Those sentences contradict each other.

I also can't really understand why they are using steel now if they are using tiles. I thought the steel was chosen because it worked better with the "sweat" cooling? The reflectiveness won't do anything if you have carbon tiles on top of the steel.

>>10475537
if they planned it yeah
the point is if they didn't plan to, but now want to, they can do so

>>10475609
>So back to heat tiles? What?
Do we actually know they completely ditched ceramic tiles previously? Or just reduced their area because steel can take more heat? For all we know the design is settled for quite some time already.

>>10475659
read closer. Tiles are for determining areas of highest heat. Then they replace the tiles with transpiration.
The tiles are just to keep it from disintegrating for the initial tests, since covering the whole thing with transpiration would be difficult and not necessary

>>10475659
I think they are using three systems.

1. Reflective steel on least heated parts.

2. Ceramic tiles on more heated parts.

3. Ceramic tiles with transpiration cooling on most heated tiles.

>post yfw building massive spacecraft outdoors in a field is actually how it's going to work

>>10474298
God it looks so shitty, like a 50s sci fi prop

>>10475560

>We decided to skip building a new nosecone for Hopper. Don’t need it. What you see being built is the orbital Starship vehicle.

Holy shit, is this meme actually true?

>>10475672
hmmm, I don't think 3 is a thing?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1107382673012486144
>Falcon rocket booster is aluminum-lithium & carbon fiber, which have low max temperature allowables. Super Heavy booster is stainless steel. Since it only goes to around Mach 8 or 9, moreover at high altitude, it needs no heat shield, not even paint.

The way I see it is this
>>10475655
>>10475667
the tiles are temporary (could be wrong though)

>>10475666
Elon literally said they are switching to steel because of "sweat" cooling.

>>10475667
That's not what he said. He said that instead of refurbishing the tiles they will add transpiration. Nevermind that will also cost money and is a form of refurbishment.

>>10475676
50s sci-fi spaceships > star trek sci-fi spaceships anyway

>>10475682
yes exactly, the areas they figure out get lots of heating ( as initiated BY the tiles ) will have the tiles removed and transpiration holes added. That way they can remove all of the tiles for starship later

>>10475659
>>10475666
>>10475672

Where did you guys get ceramic from?
There was nothing said about ceramic, its just tiles, we don't know what they're made from.

>>10475680
That tweet is talking about Booster (1st stage), not Spaceship (2nd stage)

>>10475690
I think the transpiration cooling will be limited to only the highest-heating areas (e.g. the edge of the wings) and the entire bottom will be lined in these tiles space shuttle style.

>>10475691
PICA-X V3
https://www.spacex.com/news/2013/04/04/pica-heat-shield

I suppose we'll have to wait for the technical presentation or more construction photos to get this sorted out. No reason to get angry at one another for our interpretation of some tweets

>>10475692
you're right, but the other tweet said that the current tall section >>10475632 is starship and not super heavy, and it doesn't have any weird cooling stuff on it (yet).

>>10475700
bottom as in the engine area or the bottom "side" of it? iirc it enters on it's side so the engines aren't subjected to direct re-entry stuff

>>10475706
I think the idea is the full-scale model will be launched on a suborbital profile and then make a burn toward the ground to get some good heating going. They'll map the heating on the skin and work with that to refine thermal management for the final version's reentry hardware.

>its space shuttle all over again

>>10475619
>"White-hot parts reached orbital entry temp of around 1650 Kelvin"

that's a tad less than the max temp of a shuttle re entry

>>10475701
PICA is ablative. I doubt they will use that for the Starship.

Thermal tiles like the Orbiters had are also not really possible for the Starship. Those are reusable but can only take relatively low peak heats. They were barely able to protect the Orbiters and those were gliders. Starship will have to deal with higher peak heats. E.g. Orbiter heat tiles don't work on Starship. And definetely not for return from moon or Mars missions.

I think they simply don't know how they are going to heat-shield it yet and are experimenting around with stuff and Elon is bored and is just tweeting some experiments they are doing.

>>10475706
It'll be interesting how they modify the stack if they actually plan to launch it, will they grind off the welds? Is it just a basic inner-skin that will be replaced with an outer layer?

