/sci/ - Science & Math

Bezos' ex wifes dildo edition.

daily reminder that this engine gets comparable thrust performance as Raptor despite being significantly yuge

>>10492064
Paper Rockets
Engines that haven't flown
Tin cans that go up and down

>>10492064
Is this the first vaporware rocket of the newspace era?

>>10492064
>blue origin

>NO THREAD edition

At the edge of our hope, at the end of our time, OP was finally not a fag

>imagine actually wanting to colonize a red dwarf system

>>10492097
It's not significantly larger. I wonder what thrust BE-4 would get at 300 bar chamber pressure. 4000 kN?

>>10492064
L O N G

>>10492148
eh? it's been like five hours
no biggie, but he should have waited until something was fucking happening

>>10492064

>>10492170
it IS significantly larger

>>10492186
check the OP title, and see that it was just a low effort attempt to take over the thread
either it's the shitter shattered invader, or just someone taking the piss

>>10492189

>>10492190
>waaaaa you're not allowed to talk about anybody but my precious Elon baby
it's just that nobody else is doing anything right now lol

>>10492151
>lasts for 50 billion years in your path

>>10492186
I don't mind having one up when nothing's happening, it is good for chat. I was tired of having two or three SFG up when the oldest one was at 305 posts

>>10492198
It's not too comfy around red dwarfs
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf#Habitability

>>10492240
you saved it as a jpg you FUCK
the transparency made it comfy

>>10492268
>comfy
stop

>>10492151
>have one chance at existence
>be born as a red dwarf
why even fuse bros?

>>10492302
You'll outlive all other stars.

do we belong out there?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jtQOAtiJq3o

>>10492307
>existential crisis intensifies

>>10492097
Do you think North Korea studies photos like these that come out?

>>10492097
What is the specific impulse? There is a reason the raptor uses the more complex full flow staged-combustion cycle.

>>10492097
BE-4 (2400 kN) makes a little less than 1/5th more power than the raptor (1993 kN), and its about that much larger....

>>10492332
they probably just buy/mooch the blueprints from the Chinese' intelligence operation

>>10492172
MARCH

>>10492342
The nozzle isn't the important part, but the turbomachinery that drives the combustion chamber. This affects how densely the components can be packed on the vehicle, among other things.

>>10492353
ok, the nozzle definitely is an important part, even if you can change it out for different sizes. We should be looking at weight to power ratios and isp but my effort ran out with that last post

>>10492342
>>10492353
Pretty stupid observations all around. BE-4 has a very low chamber pressure for a staged combustion engine, and that's why it's large with a somewhat low thrust (even though in reality it's more like a standard twr and not a "bad" twr.)
Now look at how large the SSME is and how little thrust it gets...

>>10492305
but what's the point if I can't build brightness? All the planets I hang out with seem like they're warm to me but I always feel like there's another side to them that's cold and doesn't ever want to see me. I just want to make life with a planet, bros. What's it like? You bigger stars don't understand, you just naturally accreted mass and brightness without trying

>>10492361
No roleplay allowed

>>10492361
Just be yourself bro, you have billions more years than the chad stars, who knows, you might find a qt rocky planet that develops microbial life that can handle your low light and high radiation

>>10492342
pretty sure none of those engines look like that anymore

>>10492188
hahaha!

>>10492360
>Pretty stupid observations all around.
I hope you at least got some dopamine from typing that, seems like you need it. What point are you trying to make justifying the size of the BE-4? No one is arguing it's not big. SSME isn't even methane fuck off

>>10492410
>What point are you trying to make justifying the size of the BE-4?
What's the point you're trying to make by pointing these engine sizes out in every thread?

>>10492307
>there are people who think immortality is overrated
I don't care if I have to spend trillions of years traveling, I want to see the universe in all its glorious expanse.

>>10492418
This to be honest
Imagine being a billion years old
Imagine you check your considerable electronic (or whatever it is at the time) schedule
Imagine it says, start heading back to sol, stay around for a few hundred million - a billion years, to watch and document the sun going super giant
Imagine being a part of whatever evacuation effort or to move the earth (because sentimental reasons)
Imagine telling the people the journey you've been on.
Imagine sharing your lived expereinces with other equally long, longer, or less lived people
Imagine watching yourself or documenting with some sort of long lived drone, the whole process of sol's death
Imagine being on a high tech ship (and thus in perfect safety) and watching a supernova from a lightyear away etc

>>10492415
lol wrong anon pal

Will prostitution be legal on mars?

>>10492489
will the concept of money exist on mars outside of something that you get after you get back? (if you get back)

>>10492489
More importantly, will guns and fast cars be legal?

>>10492499
>fast
>on the low g, unpaved dusty shitfest that is Mars' surface
I mean, if you WANT to flip over and die

>>10492495
I would assume this depends on the value of something found on Mars, like gold here

>>10492502
Sounds like you're just a bitch who doesn't want the ultimate rally experience.

>>10492495
no, there will be a barter system only :^)

>>10492332
I'm sure they pay attention to it, but I doubt much can really be reverse engineered just from photos.
I mean the basics of how the engines and fuel flows work are public knowledge really, it's all the exact details and metallurgy and such that make the difference.

>>10492508
honestly I think electric rally would be great fun as a driver sport but not much good as a spectator thing
and hey somebody's got to go check out the far solar panels, right?

>>10492512
>basedlar panels
this meme never gets old

Real men go nuclear

>>10492510
yeah, China's engines are honestly terrible
they can't make a good twr engine (or rocket) and that's why rockets like long march 7 are larger than Falcon 9 but have shit for payload

>>10492517
hypergolics are a hell of a drug

>>10492517
China cares about two things
Making money
Keeping face
t. self hating asian

>>10492502
>literal tons of fuel production as the number one priority of the colony
>not outfitting your car with thrusters to enjoy that sweet 1/3 G
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwGPDUFHtM
the royalties from the racing competitions and the interest in experiencing the driving firsthand is gonna be huge. Even if people don't care about science, humanity, survival, there will be an absolutely enormous number who care about sports

>>10492535
I reckon terraforming the moon so it has an atmosphere would be fucking sick, too - imagine being able to strap wings to your body and fly under your own power.
Hell, you could probably figure out pod racing in some form, too.

>>10492535
high speed fun comes after you've paved everything and got a nice stretch of land that you can drive on
without it, you have to deal with sticky razor dust, which is bad

>>10492542
the atmosphere of Mars has smoothed out the dust, hasn't it? no razordust on Mars, only on Luna

>>10492516
ok but what to use for coolant while getting set up

>>10492539
the moon has neither the gravity nor the magnetic field to keep an atmosphere

>>10492542
>sticky razor dust
Moon has that but does Mars have it too?

>>10492535
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valles_Marineris

Imagine a Baja 1000-style race along the length of it.

>>10492542
Martian regolith is likely to be much smoother than lunar regolith due to wind action. Its the moon that has the razordust, as there's nothing to smooth shit out over time.

>>10492550
I wouldn't think so, weathering effects would quickly smooth it out.

>>10492549
Long term, no. Enough to trap an atmosphere for 10,000 years? Sure.
As for magnetic protection, just set up a nuclear powered satellite at one of the lagrange points and make your own magnetic field.

>>10492560
you're mixing up Luna and Mars (again)

>>10492553
>Imagine a Baja 1000-style race along the length of it.
I want this movie. Mad Max on Mars

>>10492560
10k years afair enough
Just seems like a waste
It's not like we are a multistellar, kardaschev 2 on the way to 3 level civilization where that amount of gas is peanuts, but i do see your point
Although oddly, if we were at a point where that amount of gas and expenditure is no big deal, it'd be easy enough just to keep delivering gas to it anyway

>>10492553
Alex Honnold needs to free solo Valles Marineris

>>10492584
at that point, you might as well take a bong rip and see if you can straight dome the entire fucking moon
you'd need the system's best CWIS system to stop meteorites from fucking the panels, but point defense is a hell of a lot cheaper than the project itself so who cares

plus, with that sweet ass ALON stuff, domes and windows actually become slightly more viable, though rads are still an issue

What all sports are going to be better/new on Mars?By creating vivid mental images which gradually suffuse into normie consciousness, we could help increase the demand for space tourism and help the process advance faster by whatever minute fraction.

