/sci/ - Science & Math

Enough with landing images everyone in the industry knows its pointless and stale PR.

>>10550544
>>>/wsg/2793581

>>10550559
>Sour Grapes, the post

all but 1(?) nose section is done on the starship orbital prototype

>>10550559
first post ULA post

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-awards-launch-services-contract-for-asteroid-redirect-test-mission/

SpaceX is launching the Astoria redirect mission; it’s a rideshare

>>10550588
autocorrect apparently thinks a town in Oregon is being redirected


>>10550565
never gets old

>>10550575
Whoever got drones banned should be killed.

>>10550592
we know who did it, in fact I posted the vid here when it came out and commented that it would result in something bad. The idiot also overlayed shitty rock music

>>10550592
https://youtu.be/nVwRKI8Uep8

in case you missed it in the last thread, they recovered both fairings from the sea and plan to reuse them:
https://www.space.com/spacex-reuse-payload-fairing-starlink-launch.html

>>10550639
So SpaceX has abandoned trying to catch the fairings? Hopefully the seawater corrosion isn't too bad.

>>10550670
if they use them for internal Starlink launches then the damage doesn’t matter as much.

>>10550577
Expendable vehicles can launch bigger payloads. Checkmate Elonfag.

>>10550571
>proof that the cheap PR actually works, the post

Always fun browsing YouTube and twitter for videos of the landings where the crowds are oohing and aahing. the more excitement for space stuff the better

>>10550681
A billion dollars of R&D paying off with a pretty light and sound show is cheap, now?

>>10550679
t. chronically obsessed with using the smallest rocket possible

>>10550684
Not shilling but Atlas V's track record is absolutely phenomenal.

>>10550681
Landing and reusing bootsters isnt as cheap as you make it out to be.

Also, do you have proof that SpaceX is landing their boosters just as a PR stunt and not to reuse their boosters at a smaller cost than making new ones?

>>10550691
So is falcon 9 if you split the blocks into sub-categories. Block 4 and 5 has been perfect

IMO the number of changes justifies that for the falcon family

>>10550691
>Not shilling but Atlas V's track record is absolutely phenomenal.
Atlas V's launch record has little to nothing to do with how old space orients its product lineup.

Posting this because I love it so much.
I wish NASA kept flying these.

>>10550670
They were doing some repairs to Mr.Stevens so they couldn't try to catch fairings.

>>10550694
>Also, do you have proof that SpaceX is landing their boosters just as a PR stunt and not to reuse their boosters at a smaller cost than making new ones?

Yes, look at the refurbishment time.

Also, don't look at F9 expendable vs F9 refurbished price, look at F9 cost without any landing hardware vs F9 with landing Hardware refurbishment price. So if they were able to have a lower refurbishment vs. manufacturing in some specific cases where the Booster wasn't that messed up, that still doesn't mean they are saving money.

>>10550701
Atlas 5 has a perfect track record and has never delayed the launch by more than a couple of days.

>>10550559
You know, if re-usability was a dead-end, SpaceX would have stopped trying a long time ago.
At this point I think SpaceX is just waiting for real competition before really slashing prices.
Then ArianeSpace and ULA will be left with 2 useless new rockets.

>>10550789
They do believe that reusability for the Falcons is a dead end, hence they are putting everything into BFR, including taking the risk of building it out of a material no american rocket engineer has any experience with, and hoping that rocket will finally materialise their quick and cheap re-use dreames.

>>10550791
Well, no, if that was the case, they would just stop landing boosters already.

>>10550785
>Yes, look at the refurbishment time.
>look at F9 cost without any landing hardware vs F9 with landing Hardware refurbishment price
Can you find that? I tried looking it up really quick, but couldn't find any definitive numbers, and I don't have the time to do a detailed search right now.

>>10550799
They have spend so much money into developing that that they won't ever stop doing it. Also, there is no reason to not land them, most of their missions have plenty of additional Delta-V to comfortably squeeze in a landing manuveur, so you basically get free PR.

>>10550802
That argument is pretty much retarded.
If you're 99.9% sure you're gonna recover the stage, you might as well coat it with gold and still make a profit.

>>10550809
>>10550802
>>10550791
Every reflown Falcon booster is another mission they don't have to waste time and manpower building a new Falcon booster for. Since they're phasing the whole thing out at breakneck speed, even taking a loss on all of it would be acceptable.

>>10550809
Yeah, Why would SpaceX care about PR?
It's not like your everyday person goes around buying rockets from time to time.

>>10550819
>Every reflown Falcon booster is another mission they don't have to waste time and manpower building a new Falcon booster for

They are instead investing it into refurbishing it, and the quickest they did that so far is around 4-5 weeks. Compare that to their Statement that it takes around a month for them to build the whole rocket, so you can see that the first stage reuse is probably not profitable.

>>10550815
>That argument is pretty much retarded.
What are you talking about? Me asking for a source? Or the guy I replied to who claims that landing boosters is just a PR stunt?