>>10475701
Pica isn't ceramic tiles you retard, it literally has "ablator in its name"

>>10475709
Windward side, the one going face on into re-entry.

>>10475717
double-hull, methane is run between it and exits tiny holes

Why are they building the "real" Starship when there's nowhere to launch it from (besides the test pad they've got now) and there's so many unproven technologies? If they're planning to do hops with it, why didn't they just skip the hopper?

>>10475715
shuttle reentry may be hotter because it is a flying brick, Starship on the other hand is bigger, so more like a flying baloon

>>10475725
The Orbiter were literal gliders. Starship is hotter without a doubt. I also think Elon once said they can't use Orbiter tiles for that exact reason.

>>10475724
there is no launch pad on Mars either, this thing will have to be able to launch from a relatively unprepared area by design

>>10475724
what's wrong with the test pad? Elon has said that they're not going to do the land-on-launch-mounts for the time being, so the SS+SH GSE/pad infrastructure will probably be quite basic, in keeping with the theme of the whole operation

In the time it will take to complete the orbital vehicle they'll probably do some more earth work and pour more concrete

>>10475231
so that's it then, they're doing something fucking wacky with full size prototypes now

>>10475725
it glides like a flying brick but the reentry is the opposite, it faced belly down so had a massive surface area to its weight thanks to the wings

>>10475728
you think? the 1650K is from Elon's mouth

>>10475728
being a glider or not has nothing to do with reentry heating, once the orbiter began to glide, reentry was well over

Starship may experience higher heating but in interplanetary reentry, not LEO

Fucking ablative tiles man... so they cannot do it just with reflective steel + transpiration cooling?

Starship is DOA.

>>10475728
Starship's heat shield frightens me

people use the 2021, number for new glenn but with falcon heavy actually flight tested, and using reliable rockets. Can we actually expect the new glenn in that time frame. New shepherd is a much smaller rocket. The engines are solid for the new glenn but the landing back to earth, and all those associated untested proecedures, can we actually expected by 2021, or like around the time the BFR is operational in 2020s++

>>10475678
No better way of having it be robust, reliable and cheap than to build it without preconceptions of how big rockets are meant to be built

>>10475737
>had a massive surface area to its weight thanks to the wings

not as large surface area as Starship will have

>>10475743
I'll shill my interpretation a bit:
>cover SS in tiles
>do entry tests
>figure out where the tiles were "used" the most
>stick transpiration stuff under the skin in those specific locations
>rip all of the tiles off
>now you have a calibrated transpiration system for SS, only in the places it needs it the most

>>10475739
Gliders can aerobrake longer in the upper parts of the atmosphere so they get less hot. As already said, the Orbiters were designed so that the tiles were just enough to shield them. Hotter, and they would have breaked. Starship has a higher ballistic coefficient so it will reenter hotter than the Orbiters no doubt about that. Especially with the heavy steel structure.

>>10475760
Exactly. If you can't simulate the heating, you have to just test it and find out empirically.

>>10475760

Sounds like a job for computer simulation.

>>10475762
At the same time, that steel structure can deal with heat much better than a earlier aluminum-alloy spacecraft.

>>10475760
Except for the next reentry might be hotter and your ship is ded.

Also that's not what Elon said. He said they will do that instead of replacing the tile which honestly doesn't make a lot of sense. Maybe he's just high again?

>>10475769
not to mention *stainless* steel, since it supposedly reflects like 40%(?) of the radiative energy away for free

>ablative tiles

NEWSPACE IS SEEETHING!!!

>>10475774
Reflectiveness won't help you much if you cover it in tiles.

>>10475766
I for one don't know if any CFD package can represent re-entry conditions, thousands of tiny holes and gaseous methane without being wacky

>>10475777
>https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1107380559834046465
>Transpiration cooling will be added wherever we see erosion of the shield. Starship needs to be ready to fly again immediately after landing. Zero refurbishment.

>ZERO REFURBISHMENT

OLDSPACE SMOKED

>>10475788
>will be added wherever we see erosion
>Zero refurbishment.

Pick one and only one.