We've got rock climbing, motor racing with potential 3D elements. What else that would be visually exciting indoors no suits, or outdoors no-contact for safety?

>>10492592
plenty of aluminum for it on Luna as well

>>10492600
Unfortunately on Mars flight and anything involving aerodynamic flight that isnt ultra-ultra-light drones is out. Oh its possible to fly there, but anything larger than that tiny coaxial rotor probe Nasa's sending up with the next rover will fly with all of the grace and ability of a supersonic ocean-liner.

>>10492600
ROLLERBALL

>>10492516
Nowhere near as scalable as solar and vastly more complicated. Plus enjoy having to have a gorrilion miles of radiators for a single reactor.

>>10492607
Airships with lifting gas are possible desu, but yeah lifting bodies, nah,

>>10492620
Less miles of radiators per GW than you'd need for solar

>>10492626
I think a kilopower esque thing would be perfect for backup and redundancy but it's not going to be getting you home

>>10492626
Sure but instead you also need to add refined fuel rods and complicated as fuck reactors and maintennance heavy turbines. Nuclear is a meme for inner planets, once you get to Jupiter it has a use.

>>10492629
considering the martian population is going to consist near entirely of engineers and other 120+ IQ people, complexity is not actually as much of a hurdle
plus, they'll be covering the base with other complex, high end equipment, so it will not be particularly unique in terms of difficulty to build and maintain
and nuclear is vital from a social perspective, if humanity's first step into the void is powered by nuclear, the unwashed masses might stop being so fucking afraid of it, and some proper development can finally be done

>>10492629
Kilopower can burn depleted uranium and output power via stirling engines. On Mars the waste heat can be then dumped into the atmosphere.

Scale it up and you're good to go. Just need a source of sodium for the coolant.

>>10492635
Dude kilopower is a fucking joke, you need multiple giggawatts.

>>10492633
It's not about the people it's about complicated and heavy as fuck components that cannot be created locally and need to be shipped from earth you fucking moron. You can't just swap random shit out for turbine blades and casings. What happens if something goes wrong with your nuke reactor? Oh meltdown/ catastrophic failure and you are fucked. What goes wrong when a solar cell fails? Swap it out in five minutes.

>>10492633
What about thorium reactors? I don't know how common thorium would be on other planets, but it's probably a better option than uranium reactors.

>>10492640
>implying that a design that cant melt down cant be designed

>>10492605
ALON is such a good material for resisting ballistics
Imagine the ebic views from an observation dome made of the stuff

>>10492640
ah
you have absolutely fucking no knowledge of how nuclear works
also, building the manufacturing ability to make high end components is literally one of the first fucking things they're going to do once they set foot on Mars
it's literally going to be
>drop shitter power
>set up propellant plant
>drill a bunker
>set up better power
>get mining drills up
>get ore refining systems up
>get manufacturing up
>expand like it's factorio forever
in that order

>>10492658
did musk play factorio

>>10492643
designs that can't melt down have already BEEN designed

>>10492658
>no radar
Chinese are gonna wreck his shit

Flint presentation video has leaked:

https://twitter.com/TheTeslaShow/status/1109631205304082433?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahUsCaZFvi4

>>10492689
fucking hell I love space travel so much

>>10492689
>starman
based

>>10492689
He's unironically doing this because Tesla stock is falling and they have nothing up their sleeves anymore. There's even a literal Tesla ad at the end.

>>10492693
man tesla needs to step up

>>10492689
holy shit he is getting fat. I guess the stress gets to you running two companies.

>>10492097
Nozzle size doesn't matter that much. But even there, BE-4 isn't doing much worse. It is 1.9m and does 2.45MN, meaning it does roughly 130KN per cm of Nozzle. Raptor is 1.3m and does 1.98MN, meaning it does roughly 150KN per cm of Nozzle. In other words, Raptor produces around 15% more thrust per cm of nozzle. That's not that much.

But it doesn't really matter anyways because nozzle diameter tells you nothing about complexity and building cost of the engine.

@10492693

How would Elon meeting some random school children from Michigan help Tesla, unless some of the SEC agents have kids who go there? I'm not the biggest Tesla fan but you TESLAQ people are literally qanon-tier retards, who seemingly spend every waking hour creating ridiculous conspiracies, that suggest everything Elon does with his other companies is some elaborate ploy to save Tesla from it's supposedly imminent collapse...

>>10492701
BE-4 is 0.86 MN/m2 and Raptor is 1.49 MN/m2 which is 72% more

>>10492699
He'll lose it again. He's been in bad shape before

>>10492172
How New Glenn can completely BTFO Starship.

1. Put a Bigelow Habitat in Orbit
2. Put a landing/descent vehicle in Orbit and dock it onto the Bigelo Habitat
3. Put a second stage in Orbit (will still hold around 45 tons) and dock it onto the Habitat
4. Put another second stage in Orbit that will refuel the docked-on second stage.
5. Repeat step 4.
6. Repeat step 4.
7. Fly to Mars.

>>10492715
BE-4 is 1.9m and does 2.45MN you dumb shit.

>>10492718
fuckin kek. I wonder if this'd actually work. Seems so simple and easy

>>10492718
Except that does not BTFO Starship at all, lol. It may BTFO Falcon Heavy. Starship as a fully reusable system able to put 100 tons on Mars would be in a class of its own.

>>10492721
I hope you know what square meter is

>>10492064
Jeff who ?
And most important Jeff WHEN ? No fucking glimpse of a new shepard launch. He doesnt play the communications game like musk. And thats why nobody loves him.

>>10492718
Glenn is a Falcon heavy competitor
Armstrong is the Starship competitor, and they haven't even fucking started the Armstrong

>>10492489
it won't just be legal, it'll be mandatory. Think of oil towns in remote Canada. Tons of high-energy young men in their prime doing hard necessary work all day with no outlet, women generally don't want to go there. Mars colony will have the best, most beautiful, sex-loving prostitutes of the human race who are willing to leave the planet, and they'll be able to live very privileged lives, relative to most everyone else up there.

>>10492718
This sounds like some retarded vapourware that Zubrin would come up with. First of all, Bigelow have basically gone AWOL at this point, I can't remember the last time they released an update or hardware pictures. Second, refuelling liquid hydrogen on-orbit sounds like a nightmare, I want BO and ULA to attempt it just to see how hard they will fail.

>>10492718
This sounds like some retarded vapourware that Zubrin would come up with. First of all, Bigelow have basically gone AWOL at this point, I can't remember the last time they released an update or hardware pictures. Second, refuelling liquid hydrogen on-orbit sounds like an absolute nightmare, I want BO and ULA to attempt it just to see how badly it ends up.

In regards to inflatable modules, it seems like Sierra Nevada will be the first to develop a functional one, their gateway habitation module bid is a less ambitious inflatable design than the B330 but they have a better funding and likely better engineers than Bigelow.

>>10492750
Refueling liquid hydrogen is not a problem. However, the fact that it would boil off long before reaching Mars is. And you would need some really big tanks due to low density.

>>10492763
It would likely boil off before the two upper-stages could rendezvous unless NG could be launched twice in under 24 hours, which seems extremely unlikely considering the architecture and cadence BO are aiming for. I'm talking more about the difficulties of refuelling tho, cryogenic fuel has never been transferred on-orbit before so the precise difficulties are unknown; furthermore, hydrogen is likely the worst fuel to use considering it's habit of escaping through gaps and thin walls, the refuelling feed lines would have to be incredibly robust to use hydrogen.

>>10492658
>set up better power
>get mining drills up
>get ore refining systems up
>get manufacturing up
>expand like it's factorio forever

Real life isn't a video game buddy, how much do you think just the mining systems alone will incur in weight to transport cost and ongoing maintenance? Protip you could bring many many times the amount of nuclear power in solar cells. Learn about Delta v moron.

>Bro just ship an entire industrial, refining and manufacturing base in 100t increments to Mars lmao

>>10492718
1. make nuclear ship
2. leave planet

>>10492796
This
If anything they're going to have to build on site, only importing complex shit that has to be made on earth because they lack the facilities on mars
Replicate said facilities with new equipment to come closer to self sufficiency etc
It's gonna be somewhat slow

>>10492727
Is there any more retarded metric you can come up with? Maybe thrust per letters in its name?