>>10550832
For now they've been slowly building up a fleet of block 5 boosters.
Next is Starlink campaign, and it will need a lot of launches.
Prepare to see that interval shrink a lot.

>>10550839
You should be able to guess?

>>10550819
Yep. It's not just the cost of making another rocket, it's the cost of maintaining enough factory space and trained workers. That's why when the Wii was new, there was a shortage, because it wasn't worth it for Nintendo to spin up another factory that would only be needed until the shortage was over, which would be sooner with a second factory.
If they keep throwing rockets away, with a fixed manufacturing time per rocket, they need more factory lines to keep up with cadence. Refurbishing takes significantly less time, so they can have enough rockets ready without less factory capacity.
If there was an infinite rocket vending machine, money cost alone would matter, but there isn't. The hidden costs of manufacturing capacity means that the cost per unit will go up if you need to produce them faster.

>>10550832
Even if the refurbishing time is about the same as making a new booster. The cost of refurbishing can still be lower than making a new booster, and thus practical to do.

>>10550846
I've been reading that since ~3 years. "Next year is gonna be the year man, trust me".

>>10550799
Elon is definetely obsessed with the idea of reusing rockets, so he will Keep trying it. This is what the Starship is, the next attempt to achieve it (will fail, too, though). Now try to find investors for your rocket which can only be competetive if it can be reused very quickly and cheaply while admitting your current reusable rocket is not being reused financially profitable. In other words, he needs to keep the illusion of reusability alive or all investors will jump ship on the Starship.

>>10550815
>coating Starship Superheavy in gold leaf

I can get behind this

>>10550849
Sorry, just woke up. Asking for a source isn't an argument, so it sounds like you're talking about the guy I replied to.

But
>If you're 99.9% sure you're gonna recover the stage, you might as well coat it with gold and still make a profit.
Makes it sound like you're talking about my post.

I need more sleep.

>>10550863
If the future is $60 million for 20 tons to LEO forever, there is no future.

>>10550868
Sounds reasonable

>>10550832
>Statement that it takes around a month for them to build the whole rocket, so you can see that the first stage reuse is probably not profitable.
Tme to build vs time to refurbish isn't inherently equivalent. One doesn't need you to make new engines. Refurbishment may use less expensive equipment and less expensive labor cost. There may also be once-per-rocket material costs that are avoided.
It could also be taking longer to refurbish because they're doing it slowly until they learn all the gotchas.

>>10550791
I think it's more like they've decided that *further* re-usability is a dead end, and now they've done all they can, especially for the second stage. Just because it's not worth trying to make it *more* reusable doesn't mean that it's useless to reuse anything.

Anyways, real bottleneck in production was fairings, hence why they were trying so hard to recover them.
You may have missed it, but they recovered both halves yesterday, and they'll be flying again.

>>10550863
OK, dude, you're seething, I get it.
If SpaceX really wanted to show off, they'd have their boosters do a back-flip before landing.

Imagine being the asshole who thinks reusability isn't the future, and it's not just that SpaceX are delusional retards for pursuing it, but also the Chinese and Amazon are delusional retards wasting billions of dollars pursuing it, and the real future belongs to giant frankenstein trash cans to nowhere like SLS.

At this point I *HOPE* ULA is paying them.

https://electrek.co/2019/04/11/telsa-35000-model-3/
>turns out $35k model 3 was a pipe dream all along
lol

>>10550896
>and the real future belongs to giant frankenstein trash cans to nowhere like SLS.
To be fair, he didn't say anything about SLS.

>>10550882
>Tme to build vs time to refurbish isn't inherently equivalent. One doesn't need you to make new engines. Refurbishment may use less expensive equipment and less expensive labor cost. There may also be once-per-rocket material costs that are avoided.
It could also be taking longer to refurbish because they're doing it slowly until they learn all the gotchas.

Not perfectely, but kind of. This is also why they aim for 24h turnaround every year and every year they fail horribly.

>I think it's more like they've decided that *further* re-usability is a dead end, and now they've done all they can, especially for the second stage. Just because it's not worth trying to make it *more* reusable doesn't mean that it's useless to reuse anything

There is no reason why they woudln't just develop a reusable second stage, especially for the Heavy. The real reason they are abandoning the F9 is because reuse is nowhere close to profitable. Even if you look at the reuses, up until recently they barely reused any first stages (why?) and now they crawled towards reusing them two or three times, whith a very unknown cost calculation behind it. How much cost overrun is Elon willing to accept for free PR and blinding investors? Don't forget SpaceX isn't public, and we all know how much Elon hates that with Tesla he needs to back-up his promises with actual numbers.

>>10550903
At this point isn't it time to admit that electric cars are a meme that will never be viable and expendable petrol vehicles will power our road commerce and travel for the next century?

>>10550896
>Imagine being the asshole who thinks reusability isn't the future, and it's not just that SpaceX are delusional retards for pursuing it, but also the Chinese and Amazon are delusional retards wasting billions of dollars pursuing it, and the real future belongs to giant frankenstein trash cans to nowhere like SLS.