>>10475785

But they only add transpiration cooling after the erosion tests are done, dont they? The tiles are simply to determine where to add the cooling?

>>10475777
its not ablative you retard

>>10475791
That's part of the shielding's development process. Once the areas that need transpiration are set there shouldn't be a significant erosion problem.

>>10475791
He means it's not supposed to erode, unlike ablative a heat shield. So they will install active cooling for better protection to prevent that from happening again.

>>10475797

>PICA-X
>Phenolic Impregnated Carbon Ablator
Ablator

>>10475791
>will be added wherever we see erosion

as in on the design, not on individual ships, learn to read you nigger

interesting that FL SS launch will be out of Cape Kennedy and not CCAFS.

>>10475791
Do you even newspace? When they figure out what the problem is with the initial design, they build a new one and scrap it. This isn't the Shuttle program, where the first five orbiters were the only ones they'd ever work with, nor do they need to freeze the design and wait for Congress' approval to build the things.

I am confus.

>>10475811
I don't think CCAFS has a big enough pad for Starship

>>10475813
select your favorite transpiration hole shape

>>10475734
The pad they've got is probably fine for doing hop tests with the orbital vehicle like they'll do with the hopper. If they want to send it to space though, they'll need to wait a couple years until Super Heavy and associated infrastructure are built. Looking at the speed the hopper made and the similar outdoor construction technique, even with added complexity, the orbital vehicle will be finished well before then.

>>10475813
Just wait until Elon gives his post-hop technical presentation

>>10475804
he never said he's using pica

>>10475827
TUFROC?

>>10474336
kek

>>10475800
So why aren't they going for full transpiration? This sounds like they are creating two problems with their heat shield instead of one. They will have to check ever heat tile and then also have to check every pore.

>>10475816
de-memorialize LC-34

>>10475834
flowing methane over the whole vehice is impractical.
imagine the piping

Why has the public's interest in space gone down?

>>10475844

Niggerification/Spiccation of America dumbs down the populace.

>>10475844
nasa's funding being shit for the last 40 years

>>10475842
Now imagine having to design and check-up a duo-heat shield. The concept is just weird as fuck. Adding complexity does not mean reducing refurbishment cost.

>>10475851
$20 billion per year is not shit funding tho

>>10475851
NASA is currently developing a super-heavy lift launcher whilst feeding a large commercial launch industry with billions every year and also developing rovers they send to Mars. And that's just the space part, they also do a lot of non-space related research. Doesn't sound like shit funding desu.

>>10474303
Nauka should be up there already like fucking 10 years ago, but had so many issues that almost no one believes that it will make up there before ISS's end of service (2024).
This module, no matter how cool and capable (basically salyut) is biggest embarrassment of post-soviet Russian space industry.
Even if it makes to launchpad, it will blow up on Proton because some drunk worker used hammer instead of screwdriver.

>>10474313
Actually, is possible that counting all the internal structure, weight and equipment, the "famous" expandable concept is not practical, since the outer inflatable shell isnt integred with the internal structure, it could end weighting more and be less safe.

>>10474313
Actually, is possible that counting all the internal structure, weight and equipment, the "famous" expandable concept would not be practical, since the outer inflatable shell isnt integred with the internal structure, it could end weighting more and be less safe.

What's interesting is that apparently Raptors will only throttle down to 50%, if that. That will make landing the Starship pretty hard.

with how this prototype is built imagine how many of these fuckers you could crank out after a few years of RND, and manufacturing know how. Jesus, it's going to be amusing at the least. I am betting most will be cargo versions with only the later ones carrying people

>>10475874
Especially on Mars, that is.

>>10475879
so what are they looking at a high g suicide burn with very low tolerances to land?

>>10475878
Liberty ships come to mind

>>10475879
>>10475874
50% of ~200 is 100mT of thrust. That's lower than the dry weight? I don't see an issue

>>10475851

NASA funding is OK. NASA management and political interference is the problem.

>>10475884
Basically. It will be difficult enough to pull that off on earth, I honestly don't see it happening on Mars where they won't have weather stations and not even a proper landing pad.