>>10492718
You could actually do it with less launches. You bring the Habitat up and let the second stage docked onto it. You then refuel that second stage with three additional launches. The fifth launch brings the crew, who is sitting in the landing/descent module. So you could do it with a total of 5 launches.

>>10492763
It doesn't matter that it will boil off at Mars, the landing/descent module does not necessarily run on hydrogen. The hydrogen will only be needed for the transfer burn, capture and orbital entry can be done by a more easily storable fuel.

>>10492839
>Three refuel launches

You must be joking, BFR is going to need 10+ refuel flights and that has the extremely substantial advantage of being able to aerobrake, which a Bigelow absolutely cannot. And which launch are you bringing your payload up on? And what about the fuel needed for that?

Fuck off retard.

>>10492841
>transfer burn, capture and orbital entry

How exactly are you planning to perform orbital entry with a Bigelow Hab?

>>10492844
Inflatable heat shield.

But yeah, you would probably need at least one additional launch to put a return stage into Orbit.

>>10492847
Words cannot begin describe this level of bullshit.

>>10492850
Depends, imho it's more bullshit to land a 50m tall, 100 tons heavy rocket on Mars, but to each their own.

>>10492797
1. make nuclear war
2. leave planet
we have the technology for this literally today

>>10492852
Fuck off moron you have no idea what you are talking about.

>>10492758
>Second, refuelling liquid hydrogen on-orbit sounds like an absolute nightmare, I want BO and ULA to attempt it just to see how badly it ends up

Even if that ends up being a problem, how difficult would it be to develop a second stage that has a BE-4 on its ass instead? That were their initial plans anyways.

>>10492852
>falcon 9
>500 tons
>lands on earth with earth gravity
>can't be done on mars

Whereas the skyking thread?

>>10492855
Why so salty mate? Matter of fact is, you can set up a Mars-transfer architecture with New Glenns EASILY.

>>10492862
Skyking thread?

>>10492862
Fuck off retard

>>10492858
F9 1st stage dryweight is nowhere close to that mate. Also, a Falcon 9 would indeed be the worst lander design you could come up with.

>>10492866
Dont ignore me. I'm serious. Skyking?

>>10492864
S A L T Y

A

L

T

Y

>>10492871
Fuck off retard

>>10492871
F off guy. I'm trying to find sk?

>>10492870
What are you talking about?

>>10492875
S A L T Y

A

L

T

Y

>>10492877
so? Thread tracks us airforce strategic command. Monitors radio coded messages. Not to decode, just flight paths and frequency of messages. Numbers stations etc...I saw on pol buy its gone.

>>10492852
You cannot do Mars mission with tin cans. New Glenn is fine for lunar landings, but Mars requires something like a Starship.

>>10492878
Fuck off retard

These are instructions. Thread is not up now on pol.

>>10492882
If you can do Moon with New Glenn you can do Mars. Just requires some more launches.

>>10492885
>A few days to the moon is the same as half a year to Mars

It's literally not even remotely the same.

Apologies for butting into your thing here. Any adcice?

>>10492886
It is, because you only need additional launches to take care of that.

>>10492888
You are just pulling shit out of your ass, where are you storing the tonnes of food? The thousands of tonnes of return propellant? The extensive life support systems for half a year there and half a year back absolute minimum? You need a big vehicle for this shit, not a tin can.

>>10492888
>Durr I'm a fucking retard

>>10492892
>>10492892
>where are you storing the tonnes of food?

Habitat.

>The thousands of tonnes of return propellant?

Stages.

>The extensive life support systems for half a year there and half a year back absolute minimum?

Habitat.

>You need a big vehicle for this shit, not a tin can.


You will assemble that big vehicle in Orbit. New Glenn has a 7m fairing and 45t to LEO capacity. 10 New Glenn launches can put the whole ISS into Orbit. 2-3 launches are enough to put an adequately sized ship into Orbit, the rest will be refueling.

>>10492921
Look at this garbage, goodbye. Starship kills you.

>>10492923
Imagine being this triggered lol

>>10492921
>10 New Glenn launches can put the whole ISS into Orbit. 2-3 launches are enough to put an adequately sized ship into Orbit, the rest will be refueling.

The ISS has 16 modules and cryogenic refuelling doesn't exist, it would be extremely impractical with hydrolox that the New Glenn uses due to boil off and hydrogen's characteristics.

Take your autism somewhere else pls

>>10492939
>cryogenic refuelling doesn't exist

You should tell that to Elon, because they are basing their whole Mars architecture around cryogenic refueling.

Enough of this shit, in other news L2 recently found out the reason why Starliner failed it's vacuum testing: it apparently lacked structural integrity...

>>10492854
1. make nuclear ship
2. leave planet
3. instigate kessler syndrome to prevent the rest of humanity from following
4. ??????
5. rule the galaxy

>>10492948
you mean like it broke up lol?

>>10492948
ouch, that sounds bad

>>10492956
Probably not that extreme, but some are spectating that it's pressure vessel was compromised, because Boeing are apparently switching out the capsule involved. If this failure occurred during a launch, the inhabitants would likely be toast. There's also some interesting information about why this might have happened, as Starliner's pressure vessel is a two piece structure which is bolted together and Dragon's is a one piece structure which is welded.

>>10492972
naturals better than bolt-ons scientifically confirmed

>>10492921
>10 New Glenn launches can put the whole ISS into Orbit
Launching ISS modules and components is volume limited, not mass limited!

>>10492972
For visual reference, here's a picture of the two halves of Starliner's pressure vessel being put together:

>>10492979
And a picture of Dragon's welded one piece

>>10492546
Supercritical CO2 that gets pumped through the reactor core and out to the heat engines. A second loop of CO2 removes waste heat to the radiator panels or optionally to nearby industrial processes that require a lot of heat energy (melting chunks of permafrost for example).

>>10492980
"Dragon" is a ugly name for a manned civil-piloted spacecraft....Starliner on the other hand...

But well, Starliner is a nice name, but it would kill you.

>>10492170
>It's not significantly larger.

40% wider, twice the nozzle area, 2.4 times the volume. A rocket with as many Raptors underneath it as possible will have twice the thrust of a rocket with BE4s.

>>10492997
Starliner is an ironic name for a spacecraft that will only travel to LEO; some people have argued similarly about the name 'Starship' but at least it will if everything goes to plan, actually visit other celestial bodies instead of being a glorified space taxi...

>>10492627
It's less square meters per kilowatt, doesn't matter if you have one or a billion kilowatts, your nuclear power source is more compact.
>>10492629
>refined fuel rods and complicated as fuck reactors and maintennance heavy turbines
Send fuel from Earth (doesn't have to be rods obviously), reactors are actually very simple they're only complicated to design, they won't be designed on Mars for a very long time, and lol turbines meant for power generation are not maintenance heavy they run for tens of thousands of hours non stop (jet engines on the other hand need tune ups because they're ingesting dirty atmosphere and are running much hotter).
>>10492635
>Kilopower can burn depleted uranium
No actually kilopower requires highly enriched U-235 to work, you're thinking of molten salt reactors which can breed either U-233 from Th-232 or Pu-239 from U-238. Molten salt breeders are superior to pretty much any reactor design in theory but no one to this point has fully developed one as of yet (we've got all the technology developed separately though, and have had it for decades).

>>10492701
Nozzle size matters because it limits how many engines you can fit under a rocket. Btw nozzles areas are two dimensional, not one.

>>10492641
Thorium is all over the place, every rocky object has it. So's uranium. A breeder reactor using either thorium or uranium is better than any non-breeder reactor, period.

>>10492433
Then imagine being killed in some stupid accident when you still have billions of years left to live.

>>10492839
>Is there any more retarded metric you can come up with? Maybe thrust per letters in its name?
Thrust per nozzle exit area is absolutely relevant to launch vehicle design, it's essentially where your maximum height limit comes from. Rockets are pretty much infinitely scalable in terms of width, there's only a practical upper limit where you start to fly pancakes, but all rockets have a more fundamental limit in terms of height; how much thrust per unit area there is at the base of the vehicle.