Soviets copying Space Shuttle does not mean Space Shuttle concept worked.

>>10550908
>until recently they barely reused any first stages (why?)
because they were still testing shit out and making sure reuse was even viable.

i love shitting on musk as much as any person accused of being an anti-musk shill, but this approach is just dumb

>>10550913
Lithium-battery powered batteries will indeed never replace mobility for the masses, there simply isn't enough Lithium on earth for that.

Can anyone justify the state of the pre-spaceX industry, even 15 years ago? What are the arguments that we were better off doing things the way before SpaceX got into stride.

>>10550917
Well, maybe it was because Energia was a bit too much to just throw away.

>>10550920
>because they were still testing shit out and making sure reuse was even viable.

This does not explain why if they reused, they didn't reuse them more than once.

>>10550929
You don't seem to understand. Space Shuttle was a cost monster from day 1. So much so that they took compromises on refurbishing which led to the Challenger disaster. Soviets still copied it. So others copying your faulty concept does not prove it wrong.

It's good to have a contrarian opinion, and obviously, re-using a first stage isn't 'free'.
But absent from any inside info, you've gotta trust your guts. And my guts tell me they make a hell of a profit, just from recovering the engines.

>>10550863
>those wright brother fags are definitely obsessed with flying further than 20 feet
>this is what the wright flyer 2 is, the next attempt to achieve it (will fail, too, though)

>>10550868
>"A little ostentatious, don't you think?"
>"What was I thinking? You're usually so discreet."

>>10550936
*prove it right

>>10550936
None of the shuttle tragedies have anything to do with refurbishment.

>>10550930
Holy fucking shit you are retarded beyond belief. Those were BLOCK 4 falcon 9’s that they re used once.

I recall having this EXACT SAME argument some months ago. Someone didn’t comprehend how B4 wasn’t designed for high numbers of re use like B5. They cleared out their B4 inventory for a reason


Fuck off

Would it ever be possible to use supercapacitors to assist rockets in taking off?
Then they wouldn't need to carry nearly as much fuel and it would also allow you to have some of the energy supplied using renewables, hypothetically.

>>10550789
>At this point I think SpaceX is just waiting for real competition before really slashing prices
Is this why they are raising capital (with little luck)?

>>10550940
Those are just stupid strawmen arguments. Wright Brothers were at the forefront of a completely new rocketry, so nobody would be able to make any educated guess on the future of airplanes. Rocketry however is 70 years old, there were many dozens different rockets and engines developed by different countries, in fact it actually peaked 50 years ago. It is no new technology, and almost anyone who works in the industry will tell you that reuse won't work.

>>10550951
Not a chance. There's no controlled, solid state energy storage system that comes close to the energy density of chemical fuels.

>>10550962
*completely new technology

>>10550951
Without even going into the question of energy density, how were you planning to use that awesome energy from the supercaps? Ion engines? (inb4 muh isp)

>>10550944
Challenger disaster was caused by trying to save cost on refurbishing one of the SRBs.

>>10550969
electromagnets

>>10550970
Wrong.
I happened because the o-ring was too cold to work properly...

>>10550970
>Challenger disaster was caused by trying to save cost on refurbishing one of the SRBs.

Fuck off. Challenger was caused by badly engineered seals that don't work correctly in low temperatures.

>>10550957
I think it's got to do with Starship.
See, even if it works perfectly, they don't have anything to throw with it.
They need to design habitat, deployable fuel factories and shit before it's any useful.
And that will take a lot of money, absent from NASA cancelling SLS.

>>10550962
Rocketry is in infancy. There were barely any reusable rocket designs that ever left the drawing board. You dont know what you are talking about at all.

>>10550951
An electromagnetic catapult could add a bit of energy to launch, yes, but either it would take an enormous structure to add anything significant or it would squish your more-delicate payloads.

Generally the tough part about getting to orbit is not getting up high but getting fast, so while exotic first-stage alternatives do chop off some of the exponential fuel dependence at the biggest end, they don't chop off enough, I'd say, in light of the extra complication they add.

>>10550977
Must be old space to think that a big rocket can't be used to launch small payloads.

>>10550981
All benefits would be cancelled by the atmosphere, though.
In fact, it's never a good idea to go too fast below 10km. Dynamic pressure and shit.

>>10550993
I suggested cancelling SLS to make useful Mars payload for BFR.
>Must be oldspace.

>>10550978
Thanks to the government limiting the technology's application to overpriced killing machines occasionally repurposed for publicity stunts.

Bereshit statement

>>10551000
>inb4 shot down by nazis

>>10550973
>>10550974
The O-ring was failed was known to be in questionable condition but it was decided against replacing it for time and money reasons.

>>10550978
Lol, SpaceX is literally copying a 1960's rocket with their Starship design. It is an incredibely mature industry, probably saw more R&D going into it than any other.
Well, they are two american rockets that have been reused (Space Shuttle and Falcons) and while we know that the first one was a financial disaster, we don't know for sure for the second one but is smells like it.