>>10475886
>50% of ~200 is 100mT of thrust. That's lower than the dry weight? I don't see an issue

For a soft landing? I think they will need modified Merlins

>>10475886
There's no way Starship will weigh more than 100 tons on earth, and especially on Mars.

>>10475860
>>10475860
Apollo is what inspired people and got them interested in space, their budget was 6 times bigger during it, and you can't do apollo without that kind of money.

That's what sls trying and failing to be, apollo without the money needed for apollo, if budget to time is liner, they'll be sinking money into it for 60 years before it gets to the moon.

You either need radical innovation, like spacex is doing, or a shitload of money, like apollo had. Nasa doesn't have either so its doing the administrative equivalent of living off payday loans, spending all their money on something designed specifically for getting more money from congress, but they can't ever break out of the cycle and push towards large scale goals.

public opinion is fickle. The Vietnam war never dropped below 50% approval you know

>>10475893
The commercial sector will build lunar landers and then SLS will be enough to put people on the moon again. It's enough to put people around Mars in the 2030s and it's costing a fraction of Apollo.

>>10475889
So what compensate with some of those several ton rcs thrusters? The cold gas whatevers? Mount a few on the bottom or at an angle? I mean I am pretty sure they are commited to making this work and keeping all the engines as raptors.

>>10475897
>it's costing a fraction of Apollo
its getting funding of a fraction of apollo, that's why it hasn't flown and won't fly for a long time

>>10475560
>they're actually welding an orbital vehicle behind their shed-tent
>>10475678
Amazing.

I made a discord server. These threads are consistent enough that I think its a good idea. Unfortunately I don't really know what I am doing.
https://discord.gg/esJGT4

>>10475905
I don't think how exactly they are going to land on Mars is their most pressing issue at the moment.

>>10475914
>goalbody.jpg

How do I get those arms? I legit can't grow my muscles up to this mass

>>10475915
>>10475905
Oh and to answer your question, you can't land using RCS thrusters, the thrust is way too small. If anything they can just add some sort of smaller landing engines.

>>10475884
>>10475889
What's the acceleration of a single raptor firing on the entire starship? if its fairly low then it'll be easy to control, they don't have to fire all 7 engines for the landing.

>>10475914
no
please no
delete immediately

>>10475915
Yeah but that's the punchline to everything isn't it? This won't be their moon vehicle. The engines are made to refuel on mars they better have a plan to land, no?

If they can't fix that point, and it's an integral issues to the design it has to be addressed early I imagine.

>>10475918
join the server and I will reveal my secrets

>>10475923
Its too late now

>>10475915
lololololololol

>>10475930
do you want this to turn into a /k/ /ARG/ sort of situation?
discord a shit

>>10475632
I like how they spent 20 bucks extra to tie it down this time around since it's the actual vehicle now.

>>10475922
Even for a single raptor their burn needs to be way shorter and way more precise than for the Falcons. That is on earth. For Mars, even shorter and even more precise again. For moon, don't even ask.

>>10475686
>>10475676

It looks like the launching system used in Outlaw Star, they should have Canada build two robotic arms for Starship, so it can punch other ships.

If nasa was actually funded we'd be on jupiter by now.

>>10475632
LMAO to whomever believes this piece of crank can survive Max Q of an orbital flight.

>>10475983
are you calling elon a liar

>>10475619
>video of hex tile testing
This cant simulate the forces and temperature of a re-entering heat shield, right? Combustion induced temperature isnt the same as kinetic friction temperature/forces....right?

>>10475991
Right. The tiles also generally behave differently in the upper atmosphere. This is just some usual Elon PR stuff.

>>10475991
If it doesn't work the first time they'll try again later. Its not like they're throwing away expensive aerostructures.

>We decided to skip building a new nosecone for Hopper. Don’t need it. What you see being built is the orbital Starship vehicle.
Heh guessed right. Too long for a nosecone.

>>10475991
They can risk one merlin and use its exhaust. Or run simulations.

>>10475991
>kinetic friction temperature/forces
what a fucking word salad

This ultra- transparent design process is kind of weird desu even for Elon levels. I think this dude is preparing a crowdfunding campaign for the BFR. Yes.