>>10492841
>It doesn't matter that it will boil off at Mars
he didn't say that, he said it would boil off long before it ever reached Mars in the first place

>>10492862
Not as easily as with Starship lol
NG throws stages away not to mention every module your architecture requires would be single use how embarrassing

>>10492921
>>The thousands of tonnes of return propellant?
>Stages
oh no no no no uhu hu hu hu
uuu uuu uuuuuu uuuuuu

>>10492948
Oh fuck if that's the case then Starliner is LITERALLY blown the fuck out

unrecoverable, SpaceX is going to get that furag

>>10493023
You are literally the most retarded poster ITT, go kys.

not an argument

>>10493028
How about SpaceX manages to actually reuse Falcon 1st stages without refurbishment before they talk about reusing orbital rockets.

>>10493023
Then Raptor is actually worse because it is taller you absolute retard.

>>10493056
aww, guess again sweetie :)

When is the hopper test?

>>10493058
monday

>>10492976
New Glenn fairing is half as big as the whole ISS is (excluding the solar panels, which get rolled out).

>>10493005
They are three dimensional, idiot. Also, having few bigger engines is easier to construct than clustering a lot of small ones together.

>>10493060
Neat, looking forward to seeing it explode horribly

>>10493062
>They are three dimensional, idiot.
Only their area matters for clustering, retard. Also Raptor is smaller in every dimension so you don't even have an argument.

>>10492870
>>10492884
wtf does that have to do with spaceflight
fuck off

>>10493071
Your retarded metrics that nobody cares about just show your huge inferiority complex. Here's a metric that matters: New Glenn will need 7 BE-4s, Starship will need 31 Raptors.

>>10493080
I am not that guy but thrust per are is not a retarded metric you moron, it is one of the most important ones for first stage performance, just stop posting you are embarrassing yourself

>>10493062
>Also, having few bigger engines is easier to construct than clustering a lot of small ones together.

nope, smaller engines lead to economics of scale and also multiple engine out capability even during landing

>>10493084
Thrust per nozzle diameter you idiot nobody fucking cares about height or squaremetre or whatever the fuck that idiot is babbeling.

>>10493086
Smaller engines lead to way more complicated plumbing you fucking idiot. Go and construct a rocket with 100 Merlins if you love your economies of scale so much you retard.

>>10493087
thrust per area of the nozzle (and ultimately thrust per area of the base of the rocket) is what is important, not thrust per nozzle diameter

>>10493092
Go kill yourself.

>>10493089
Complicated plumbing is not a big issue, it is a solvable problem. Again, advantages of many smaller engines:

- cheaper due to economies of scale
- multiple engine-out capability even during landing
- more mass efficient (small engines means engine mass scales with area instead of cube of the base of the rocket)
- easier engine installation/replacement
- no issues with combustion instability

>>10493098
As I said, go construct your 100 Merlin rocket then. No need to use Raptors for the first stage, just use 100 Merlins. Would even give you more thrust.

>>10493098
another advantage: circle packing many smaller engines is more area efficient than few large ones (meaning you cover more of the area of the rocket by nozzles instead of gaps)

>>10493099
Raptors are more efficient. They're also more efficient than BE-4 lol

>>10493098
>- cheaper due to economies of scale

Irrelevant for reusable boosters.

>multiple engine-out capability even during landing

That's not really true though. If multiple engines defunct your payload will either miss the orbit is is inteded to or you will have not enough fuel to land. This only is true if you have a payload that is well below the limit so that you have big safety margins.

Also, I dont know when was the last time an engine was defunct on any rocket anywhere.

>more mass efficient (small engines means engine mass scales with area instead of cube of the base of the rocket)

The exact opposite is actually true, few big engines are lighter than a lot of small ones.

>- easier engine installation/replacement

Yeah, but you have to do many times more often so overall the installation/replacement takes longer.

>- no issues with combustion instability

Only relevant for extremely big engines.

>>10493130
>Also, I dont know when was the last time an engine was defunct on any rocket anywhere.
CRS-1 had a Merlin 1C pop its fuel dome during ascent. The primary payload made the targeted orbit (Dragon), but the secondary payload Nasa would not let continue onto its designated orbit because the success probability was only 95% instead of the greater than 99% all 9 engines to MECO would have allowed.

>>10493130
sources, goy

>>10493151
there will be no sources as he is pulling BS out of his ass

>>10493130
>The exact opposite is actually true, few big engines are lighter than a lot of small ones.

only holds for relatively small numbers of engines, once you get to 30-40 like SpaceX wants to do, it is more mass efficient due to square-cube law

>>10493098
Why not to use one main turbo-machinary with many thrust chambers?

>>10492521
long march 7 uses oxygen and kerosene

>>10493062
>Also, having few bigger engines is easier to construct than clustering a lot of small ones together.

Fewer engines means less thrust because the BE4 is undepowered. And the nozzle area is two dimensional, that's what limits how many you can fit on.

>>10493057
scale here is completely off
see >>10492170

>>10492718
>How New Glenn can completely BTFO Starship.
New Glenn won't even compete with Starship. Bezos isn't dumb enough to think Mars jello babies is a good idea.

>>10493260
new glenn is large enough that you could easily fit nine engines

the question is, why would you want to?

>>10493297
Because you can't actually fit 9 engines?

>>10493297
Because they are retarded cultists who think shit like "engine volume" matters ayy fucking lmao

>>10493336
>ayy fucking lmao
Are you mentally ill?

>>10493163
You are both wrong, TWR has nothing to do with engine size.

Elon already said though the TWR of Raptors will be around 100 so nothing special. BE-4 will probably be around the same.

Generally speaking it's pretty cringey to sling shit at rocket engines that are from a different company than the one you feel like need to defend every day on the internet.

>>10493343
>TWR of Raptors will be around 100 so nothing special. BE-4 will probably be around the same.

Now this is bullshit, Elon's comparison is between Raptor and Merlin which currently has the highest TWR. Not a heavier engine with a much lower chamber pressure.

>>10492433
you should read the foundation novels then, because thats what youve basically described

>>10492489
as long they have prostitutes with three breasts

>>10492740
doubtful theyd be "real prostitutes", by the time we are ready to fully scale colonize mars, we'll either have biological sex type replicants or sexbots.

Anyone else notice how the thread gets noticeably better when it's past children's bedtimes, and noticeably worse in the morning?

>>10493382
What do you guys think, how thick outer shell of BFR has to be to sustain re-entry .
I know this is just the mock-up and this looks like thin sheets, I'm just interested.

>>10493391
hoop strength bruh
steel is really strong

>>10492796
mars have uranium and it has sand to make solar panels. If you have the machinery to make panels why not.

>>10492800
anon is correct,factories themselves are entire technologies people completely ignore and Some require extremely large footprint.

>>10493005
>Btw nozzles areas are two dimensional, not one.

>>10493062
>New Glenn fairing is half as big as the whole ISS is (excluding the solar panels, which get rolled out).

Fucking done with this thread, how can you all be this uneducated?

>>10493255
Thrust chambers need to be regulated and one master turbo pump would require some sort of equipment to regulate it from the pump to the chamber. In theory it works, but it adds complexity and becomes less reliable.

Multiple independent engines adds redundancy, and when going into space, you want lots of reliability and redundancy.

>>10493418
>Multiple independent engines adds redundancy
N1 says hi

@10493425

I was waiting for someone to say the N-word...as long as SpaceX do some static fire testing before launch they'll be fine.

>>10493425
>N1 says hi
LOL
I have to add that it adds redundancy if the whole rocket actually works to begin with

>>10492489
Look into laws regarding tourists. Normally, the laws from your country apply to you no matter where you go until you stop becoming a citizen of your country through whatever legal means there is to do that. Normally, you only ehar about this in the news when it involves, "sex tourism."

>>10493366
Raptor will easily weigh 1.5-2 tons, which would put its TWR between 100-130. BE-4 will weigh 2.5-3 tons, which will give it a similar ratio.
TWR is a completely useless metric though, because engine weight is insignificant to the total dry weight to the rocket, so who cares

>>10493395
You know the jet fuel can't melt steel beams meme? The thing is, it is true, steel has very high melting point, and you can't reach these kind of temperatures with jet fuel. So why did the WTC collapse? Because while the melting point is very high, the structural integrity still gets weakened when steel gets hot, and so WTC collapsed although the steel beams were red-glowing hot but did not melt yet.