>>10551000
Why do they need to lie about this too.
Last telemetry we got was like 900 m/s horizontal and 150 m/s vertical.
So simple trigonometry gives me 3284 km/h impact.

>>10550971
Fucking magnets, how do they work?

>>10550973
>>10550974
And a culture at NASA of "We didn't have a problem last time that happened, so it must be okay!"

>>10551013
If you only do vertical it’s 540 or whatever

>>10551012
>The O-ring was failed was known to be in questionable condition but it was decided against replacing it for time and money reasons.
Wrong.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOzoLdfWyKw 1:55 and especially 2:40

>>10551026
So it's only half a lie I guess?
Or maybe it's a retarded statement?
What was I thinking being all antisemitic?
Next thing you know, I'd want to kill them all.

>>10551012
>Well, they are two american rockets that have been reused

Two whole rockets? I thought this was supposed to be a mature industry?

You are so full of shit.

>>10551012
>probably saw more R&D going into it than any other.

Wrong, rocketry received far less effort and funding than most other major industries. It is a very underdeveloped industry.

>>10550962
>Rocketry is 70 years old

>>10551049
This is completely untrue. The US Government alone spent upwards of a Trillion Dollars into it, and there are other big Governments that have their own history of R&D, especially Russia.

>>10551035
Go out for a walk and come back when you stopped seething.

>>10551054

>>10551067
>that guy on the right
Imagine being the first person in the world to see another human being explode into little chunks

>>10551054
>china make erryring
>china stronk

>>10551064
>The US Government alone spent upwards of a Trillion Dollars into it
source?

>>10551064
>The US Government alone spent upwards of a Trillion Dollars into it
The US spent $14B into a rocket that reuses parts and yet it may not fly. The amount of money a government puts into a project or industry isn't a reliable measure of how much work is being done.

>>10551088
>>10551088
Wouldn't be surprised if it added up to that in 6 decades.
That being said, that is if you take all of NASA's budget going into rocketry R&D, and that's just not true.

>we wasted 7 tril in the middle east

Jews the biggest obstacle to space exploration - prove me wrong

>>10551101
>$14B
Try 17 billion
And 15 more for Orion,
and then unknown dollars for a real upper stage.

>>10551064
>The US Government alone spent upwards of a Trillion Dollars into it

Which is much less than was spent on other transportation industries such as aviation, shipping or automobile.

Behold, Realistic Mars colony power requirements breakdown from NSF autists. Assumes LED powered lights for food production. Propellant production energy requirements are still the most important part.

>>10551129
$200M, I'd need to check, but I think that's even less than the ISS right now.

>>10551110
My point still stands.

Not to sound like a McNukes libertarian, but the government can be incredibly inefficient.

>>10551145
Well, sure, this is becoming more and more apparent that it's just wasting money. But to be fair, Starship wasn't a project when it started. So they budgeted with what they had.

>>10551148
>But to be fair, Starship wasn't a project when it started. So they budgeted with what they had.
I know, and I understand why SLS exists (outside of being a job program). The problem is that it was a project that initially promised a quick and cheap development due to recycling parts and it completely failed to deliver that. Sure, it's fucked because of the politics and not because of the rocket, but it's still disappointing and either needs to fly something useful soon or just be cancelled.

>>10551178
Depends on what you define as quick and cheap. It's waaaay cheaper than the Saturn 5 was.

Also, "Recycling parts" doesn't have to be a good idea. By using the SSMEs as the first stage engines they have already settled a huge cost increase because hydrogen in the first stage is just really expensive without adding any real performance boost. They surely would have ended up much cheaper by just developing the F1B and going with an RP-1 first stage while also having a better performance because the F1B would be better than SSMEs.

>>10551129
80 ha of solar panels, kek. Thats 500 000 solar panels (1x1,6m)
How many trips to deliver?

>>10550694
>Also, do you have proof that SpaceX is landing their boosters just as a PR stunt and not to reuse their boosters at a smaller cost than making new ones?
Burden of proof is on SpaceX they made the claim that they save money but we will never know since they hide their finances

Let's recap this thread.
Old space is still ass-burned SpaceX is getting all their market.
To compete, they started designing new throwable launchers when it wasn't clear SpaceX could even recover shit reliably.
Now, SpaceX basically recovers everything, and new rockets are too far down the R&D pipeline to cancel.
Not helping is, contractors won't like launching on their new vehicles when they got the old tested F9 for cheaper.
Arianespace, in desperation starts a program to make a f9 look-alike.
ULA still confident they can stir politics forever to get gobernment/USAF launches on their untested rocket.
Meanwhile, SLS a mess. It was supposed to be simple, but they can't do it, obviously.
I'm even wondering if it will launch more than 1 time, if it doesn't blow up.
'someone' sent a proposal to NASA for an alternative to EM-1. And we all know who it is.
SpaceX is is trying to save hes buddy NASA from losing popular support for just wasting money.