>>10476011
top lel nobody's going to give money to that scammer

>>10476018

>>10475813
Literal 30 y.o. boomer.

>>10475878
To be honest, I'm having a hard time believing reusing these piles of scrap would even be worth the effort. How much can one of these possibly cost if you don't even need any kind of facility for their assembly, the material is cheap and abundant and a couple of average welders can put most of it together?
Makes me wonder if you couldn't just expend a couple of Scrapships to cart a few hundred tons of equipment to the moon and then just bring astronauts there some other way eventually to unbox and assemble everything.
Even with the upper stage engines being left on the moon and only utilizing first stage reuse, you can't tell me transport costs to the moon would be the limiting factor of a proper moon base anymore.
Thinking about it, I really have to wonder if the effort with the heat shield and the in-orbit refueling and all that will even be worth all the extra RnD costs and the years of delay all this innovation will surely bring.

>>10475892
Reusable payload is 100 tons to LEO, or 100 tons to the surface of the Moon with a full tank from LEO. The surface of Mars is also listed as 100 tons, but the dV requirement isn't too far apart and you get a little bonus with aerobraking.

>>10476055
Elon is going for launch prices below a Falcon 1. If the scrapships really are built like a brick shithouse, the sheer abuse they can withstand before failure might be able to pull it off.

>"Ah shit Bill, part of the bulkhead melted off again."
>>"Just cut the bad section off and weld a fresh one on, we've got to turn this bitch around in eight hours."

reminder that Moon Machines is a GOAT TV show
pretty sure they're all on YT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aDSYTMqyQw

>>10475551
the water tower they just built is the only tankage they have to hold enough methalox prop to do tests longer than ten seconds

>>10475659
it's only a contradiction if you think rocket design can't change over time *cough* shuttle *cough* congress *cough*

>>10476138
awesome, thanks

>>10475762
>>10475769
STS orbiter didn't have much empty room inside, being full of heavy crew capsule with minimal propellant tanks
Starship is mostly propellant tanks with some empty fairing inside

>>10475933
holy shit fuck /arg/ they are the cancer ruining /k/

>>10474311
more like pirs of shit lmao

>>10476267
Based
A
S
E
D

>>10475445
>longer
And wider, and it has much more thrust.

>>10475551
>Wasn't the raptor only capable to do like 10 second burns at a time?
no

>>10475583
>the shell
Rockets are literally built by welding together rolled rings of sheet metal into weight bearing tanks.

>>10475637
>>10475632
How fucking permanently blown the fuck out is every aerospace company on Earth going to be when this thing makes orbit?

>>10475659
>Those sentences contradict each other.
No, they are going to cover the belly in tiles and everywhere that they get burned they are going to redesign the heat shield to have transpiration cooling in those areas instead of tiles, until they settle on a heat shield with zero tile erosion and minimal required transpiration cooling.

>>10476386
Like I posted earlier
>>10475673

We build shit like aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines either out in the fucking open or practically so, with only a few elements built in controlled environments (reactors and engines don't require massive facilities though). The only concern here is ensuring that the plumbing is clean enough to not cause issues with the engines once the system goes live.

>>10475560
>What you see being built is the orbital Starship vehicle

>>10476386
Well, Blue Origin has their own long term plans for New Armstrong, which will probably be a similarly capable launcher.

The Chinese will be flying a Falcon 9 equivalent in 2020, so their Starship knockoff is probably in the pipe. Arianespace is basically making their last grab to squeeze every last ounce out of expendable rockets with Ariane 6, but 7 may very well be reusable.

NASA and the Russians are fucking doomed.

>>10475728
>The Orbiter were literal gliders.
They weren't good gliders though. They were really shit and had a terrible lift to drag ratio, the glide slope of Shuttle on approach was like a normal plane in a 15 degree dive. They only count as gliders because they were unpowered after reentry.

>>10475673
Not a trekkie, how do they get that thing into orbit?

>>10475773
>Except for the next reentry might be hotter and your ship is ded.
That's why tiles first dumbass.