This is why the thing Elon keeps repeating about "steel can sustain higher temperatures so we don't need heat shield" is so incredibely dumb. If it gets heated up, it won't melt, but it will lose most of its strength, so for the rocket to not crumble you would need to make the walls so thick that it would weigh hundreds of tons, making it impossible to make Orbit.

>>10493481
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1077111607564464129?lang=en

>>10493481
>>10493457
have sex

>>10493481
https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a25953663/elon-musk-spacex-bfr-stainless-steel/

>>10493490
This doesn't mean much. Carbon fibre composites loses almost all their strength at high temperatures, steel being "vastly better" means it doesn't lose quite as much but still most of its strength. You can't let either get hot.

>>10493481
>>10493502
I'm guessing you guys don't know what a 'hot structure' design is then, Elon is truly taking us back to the future (to the 1950s, like the first movie).

>>10493511
Well, if they want to do that with a steel structure they theoretically can, they just need to have so thick steel that it won't be able to go make orbit.

>>10493524
he literally explains it in the pop mech article, plus you can just google stainless steel temp strength chart... do you honestly think they’ve overlooked this basic ‘mistake’ that you think you found? Retard

>>10493526
the steel makes sense for starship but not for the booster
it's obvious they are making the whole thing steel for the cost savings, not because it's the "best" material

>>10493526
There he also just claims that you can do >1000 degrees without issue. That's just fundamentally untrue. At that temp stainless has lost almost 50% of its strength, so you need to make it twice as thick to survive that. Now also consider BFR is apparently supposed to enter like the Space Shuttle, so at high attacking angle. This will increase structural stress even more. A rocket out of steel that is supposed to survive a reentry like that will be way too heavy to make orbit, let alone take a lot of payload with it.

>>10493538
Source?

>>10493481
>implying outer heat shield steel layer will be structural

you dumb fuck

>>10493558
Heat shields can break, too, anon.

>>10493457
>engine weight is insignificant to the total dry weight to the rocket

Engine weight is like 25% of the stage, not insignificant. Thrust is the most important consideration for first stage, and metrics like twr, thrust per nozzle area and total thrust of the stage affect payload weight significantly.

>>10493537
Quite the opposite, actually. For the booster the material doesn't matter too much as extra weight isn't that crucial and the temperatures from reentry are also way lower generally. For the upper stage though, structural/propellant weight and payload trades almost 1:1, e.g. 1 ton saved in structure/propellant is 1 ton more of payload you can load. So choosing steel for the upper stage is very weird. The reentry heats will be so high that stainless steel doesn't help one bit, but it adds a lot of structural weight. Now add to this the fact that they also need to keep a lot of propellant in the tank for landing and you might notice why upper stage reuse is generally considered a bit pointless. Reentry will basically destroy the rocket anyways, and for a basically destroyed rocket on the ground you are trading off A LOT of payload.

>>10493573
Heat shields will not break if they have structural steel layer behind them.

>>10493599
This sentence doesn't make any sense. Do you understand what structural strength means?

>>10493595
No, the only stuff that matters is thrust, ISP, building cost, and in case of reusable rockets reusability, everything else can't be compared because an engine that is big because it is supposed to have a high ISP can't be compared to an engine that is supposed to be clustered and be lightweight.

>>10493615
>This sentence doesn't make any sense.
Come on, this is not a hard concept to grasp. Starship heat shield will likely be multilayer. You will have outer layer of steel optimized for temperature resistance, and an inner layer of steel optimized for structural strength, which will remain at much lower temperature. And likely some active cooling between these layers.

>>10493615
>the only stuff that matters is thrust
which is what we are discussing here, and Superheavy Booster (tm) will have much higher thrust than New Glenn, not just in total, but per area as well, courtesy of Raptor being a significantly more powerful engine compared to BE-4, and this shows in difference in payload as well

>>10493615
>an engine that is big because it is supposed to have a high ISP can't be compared to an engine that is supposed to be clustered and be lightweight.

This applies to the RS-25 which is a sustainer engine, it's much bigger than Raptor but has a similar thrust output because it prioritises maximum efficiency over thrust. This is not applicable to BE-4 which will have a worse ISP than Raptor and is not a sustainer engine.

>>10493641
>courtesy of Raptor being a significantly more powerful engine

To illustrate this point: New Glenn will have a diameter of 7 meters, and total thrust of first stage of 16.8 MN. Superheavy will have a diameter of 9 meters, which is larger but not that much. Yet total thrust of its first stage will be a whopping 62 MN, almost four times that of New Glenn.

What this means for payload? Well, New Glenn will be able to put only 45 tons to LEO, and this is with an expendable second stage. Starship on the other hand will be able to do 100+ tons, and this is with both stages reused.

Anyone who tells you that BE-4 is as good as Raptor does not know what he is talking about at all.

tfw

>>10493641
New Glenn doesn't reuse its second stage so it doesn't need to be that beefy. They aimed for a thrust and ISP that is sufficient for their rocket and didn't increase it further because that will decrease the life span of the engine. Not maxing out on performance was a delibarete decision to increase reusability, not them being too stupid to produce an engine with more thrust or whatever.

I'd also like to point out that BE-4 and Raptor development began simultaneously, with BE-4 being almost done while it still unlear if SpaceX is actually going to manage to keep the Raptor stable for the duration of a launch.

>>10493699
>I'd also like to point out that BE-4 and Raptor development began simultaneously, with BE-4 being almost done while it still unlear if SpaceX is actually going to manage to keep the Raptor stable for the duration of a launch.

>He doesn't know...

will be interesting if they hold off on installing the starship nose, or if they plan to install everything through the 'bottom'. I don't think they've installed any of the tanks or anything yet. Perhaps the shorter section is for the tanks and the taller one isn't

>>10493699
>Not maxing out on performance was a delibarete decision to increase reusability
Which is fine and may yet turn out to be a right call. Just do not pretend that Raptor is not a significantly better performing engine than BE-4, as some grossly uninformed poster in this very thread tried to do. Trading performance for possibly reusability means exactly that - trading performance.

>>10493728
There are what look like tank bulkheads lying around near the tall section.

>>10493734
Like always, it was the SpaceX shitposter who began it.

>>10492097

It's probably the same poster who went on to talk about thrust per engine volume so he's probably retarded.

>>10493734
>tfw doesn't understand why SpaceX picked full flow combustion cycle

>Benefits of the full-flow staged combustion cycle include turbines that run cooler and at lower pressure, due to increased mass flow, leading to a longer engine life and higher reliability.

You thought it was all to do with performance? Wow and you call us misinformed! Lol

>>10493742
The pressure for the BE-4 will still be way lower because its whole architecture will have a much lower pressure you complete idiot.

>>10493750
Yes and Raptor will get the same reusability and reliability with much better performance due to it's full-flow cycle, which is why it's a much better engine design, capisce?

what if... we wait and see how the two engines in question perform in the real world?

>>10493742
I am well aware of that, and it was the poster who I replied to who suggested that BE-4 will be more reusable. I didnt want to confuse him even more. But since you brought it up, the real reason why BE-4 is as it is is due to lower engine complexity. Raptor on the other hand is a more complex engine, but if they manage to pull off full flow staged combustion, it will be both significantly better performing AND likely more reusable than BE-4.

>>10493677
>To illustrate this point

To illustrate this point even better: if you stand under an active Raptor powered stage, you would have around twice the force pressing down on you than standing under a comparable BE-4 powered stage.

>>10493755
>>10493759
I don't know which engine will end up being more reusable, but the statement that the Raptor will have lower pressures and will be more reusable because of that is completely retarded. Goes to show what clueless idiots you are.

I'm out.

>>10493773
>He doesn't know what thrust is.

>>10493764
elon did say
>"Orbital version... has thicker skins (won’t wrinkle) & a smoothly curving nose
looks pretty smoothly curving to me!

I wonder if this one has the
>"Starship skin thickness will vary considerably according to loads."
variable thickness feature?

>>10493777
you don't have to be 'out', just don't reply if you're sick of replying lol

>>10493764
is that polished or still using foil on the outside?