>>10551211
>Burden of proof is on SpaceX they made the claim that they save money
You do have a point. However, SpaceX never made the claim on this thread. Some anon made the claim that reusing boosters is a PR stunt here, so the burden of proof still rests on him.

And even if reusing boosters isn't viable in the present, I still commend SpaceX for trying to do it and learning from it. "It has worked before so why change it?" Is an awful mindset.

>>10551211
You do realize it's possible they're not releasing the data, because it would show they're literally ripping off customers, right?

>>10551198
Only on the development end, on the launch end it could be between .5 to 1.5 billion more expensive, assuming costs don't continue to increase along with delays. I'd much rather they had revived the Saturn program in full by modernizing and simplifying old Saturn designs as was done with the F1b first stages that were being designed back when SLS might have had LPRE boosters instead of SRBs. Fuck they should have just slapped the F1bs on the SLS, made the whole thing MethaLOX with KeroLOX sea level boosters and called it Saturn VI.

>>10551248
Yeah, I was all for the F1b boosters.
But hey, they have to keep making them boosers becose muh jobs.

will SLS even happen at this rate? isn't it sunk costs?

>>10550852
>cadence
Their launch rate is already going down they are working on their backlog. Arianespace got more new launch contracts in 2018 than SpaceX

>>10551254
reflecting on this, how much boosters did they produce since 2011?
A test article, and then 2 more for EM-1?
Must be hard twisting your thumbs for a decade.
I'd literally shoot myself.

>>10551257
It's better if it blow up the pad.
And I mean, I'm sure a lot of NASA personal thinks so.

>>10551257
>isn't it sunk costs?
not if you are contractor

>>10551257
My guess is that SLS will launch sometime 2021. There seems to be a growing political pressure to launch it so that further development is justified. If left alone, then we might be lucky to see a manned lunar flyby (like Apollo 8) in 2030s.

And I don't think its sunk cost fallacy that's keeping SLS afloat. Sure that's what some people in the project might say to justify them working on it, but the real reason why SLS is being used is as a jobs program. Once the American economy recovers enough and the private launch industry grows to match SLS capabilities, then it'll get canned quickly.

>>10550978
Reusability is not a technology it is a economic decision.
Name 1 groundbreaking technology that SpaceX invented to reuse a stage.
None right... because there is no scientific/technological breakthrough achieved by spacex
Nobody has done it before because it is a retarded idea.

>>10551277
And yet Blue Origin, the Chinese, ESA, and even ULA to an extent are going forward with reusability efforts. Blue Origin in particular.

>https://www.space.com/spacex-reuse-payload-fairing-starlink-launch.html
honeslty fuck off this is the best news yet, they finally caught a goddamn fairing

You guys don't get it.
Musk has a grudge against old space, and it has nothing to do with how inefficient they are.
When he started SpaceX, he went to some meeting, and was eager to expose what he was doing.
Everybody just laughed at him.
It's just personal.
He's gonna drop the cost hammer when they launch their new rockets.
Vengeance is better served cold.

>>10551277
>Nobody has done it before because it is a retarded idea.
How so? Reusability is the way to go for future launch vehicles. Every other major transportation vehicle used in other industries is reusable.

old space thinks reusability is a meme because they can't stop getting hard over SSTOs and they could never get those to work

fairings are 10% of a F9 cost. Now that they’re going to reuse em for Starlink that’s another chunk of savings right there

>>10551277
Name your criteria for ground breaking, you might as well claim that nothing ground breaking has happened in fire arm technology since the cannon

>>10551290
*will finally re use them. They’ve caught a handful in the ocean, but until now they’ve been used for drop tests or were too far destroyed

>>10551305
I don't think it's SSTOs. I think the reason some people doubt reusable boosters is due to being "once bitten twice shy" from the Shuttle. Hell, I still feel wary about it after reading about how messed up the Shuttle project had gotten.

>>10551319
It's safe to assume they gave up on catching them and feel like they'll gain more time by just fishing them out.
It's not that far fetched, as it looks like it operates like a boat when it lands, meaning no inside component gets sunk into water.

>>10551274
At this rate private entities might end up eclipsing SLS by the time it's ready to have its first launch. I wouldn't be shocked if BFRship was doing at least unmanned cargo and supply launches (at least its first full test flight) by 2021. And the full vehicle will nearly match SLS's block 1b carrying capacity even though SLS is inherently almost 100% expendable while BFRship will be nearly the opposite, I'd imagine flying fully expendable it could dramatically eclipse SLS's block 2 payload and still be much more cost effective due to lack of bureaucracy and inherently much cheaper construction material.

>>10551323
The one landing failure we had with block 5 was a brand new core.
If anything, contractors should pay a premium to fly on a flight-proven core.

>>10551331
Yeah, no.
Somewhere in there, it will blow up.
Which is normal, for such fast paced development.

>>10551339
Elon has said they’ll definitely frag the launch pad a couple times

>>10551129
why do they need so much propellant?