He didn't say they'd do that instead of replacing the tiles, he said they'd redesign the tiles vs transpiration panel layout in response to tiles being burned during reentry. Basically they're going to have parts that are covered in tiles and parts that have 'sweat' panels, and if the first few flights show that the tiles are being burned consistently in certain spots the shield will be redesigned to match. That's why this is a PROTOTYPE heat shield.

All subsequent Starship vehicles after this will have heat shields using tiles and transpiration panels laid out in the pattern they settle on after Orbital prototype Starship does a few tests. Eventually with improvements in technology they'll do further upgrades just like modern airliners keep tweaking their plane designs.

>>10475828
there you go, you got it. Good job.

>>10475834
>They will have to check ever heat tile and then also have to check every pore.
No and no, because the tiles aren't made of brittle glass foam and the holes won't require individual inspection, if any inspection at all. Literally do a nitrogen purge to test the entire thing at once.

>>10476416
Half the shit in Trek is magic anyway but that particular feat probably isn't that impressive with their antimatter-powered impulse drive.

That said, it is hard to picture any way to propel a near-million ton object into orbit without it being massively destructive to the Earth. Just the noise and backdraft pressure alone holy shit

>>10476431
also the heating might naturally unclog them
it is one of the big if factors, that and rapid orbital refueling on a huge scales

>>10475886
>100mT of thrust. That's lower than the dry weight?
Dry weight is ~85 tons. On Mars it's ~32.

>>10476416
NCC-1701 (in all of its incarnations) was built by a civilization that could manipulate gravitational fields. Even if the best they could do was neutralize planetary gravitational fields in a localized area, that's enough that you could slowly raise a vehicle with teakettle thrusters to orbit with a lot more ease than you would think. This should be considered a natural function of such a system as an "inertial dampener."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yESWsgJ__dY&feature=youtu.be&t=168

Copy and paste that, the embed won't give you the right start time (2min 48sec).

>>10475889
>Mars where they won't have weather stations
>implying that matters when the strongest winds produce a few newtons of force per square meter and the worst 'precipitation' is sub-micron dust particles.
>no landing pad
Literally no issue.

>>10476432
The biggest thing Trek never deals with is HEAT. you could do all of these things if the universe worked that way, but holy fuck the HEAT thrown off. SHIT, THAT'S A LOT OF FUCKING HEAT.

>>10475991
>Combustion induced temperature isnt the same as kinetic friction temperature
Yes it is, heat is heat. Only difference is that there will be dynamic pressure involved, which while hypersonic won't be a huge amount of force per square foot.

>>10476438
>>10476432
Ah right, forgot that they could manipulate gravity.

>>10476069
The Earth landing mass will always be empty, or at least very close to dry mass. For Mars it's dry mass plus 100 to 150 tons times 3/8ths G to get 69 to 88 tons weight, for the Moon it's 35 tons weight with 150 tons mass payload.

Importantly, these landings occur at a high TWR in that environment because of the lower gravity, but the acceleration rate stays pretty much the same. The result is that these landings appear to happen much more slowly than a landing on Earth with a >1 TWR would. It makes calculating your hoverslam maneuver much easier.

>>10476407
Was more referencing the gorillions of dollars everyone keeps spending on ultraclean rooms and whatever other <<current industry>> standards exist that an orbital backyard shed would undermine

>>10476432
>antimatter-powered impulse drive.
It uses fusion, the warp core uses antimatter. Micro-fusion impulse drives are what propel photon torpedoes also.

>>10476473
it's part of the design mindset. Elon said that Merlin should be able to be built in a non-cleanroom from the beginning... and they aren't made in one now.
If you design something with the mindset that you NEED a cleanroom, you end up actually needing it

Why are hexagons so futuristic?

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1107378575924035584

>>10476597
bees? Saturn?

starship hopper is LITERALLY launching this week.
Incredible

>>10476597
smallest number wholly divisible by 2 and 3

>>10475619
>meanwhile at JWST cleanroom
"Guys? Where did the mirrors disappeared to?"

>>10474742
>think
Nothing but wishful thinking at this point.
Wouldn't be the first costly pr stunt that Musk used to keep the public interested.

new bread

>>10476977
>>10476977
>>10476977
>>10476977
>>10476977

>>10475918
deadlifts