>>10493789
naturally shiny. These pieces are pre-formed, probably at SpaceX's contracted metal shop/supplier. In some pics you can see them peeling off protective covers, and it's really shiny underneath

>>10493777
We finally beat him into submission guys! it was pretty retarded arguing over the performance of an engine that has never been fired at full throttle during it's 2 years of testing tho...

>>10493789
It's actually ONLY the foil they put on the outside. Apparently that is going to survive orbital velocities lol

>>10493794
You SpaceX shithead ruin every one of these threads. You're literally cancer.

>>10493799
good for you...?

>>10493796
It's definitely metal sheets, not foil

>>10493789
it's all tinfoil my fren

>>10493802
yep, just regular stainless steel sheets. relatively thick

>>10493805

>>10493802
They also put metal sheets on the outside of the hopper. It's the same material.

>>10493811
there are a handful of those raised platforms around the facility. One is shaped like a semicircle

>>10493811
as I said, tinfoil

>>10493811
>2019
>use leaders to build top tech starship

kek

>>10493818
size is deceptive lol

>>10493808
shiny and chrome!

but whats with the seams? cant they polish those?

>>10493826
they're only tack-welded in place for shape before they weld it all the way up

>>10493826
They are so well done they want the whole world to admire their superior welding standard.

>>10493826
the welds, if the other parts are similar, have a metal skeleton backer. Don't think the seams will be that much of an issue, if you're concerned about burn through or something

>>10493811
Why not build elliptic shape ship/rocket?

>>10492539
for dakar desert style racing on mars just use metal tires if youre worried about quick wear

>>10493002
I flew on a dreamliner and it didn't transport me to my dream. I want my money back honestly.

>>10493013
>being killed
kek they can bring you back from anything dumb retard

>>10493374
Its been on my list for a while anon

>>10492535
I agree. We should start research into martian pod racing as soon as possible.

>>10493596
Isn't the stainless steel shielding going to have active cooling in the hottest zones anyway?
Steel conducts heat better than carbon fiber, so it should work better with active cooling. Either way, you're delusional if you think they haven't already gone through all of this with hundreds of computer model simulations and a team of professional engineers to figure out that stainless steel will do the job.

>>10494081
>Either way, you're delusional if you think they haven't already gone through all of this with hundreds of computer model simulations and a team of professional engineers to figure out that stainless steel will do the job.

That point is moot. That's like saying reusability doesn't work because all these engineers at ULA can't be wrong.

how ethically wrong would it be to dispose of several hundred nuclear war heads between russia and america in the process of 'warming' up both of mar's poles to get the water flowing again?

We should build a tunnel to the core of the moon or mars.
It'd be cool.

>>10494084
>one 4channer says stainless steel will just melt and fall off during reentry
SpaceX BTFO, Elon employs nothing but amerilard brainlets, am I right?

>>10492489
Only with genetically engineered cat lolis.

>>10494096
He actually said that it will not melt, but that seems to be beyond your reading comprehension.

>>10492948
Yikes.

>>10494087
you'd just lose all the water to the atmosphere, it's better to have it be contained as ice

This picture is hella trippy, the Starship's fuselage is so shiny that clouds look like dents.

>>10494114
is that bad, it's a shortcut to an atmosphere, right?

>>10494096
I actually really enjoyed reading those posts, they at least had some substance unlike all these SpaceX cultists that fill up every Spaceflight threads with flame wars against "enemy companies" and 1000 hopper pictures from 500 different angles.

>>10494126
there's not enough for an atmosphere, so you'd end up way short, then it'd be much harder to get it back out of the atmosphere and into your rockets and into your habitats

>>10494131
>hopper
the meme man claims that what we're currently seeing is the orbital prototype

>>10494124
it look like something I would do in the backyard.
It's not nice.
But, its better be flying...

>>10494137
It's sad the SEC deal only covers Tesla-related tweets so he can still spew bullshit about SpaceX.

@10494147
>SEC
>SpaceX

I don't think you understand what the SEC does, do you?

>>10493687
Does it matter which engine they're currently unable to fit to SLS successfully?

>>10494168
So you're even too dumb to get a joke. Are you aware you are the biggest retard in these threads?

>>10494147
honest question will you apologize if it does turn out to be the orbital prototype

not enough hopper photos up in this bitch

>>10494177
It wasn't very funny for a joke, jokes are supposed to be funny, try harder...

>>10493736
Still sticking with bulk heads for the orbital version? Didn't they want actual tanks at some point?

>>10494194
what’s the difference?

>>10493794
He'll be back same time tomorrow, like always.

>>10494131
>only spaceX seems to be making strides in this are of industry
>liking them means you're a cultist
kek!

>>10494211
China might be doing something big under the radar

>>10493457
>Raptor will easily weigh 1.5-2 tons
oh ho ho ho no nooooo

>>10494181
bet they’re prepping the other two raptor slots for SN 3 and 4

>>10494194
The whole point is that Starship is the tank, Musk said he wanted to avoid the 'box in a box' situation which the Falcon 9 has. This means instead of having tanks inside a fuselage like the F9, the inside of Starship's fuselage is the tank wall. Only Bulkheads are needed.

>>10494223
Double hull is still needed for cooling however

>>10494218
>might
what a meaningless post

>>10493781
More dynamic pressure per unit exhaust cross section area is why Raptor will have close to the same thrust as BE-4 despite the latter having a much larger nozzle exit diameter and combustion chamber.

>>10493777
BE-4 uses oxygen rich staged combustion, Raptor uses full flow. With the same turbine pressures, oxygen rich staged combustion gets lower main combustion chamber pressure than full flow because full flow has the advantage of a much larger mass flow rate through the duel turbine setup.

BE-4 needs to sacrifice a lot of performance to achieve good reusability because of its simpler, but more strenuous oxygen-rich design (strenuous in terms of pressures temperatures and power-shaft torque). Raptor on the other hand while operating under turbine conditions as strenuous as normal BE-4 operation can develop much higher chamber pressure, which is why it can throttle up to the same thrust level as BE-4 while being much smaller and also more efficient.

>>10493847
Less area at the bottom of the rocket to pack engines. A perfect circle is the ideal shape to maximize the base surface area to total surface area ratio of a rocket, and since total surface area factors hugely into dry mass it means that with a nice cylinder you get the least dry mass practical for the vehicle's intended volume. You may naively think a spherical stage would be the best, but since we're dealing with bi-propellants and aerodynamics here the actual ideal minimum dry mass shape is more complicated than that.

>>10494061
>fall into black hole
oops lol

>>10494087
Very, those bombs would be better used exterminating shitskins here on Earth before they can infect outer space as well

To warm up Mars just hit it with a few comets, if you pick a long period one you can alter its course enough to strike the planet with only a few cm/s of delta V

>>10494091
It'd fail because the enormous pressures that deep inside even those lower gravity worlds would crush any tunnel easily. You could possibly reach the core of Ceres though, I haven't run those numbers so don't take my word for it.

>>10494173
Honestly cancel SLS it deserves nothing

>>10494239
No it isn't, the reflectivity of Starship alone will suffice to keep the internal header tanks cold enough to prevent boil off during interplanetary coast periods, and for parking orbits in LEO while they wait to be refueled they will need a modest cryocooling system at most, which won't need a double hull either (coolant lines mounted to the inside of the tank walls, or if boil off is slow enough they could just recapture the vapors coming off and condense them directly instead.

>>10494280
Can we think of a better SLS design?

>>10494270
>accidentally fall into a black hole
come on faggot kek

>>10494289
“On the windward side, what I want to do is have the first-ever regenerative heat shield. A double-walled stainless shell—like a stainless-steel sandwich, essentially, with two layers. You just need, essentially, two layers that are joined with stringers. You flow either fuel or water in between the sandwich layer, and then you have micro-perforations on the outside—very tiny perforations—and you essentially bleed water, or you could bleed fuel, through the micro-perforations on the outside. You wouldn’t see them unless you got up close. But you use transpiration cooling to cool the windward side of the rocket. So the whole thing will still look fully chrome, like this cocktail shaker in front of us. But one side will be double-walled and that serves a double purpose, which is to stiffen the structure of the vehicle so it does not suffer from the fate of the Atlas. You have a heat shield that serves double duty as structure.”
from pop mech

So double hull on part of it

>>10492151
Did somebody else want to do this?