>>10551331
>I wouldn't be shocked if BFRship was doing at least unmanned cargo and supply launches (at least its first full test flight) by 2021.
I would be surprised. As much as I doubt the development speed of SLS, I'm confident SLS will launch before BFR.

>>10551339
I wouldn't be shocked at all if at least one if not several BFRships end up getting blowed up, the loss of their engines will hurt SpaceX but the vehicles themselves being made mostly of stainless steel will not represent an overwhelming loss, especially as long as the falcons and falcon heavies continue to reliably launch payloads.

>>10551349
bet ya five bucks
seriously

>>10551351
Don't forget these things will blow up in a serious way.
Starship would be kind of a local disaster.
But SuperHeavy would be akin to a small nuclear explosion.

>>10551349
I think pieces of BFRship will fly before all of SLS, either the superheavy booster or the starship upper will perform a successful flight at the very least. The two combined may fly only after an SLS launch but each component individually will probably fly before it.

>>10551355
I'll give all potential BFRship launch pads a preemptive F, just to be sure.
F for all future pads which may be blown to pieces in a BFRship unplanned supersonic disassembly.

>>10551349
You're not confident enough in its power to be delayed.
From what Bridenstine said, they're having trouble with the engine section.
It may be that it's not an easy fix.

>>10551354
How about we keep it "clean" and just admit we're wrong on vocaroo along with a reference to the post number to make it "offical".

If the full stack of SLS flies before the full stack of BFR, you lose.
If the reverse happens, then I lose.

To be honest, this would be a bet I wouldn't mind losing.

>>10551360
That's what I suspect too. Although how much of BFR would be done by the time SLS flies can be debatable.

>>10551378
It's not about if it will fly.
It's more about why it should.

>>10551371
if you're not blowing stuff up, you're doing it wrong

stacking soon?

a few months ago, I saw some autistic streaming Kerbal Space Program doing extremely autistic things, like building a custom launch pad out of rocket parts. anyone know who I'm talking about?

>>10551471
Danny? The guy with the ragtime music? He and Scoot Moonbeam are the only ones I know who post KSP vids.

>>10551277
>6 months later this fag is still here
FAG

I hate how secretive Blue Origin are about their engines.

Damn it, let me learn about them so I can geekgasm over them.

>>10551516
Difference in culture. Blue Origins is traditional culture of space industry, slow and steady. And does not want to engage the public.

>>10551459
thicc & s t a c k e d

>>10551520
didn't they say new sheperd would already be doing launches by this time this year and servicing customers?

>>10551538
I think they said 2021, but i might be wrong

>a new rocket design limited to rusty, infeasible space shuttle parts is going to be feasible

friggin boomers

how many leftover engines did they have anyways

>>10551540
I thought that was the new glenn timeline?

>>10551541
Didn't they literally take the engines out of museums? Lol fuck these lazy boomers working 35 hours a week with great pay and pension plans taking 2 hour lunches and going on 4 week vacations and getting Columbus day off. Elon treats his workers like sweat shop laborers but it's worth it.

do you guys think electric pumps like the Electron uses are feasible for a much larger rocket?

they would need large batteries of course but turbopumps and preburners waste propellant and add tons of rocket complexity

>>10550871
Why do we constantly have people on this board trashing reusability? It's really the only feasible way humans will ever expand into space.

>>10551459
Never going to work you can't weld fuel tanks and especially not liquid oxygen tanks out in the open like this.

You need pristine lab conditions for this kind of work.

It's just a prop.

>>10551562
>missing how Starhopper, built in the exact same conditions, successfully ran its engine and hopped last week.

>>10551561
Low-grade trolls who never learned the difference between negative and positive attention because their parents ignored them.

>>10551560
>do you guys think electric pumps like the Electron uses are feasible for a much larger rocket?
I doubt it. Batteries have a terrible energy density (Joules per kilogram) compared to the rocket propellants.

Electropumps are feasible on smaller rockets because turbopumps are hard to make if your engine is as big as a microwave oven.

>>10551562
>You need pristine lab conditions for this kind of work.
I really wish that the aerospace industry would get out of the mindset that rockets need hyper efficient super special parts/materials/manufacturing in order to be useful.

>>10550868
it'd boil off during the booster's reentry

>>10551580
batteries are rechargeable though, might make sense on really long flights in the scifi future

>>10551609
So what?

>>10551347
For return trips.

>>10551541
what rocket design is this?

>>10551618
>returning

>>10551625
It is not about returning but about reusing the ships for more trips.

>>10551615
>batteries are rechargeable though, might make sense on really long flights in the scifi future
How would you recharge them?

If electropumps can outlive turbopumps of the same propellant output, then you have a point, but I don't think that the aerospace industry is at the point where it's necessary nor in the near future.

>>10551620
I think he's talking about the SLS.

second gravity wave candidate detected since upgraded LIGO went online

https://gracedb.ligo.org/latest/

we are now getting events once a week or so

>>10551654
neat

>>10551651
The seams make it look a little "Wallace and Gromit."

>>10551654
Awesome! I wonder when technology improves to the point where the universe beyond the CMB could be seen.

>>10551562
Where the fuck do you think clean rooms come from? The clean room dimension? All of those facilities were once some grass-covered field at some point, and then spent a long time as a dirty construction site. You make them clean once they are cleanable.
The same process applies here.

>>10551459
Nah, they nedd hinged legs and and canards to be reaedy before that.
This is way more complex than starhopper.

>>10551665
COTS Demo Flight 1 had a wheel of cheese on board

>>10551665
If the Moon is made out of cheese, then what's Mars made of? Paprika?

>>10551651
Oh shit that's the tip

Hold up guys.
Real starship involves mechanical parts.
That's not gonna go as smooth as just wielding plates.

>>10551562
it only needs to work once

>>10551704
Thanks Sherlock.

>>10551145
is there something wrong with being a mcnukes libertarian

Now we know why ISS is so overpriced.

>Former ISS National Lab executive indicted for allegedly 'expensing' prostitutes

https://eu.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/04/12/former-iss-national-lab-executive-indicted-prostitution/3446996002/

>>10551753
I eagerly await the political leanings that arrive out of Martian society

>>10551351
>>10551355
I think the biggest losses for Starship are going to be during reentry, we might see a few Columbias and I doubt we'll ever see a Challenger

>>10551753
I mainly said it to be funny, but what I meant was that I didn't want to sound like one of those types who hates anything related to governments.

>>10551755
>I'm going to build my own space station with blackjack and hookers!

>>10551617
what's even the point of applying bling if your bling isn't reusable

>>10551767
It's already the Red Planet!

>>10551704
yeah I'm really interested in seeing their solutions for the canards and legfins
>>10551772
is there something wrong with hating governments

>>10550868
is that an attempt to get approval from the Trump administration?

>>10551791
>legfins
That's the more critical part, as it's critical to having it stand straight.

>>10550868
>gold leaf
better yet, titanium nitride
>>10551803
the legfins need to both be wings and legs, which is uh
interesting

>>10551129
Yeah then you have the tornado storms that annihilate your tincan shelter and put absolute darkness over everything for months.

Mars fanboys already have jello brains.

and just read it lel
>MW
>MEGAWATTS

why is the James Webb going to L2 instead of a normal earth orbit?

>>10551834
>tornado storms
Yeah those super-powerful twisters that can clean the dust right off your rover, how will Martians ever survive them?

>>10551864
Super special telescope with state of the art technology needing incredibly low temperatures for operation.

>>10550607
damn those comments are well "moderated"

I think they should have built starhopper 1:1

>Twitter retards asking why Elon doesn't strap Raptor on the Falcons

people this dumb should be euthanized

>>10551901
I think they should've built a methalox Sea Dragon.

>>10551834
You can lald multiple megawatts of solar panels in a single Starship, also Martian storms are just a weak breeze since the atmosphere has low density

>>10551912
Calm down. Someone who might not understand the finer details of rocket engineering may fail to understand how hard it is to redesign a rocket to use a completely different type of engine.

Ignorance is okay.

>>10551915
>You can lald multiple megawatts of solar panels in a single Starship
You need 3000 panels for 1MW. Plus mounting equipment, cabling, switchgear etc, all heavy af

>>10551129
I suppose you'd use propellant for energy storage? Although that's really fucking inefficient, thinking about it.

>>10552006
And to add, 3000 panels of dimensions 1x1,6x0,035m equals to 168m3.
So stop telling lies cuck

>>10551755
>expensing
ESL here.
>expending hookers
Reusable prostitutes can't come soon enough.

>>10552035
>Reusable prostitutes can't come soon enough.
They are reusable by their very definition, way from before the dawn of civilization.

>>10552035
Enough with reusable prostitutes, everyone in the industry knows its pointless and stale PR. Expendable prostitutes can pleasure bigger customers. Checkmate Elonfag. Catching and reusing them isnt as cheap as you make it out to be.

>>10551129
>12 MW for the colony
Holy shit, how many people are we talking about here? Unless they're smelting aluminum in their free-time?

Also do you really need
>Light -> Solar panels -> Electricity -> LED light -> plants
for food? Let alone that much?

Can't you just
>Light -> plants

>>10552071
Farming with direct sunlight? Like a peasant?

>>10552071
Food is not something you want to min/max down to only what you need. A good chunk of that power is redundant.

>>10552033
Well, Starship is supposed to have a pressurized volume of 1000m^3. So by your own volume figure that lets you ship 15,000 panels, for 5 megawatts of power production, with 160 m^3 to spare for related equipment. Presumably a cargo variant that doesn't have to maintain pressure could hold even more. And some of the stuff can use local materials to save weight/volume. For example, you could prop the panels up against sandbags, at the most suitable angle; with how weak the Martian wind is, you wouldn't need anything fancy to hold them to the ground.

going to be top salty if we don't get a kino aesthetics launchpad 3

>>10552113

>>10550789
Ariane will always retain European defense and intelligence launches. If that isn't enough to keep it alive, European governments will cut subsidies from European commercial launches using other launch providers. If that isn't enough Germany and French will pressure government of potential SpaceX customer to revoke their operating licenses on telecommunications and shit.