Much easier to contain a red dwarf in a dyson sphere. You then have a pretty powerful energy source which you could use to... I don't know, direct into an engine and blast off to another galaxy.

If we knew more about the formation of these stars that would be helpful. Most are likely to be among the youngest stars in the galaxy, and so one may assume there could be substantial deposits of heavier elements in orbit around these stars and perhaps less ices.

I want to find out.

>>10494305
There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the design of the SLS. It was the management that messed it up.

>>10494320
>what if
>we take existing 3-segment solid rocket boosters
>spend a load of money designing a 5-segment derivative
>and then claim we were 're-using' existing designs

>>10494311
Hey man if we're traversing the galaxy/universe at any kind of speed we're gonna be doing it with kugelblitz black hole engines, since they actually yet you use interstellar media to accelerate unlike fusion drives and they won't come with the problems associated with trying to store 49.5% of your ship's mass as antimatter.

rocket lab launch live in a little over a bong https://www.rocketlabusa.com/live-stream/

>>10494321
I thought that the Shuttle SRBs were four segments? Also, the five segment SRBs are already done, so that's not what's holding back SLS right now.

But I get what you meant, corruption. Coming up with "new technology" to justify spending more time and money on a project that was advertised to be quick and cheap. I still get abit mad whenever I think about how the program was allowed to be so bloated.

>>10492681
War is banned in space. The longer bussinessmen can prevent piracy the longer they can enjoy a tax and beurocracy free existence.

>>10494326
>Kugelblitz blackhole
bruh
A kugelblitz will vaporize you from emitted radiation rather than suck you in. You're unrecoverable either way but its an important distinction
>anti matter mass
Yeah instead of 49.5% anti matter, now you have a ship that has the mass equivalent to mount everest

>>10494313
Yes but that's for the heat shield, not for providing extra insulation in space to help store propellants.

>>10494319
The oldest stars in the universe are red dwarf stars, however they currently exist across all age ranges and are being formed all the time. Most stars are red dwarfs just because of that old probability rule of thumb where objects twice as big are half as likely to occur. Barnard's star, a very close by red dwarf, has a very low metallicity, but proxima centauri (the closest star to our own and also a red dwarf) has a greater metallicity than the Sun.
'Ices' are always going to be more common than other basic chemicals because they are made from hydrogen, the most common chemically active element, as well as a handful of the other light elements which are also very common in the universe. Water for example is extremely common because oxygen is the third most common element in the universe and reacts easily with hydrogen. In fact the other two following most common reactive elements are carbon and nitrogen, which means methane, carbon dioxide, ammonia, and nitrogen gas are all among the most common chemicals in the universe. It's only in the relatively tiny volumes close to stars that these chemicals can be driven out of small objects like terrestrial planets and asteroids. .

>>10494365
So given the low energy of these stars there would be more ices and in much closer proximity to the star?

Or have they formed as a consequence of there being less matter in proximity, and thus there would be much less of all substances in orbit?

Is it known? Seems we have a fair understanding of star formation but very little is understood of the formation of orbital bodies and how the two processes interact.

>>10494349
Fell into a kugelblitz containment jar

Also the point of a kugelblitz black hole is that it 'only' has the mass of a few hundred kilograms, but lets you take advantage of its extreme gravity to accelerate matter to ridiculous speeds and even to shred it completely into gluon plasma. You wouldn't want one with such a low mass that its hawking radiation was extreme, or even significant really. The less emission the better because then you don't have to worry about not feeding your black hole and having it radiate away completely, probably blowing up a good chunk of your ship while also hopelessly stranding you in the middle of space bumfuck nowhere while also probably moving at a significant fraction of c.
The release of gravitational potential energy just by letting a chunk of matter fall into a black hole is actually roughly 40% efficient when compared to an antimatter reaction's 100% and a fusion reaction's 0.67%. If your spacecraft works by using a magnetic sail to scoop up dust and gas, then drop some of that matter into a little black hole (using the energy released to heat up the rest), you're now doing almost half as good as if you were reacting it with antimatter except you aren't even carrying any mass in antimatter and you never run out of energy/propellants. A black hole drive like this is one of the only ways of even theoretically approaching c to the point that relativistic time dilation kicks in in a big way, which makes it probably the only possible intergalactic propulsion system imaginable under current physics.

>>10494320
Well, I've never been a fan of the dedicated booster-sustainer design that many rockets seem to have. If you're going to include boosters it makes more sense to use them like Atlas and Delta use them, as optional upgrades to improve performance when necessary. Like it or not solid boosters do hurt manned space flight safety metrics by creating potential black zones during which if the launch were aborted the rain of burning fuel chunks would destroy the capsule's parachutes.

In the case of SLS specifically, I don't like the use of the RS-25 because it's too expensive and takes too long to produce. You also don't need the high efficiency they offer as much on SLS anyway since they have a 2nd stage on top of the core, unlike Shuttle that only had a few hundred m/s of delta V capability in its OMS. Even the redesigned expendability-oriented RS-25 is going to be slow and expensive to build.

>>10494347
Luckily although you can ban war you can't ban violence
And Americans are very good at violence

>>10494402
>So given the low energy of these stars there would be more ices and in much closer proximity to the star?
Not necessarily more, but certainly further in. These stars typically have 'snow lines', the distance at which free ice in space is no longer vaporized slowly by starlight and remains stable over geologic time scales, closer to the star than Mercury is to our own Sun (for reference the Sun's snow line is around the outer edges of the asteroid belt, a bit closer in than Jupiter).

Considering that binary red dwarf and other star systems have formed and form commonly, there's no reason to think that the mass of material surrounding a star needs to be tied to the mass of the star itself. Even a low mass red dwarf is hundreds of times the mass of Jupiter, and we've already found many multi-plant systems orbiting small stars that contain planets bigger than anything in our own solar system. Remember, a single planet with twice the mass of Jupiter would have more mass than every single object in our own solar system except for the Sun, combined. How much stuff orbits a star of any size is more or less determined by a cosmic flip of a coin.

>>10494365
Luckily, it can pull double duty as a sun-shade
Probably

>>10494437
>Well, I've never been a fan of the dedicated booster-sustainer design that many rockets seem to have.
Do you mean booster-sustainer designs in general? Or just whenever those designs use solid rocket motors as the boosters?

>If you're going to include boosters it makes more sense to use them like Atlas and Delta use them, as optional upgrades to improve performance when necessary.
I think the only rockets which must use booster-sustainer configurations are old rockets like the R7. The SLS is the sole exception, but that's because it's taking the older Shuttle configuration (which was necessary) and turning it into a conventional stack. Speaking of SLS...

>In the case of SLS specifically...
I think for the kinds payloads SLS was supposed to carry, like the JWST, money isn't a huge issue so using expensive engines doesn't matter that much. Anyways for what the SLS was supposed to do, to quickly develop a heavy lift rocket by reusing Shuttle components which had already been built, the relative expense of the RS-25s don't really matter since they were already built and paid for. My guess is that the SLS would slowly phase out the RS-25s in favor of cheaper engines just like how the replacements for the Shuttle SRBs was planned. But the SLS has been delayed for so long that the original objective has been failed.

>>10494458
>Do you mean booster-sustainer designs in general?
I'm referring to a booster-sustainer where the core sustainer has too low a thrust to weight ratio on the pad to lift off. Booster-sustainer designs of this type are a product of technological limitation more than optimization. The R7 rocket family for example started off as a single core stage and four boosters simply because the Soviets at the time did not trust/had not developed in-flight engine ignition. Ariane 5 uses a quite low thrust hydrogen-oxygen gas generator and therefore requires large boosters in order to get up into the upper atmosphere where its nozzle configuration allows it to produce enough thrust to keep accelerating the stage after booster burnout and separation. The flaw in any booster-sustainer design is that since the center core burns as the boosters are burning and providing most of the thrust, what ends up being the case at booster sep is the core stage tanks are now partially empty and thus are significantly heavier than they would be if they were part of a second stage optimized to carry that amount of propellant. Basically in-line staging is always more mass efficient than booster-sustainer designs, unless you invoke propellant cross feed which has never been developed or used in real life for a launch vehicle (excluding Shuttle since the external tank didn't have its own engines drawing from it).

The objective of SLS has actually never been to reuse Shuttle hardware, though that was certainly the reason why it is designed the way it is. The objective of the SLS has been to provide a super heavy lift option for NASA to perform more advanced missions that require those capabilities. The thing is, the only way they were gonna fund that thing was if it used very little new technology and kept as many jobs as possible right where they've always been.

short news piece about tomorrow's activities https://www.kveo.com/news/local-news/faa-restricts-air-space-for-spacex-facility/1873867587

>>10494449
This is true although I'm not sure what they would expect to gain. It is cheaper to invest in a company and profit from dividends than it is to wage war. I don't see military presence becoming a big thing until piracy begins.

Space will be about profit and science. USA or China or anybody would be foolish to assault any space colony. The first thing the colonists would do is side with and assist the enemy of their enemy. I don't care how big the US budget is they can't afford a spacewar. Not for a very long time.

Probably not until the bust after the boom.

>>10494535
conflict in space will involve MAD. Only takes a couple tiny smart projectiles to destroy your station. It will be more a digital war, with communication interceptions and sending false control signals to your power stations or whatever

rocketlab scrubbed for the day

>>10494546
RIP
should have picked a launch location that isn't underwater most of the year

>>10494548
it was a video transmitter signal strength issue

>>10494549
It's also a shit site, they wanted somewhere in the middle of nowhere that would let them launch often but the problem is that whole area is windy as all fuck.

>>10494513
I guess you have a point about booster-sustainer rockets. A two stage to orbit design would in-theory be more efficient than a 2.5 stage booster-sustainer rocket. However, a key advantage that boost-sustainer rockets have is higher thrust to weight at liftoff (if designed properly) since it would have more engines firing. A two stage rocket would have to either use more engines in the first stage or have higher thrust engines. For a super heavy rocket around the weight of the SLS, a conventional two stage rocket may not be as easy or plausible as a booster-sustainer rocket. Just look at the Moon rockets of the US and USSR. The US F-1 engine had extensive design-work put into the injector plate to avoid combustion instabilities, and even then no one else wants to consider trying to do the same. The USSR's N-1 rocket had 30 engines in the first stage (which is what BFR is planned to have) which caused major problems during launch.

For the level of technology right now, a booster-sustainer rocket may be the most practical design for a heavy lift rocket. At least until better technologies come along.

>>10494650
The number of engines wasn't the problem with N1, it was retarded russians leaving nuts in the turbopumps and fucking shit up in general. Falcon Heavy has 27 engines and that works just fine.

>>10494661
I guess you have a point, but using that many engines still makes me unsure about the reliability of the BFR first stage (at least initially). I feel that the Falcon Heavy got away with this issue because it didn't so much have 27 engines, but more like three engine groups such that each could be built and tested separately. Having all the engines in one single unit (like on BFR or N-1) feels like to me would increase the chance of something going wrong.

Then again, I haven't done any serious research on this. It's all speculation, so don't take what I say on this too seriously.

>>10494408
>a few hundred kilograms
kek
enjoy your ship exploding soon and being irradiated by impossibly short wavelength gamma rays

>>10494675
Don't worry, I won't take you seriously
:^)

>>10494725
Cheeky.
:^3

>>10494736
>:3

>>10492758
>Bigelow gone awol
>Actually have irl confirme dlegit scientifically confirme real IRL CONCRETE MOTHERFUCKING INFLATABLE HABITAT STUCK ON TEH SPACE STATION THAT YOU CAN SEE HEAR AND READ ABOUT, WINNING THE WINNEREST OPF REACES IN TEH RACE TO OPEN BE THE ONE WHO DEVELOPS SPACE INFLATABLES, DOING ALLL THAT IN A MANNER SO FUCKING GLORIOUS THAT GREEK SWILL VANISH
.
>being out of the game

choose one, but choose wisely you cannot choose twice if you want to reaming in the big boyas club billy little uneducated retarded i win all over you boy

>>10494751
JESUS CHRIST IT'S A LION, GET IN THE CAR

>>10494321
>what if
>we take existing engines designed for refurbished reusability
>spend a load of money getting 5% more performance out of them
>and then dump them in the ocean after one flight

>>10494902
get this man $30 billion

>>10494902
To be fair for NASA, there was a disposable version of the RS-25. It had an ablative nozzle to make it cheaper, but there was an unforeseen interaction between it's nozzle and the heat from the SRBs. Since there was no other engine that could be used in replacement without an extensive redesign of SLS, the RS-25s were used instead.

God, the SLS is a mess.

>>10494916
You're thinking of the RS-68, and it has nothing in common with the RS-25 except that it was built to be a high thrust hydrolox engine. It uses a completely different combustion cycle (gas generator) and as you said uses an ablative nozzle.
There was another large hydrolox engine design called the RS-83 proposed for the Space Launch Initiative that would have been the most powerful hydrolox engine ever (narrowly beating the RS-68). It used a gas generator design but since it also had regenerative cooling throughout it would develop a much higher chamber pressure and achieve a remarkable 395 Isp at sea level and 446 in vacuum. Despite being much cheaper and simpler, the RS-83 design would have beat the piss out of the RS-25 in terms of utility as a first stage engine due to the much higher thrust and sea level Isp. The RS-83 was even designed with reusability in mind, but also to be cheap enough to manufacture that it would still be useful on any expendable launch vehicles meant to launch often.
Someone do that math on what performance SLS gets if you swap out the 4 RS-25s (366 SL Isp, 452.3 Vac Isp, 1860 kN/2279 kN thrust respectively) with 4 RS-83s (395 SL Isp, 446 Vac Isp, 2950 kN/3300 kN thrust respectively).

>>10494942
>You're thinking of the RS-68, and it has nothing in common with the RS-25 except that it was built to be a high thrust hydrolox engine.
Sorry about that, must've gotten something mixed up.

>The RS-83
Why were they dropped? Was it because it was in conflict with the SLS's goal of reusing Shuttle parts? Or was it because there was no production line of them, thus starting a new line would've made the initial cost of the RS-83 too much to make it worth using over the RS-25? I tried looking it up, but all I could find was that SLI (the program that started the RS-83) changed goals from hydrolox to kerolox and thus killed the development of the RS-83.

Source: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030111910.pdf

>>10494965
>>>10494546
not him, but it seems like they were cancelled before even the constellation program was started

>>10494971
>not him, but it seems like they were cancelled before even the constellation program was started
I've noticed that too. That's most likely the reason why the RS-83 wasn't chosen over the RS-25. I'm kinda curious as to why the Shuttle program didn't took an interest in the RS-83 considering how much reworking and money the RS-25 required per flight. Maybe because it's a government program with guaranteed money and manpower, and no motivation to make things more efficient?

Did they ever reveal the list of attendees for this https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/spacex-organizes-inaugural-conference-to-plan-landings-on-mars/ or is there a list available somewhere?

>>10494986
the shuttle basically had zero changes made throughout the program

>>10494989
there’s a list

>>10494990
And that's kinda sad. Imagine how much better the Shuttle could be if it were iteratively improved. Using stronger tiles that wont break easily. Liquid boosters that could be safer than SRBs. Maybe even lunar flyby capability.

>>10495004
but where?

>>10495015
;~;

>>10495015
Could have been better but spaceplanes are still shit, all that extra weight and shit just so it can land like a plane. We retropropulsion nao.

>>10495020
somewhere, sorry
companies like caterpillar were there

>>10494328
>rocket lab
Delayed due to space AIDS

never ever

>>10495104
>>10495233
o7

Anyone baking the new one?
Shinny edition pls

NEW THREAD
>>10495327
>>10495327
>>10495327

>>10494257
You idiots should stop making a fool out of yourselfs. Full-flow has never been done because they have no advantage but are more complex.

>>10495015
Beyond iterative improvements, the architecture of Shuttle was pretty much going to preclude any huge performance gains at least in terms of dollars per kilogram (one could certainly change things to make it much safer).
The Energia-Buran setup was superior IMO. The fact that the core stage engines were mounted on the external tank meant that the Buran itself was actually just a payload on the side of a super heavy launch vehicle, and could therefore be swapped out entirely to launch ~100 ton objects into space. Sure it meant throwing the engines away but since they didn't have to worry about making them reusable their version was much cheaper to produce.