>>10552129
BFR Ultraheavy? Imagine this big fucker flying.

>>10552129
yeah that'll never happen

Hang on, are they going to stick this shit on top of the starhopper base?

>>10552191
>Hang on, are they going to stick this shit on top of the starhopper base?

Nope. They're building the orbital prototype, which is a brand new vehicle.

>>10552129

>>10552205
that is the orbital vehicle

can someone explain to me how the cargo version works. Are there doors? How does it open, how does it even work with the methane cooling that is planned?

Can someone explain how the starship would open. Seriously I don't see any doors in any of the mock ups

>>10552205
Why are they assembling it without tanks and plumbing then?

>>10552241
they call the cargo version "chomper"

>>10552243
plumbing goes inside the tanks
you're looking at the tanks

>>10552243
Those are the tanks

>>10552264
what does it's front pop open at the largest width or something. Like a hatch?

How fucking goofy does that sound?

>>10552129
Super Heavy won't be made of stainless steel, right?
If so, you think they will they paint it shiny just to fit in?

>>10552276
The upper front end (the leeward side) is supposed to open up like a mouth to expose the cargo bay. The nose and lower front (the wind-ward side) is all 1 piece for structural purposes.

I expect that when it launches and starts to fly hardware, they'll either have a rotary satellite dispenser for things like Starlink, or they'll have the payload adapter on a hinge so that once the ship is in space, they can unlatch the payload adapter, swing it out into open space, then release the cargo.

>>10552278
>Super Heavy won't be made of stainless steel, right?

Super Heavy is being made out of stainless steel. SpaceX scrapped the composite tooling.

>>10552278
Elon has taken the steel pill. From now on everything is steel and made in their backyard.

>>10552276
it's like the shuttle but shiny and at the front

How do I get into spaceflight shit?
t. Brainlet

>>10552276
Like this.

>>10552292
looks like a bearded dragon

>>10550863
>I've been reading that since ~3 years. "Next year is gonna be the year man, trust me"

Are you referring to Starlink launches?
If so, they have been tied up with the FCC over modifying their orbit height. They wanted to lower it so failing satellites could de-orbit and burn up in the atmosphere, reducing space trash. The other company that is currently launching satellites (I can't remember their name atm) tried blocking SpaceX from changing their orbit height for reasons.

>>10550903
This is SPACE GENERAL
Not ELON GENERAL

Piss off

>>10552292
looks like it's about to eat something, well curiosity satisfied thanks you fellows. It is no less absurd than it sounded

>>10552292
>AAAAAAAAAAAAH!

>>10552104
With thin film solar coming onto the market expect this number to increase VERY substantially by the time they get around to sending anything to Mars.

>>10552289
Based and steelpilled

>>10552291
Shitposting here with us senpai and watch Scott Manley on YouTube

>>10552292
DELICIOUS SATELLITES

>>10550832
Just because they never reflew a booster in less than 4-5 weeks doesn‘t have to mean that they spent that entire time refurbishing. There are only so many launches a year and more goes into a launch date than just the rocket being ready, I‘d assume.
Plus they are still getting acquainted with these boosters. Only two of them flew three times now. They gotta look into those thoroughly to see when they hit their limits. They really don‘t want their reusable rockets to be seen as unsafe.
Hell, it‘s barely been a year or two that they started reusing boosters at all, wasn't it. This is all highly experimental stuff that only just became viable.

>>10551901
>1.8m

Why do they always compare it to some short stack?

>>10552291
Give KSP a try if you like games.

>>10552291
Curious Droid is great to brush up on your history.

>>10552292
>satellite vore

>>10552355
Now I‘m glad there isn‘t a BFR-tan yet.

>>10552129
>SuperHeavyCeption

>>10552358
Only a matter of time my dude

>>10552358
All I got is a Falcon-tan.

>>10551864
Because it's a vampire and can't be in the sun.

>>10552317
it's very Moonraker, yeah
there are ideas floating around to pull an actual moonraker and bring Hubble back down

>>10552375
what do they do for the bfr? can they actually land them on similar barges or do they have to go bigger?

>>10552391
BFR is likely return to launch site.

>>10552292
>feed shuttle hardware to me instead

>>10552394
Exactly to launch site, in fact. It's meant to land right back where it took off.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu69XAM8IQs

>>10552129
it would probably destroy the launchpad

Blue Origin is putting up tents as well now

>>10552546
The newspace competition is getting intents now.

>>10552546
Being able to lift small shit from the roof rafters is pretty damn convenient

if they want to move machines or tools or parts around they'll need dedicated lift vehicles or more machinery or something

Can someone explain why we're spending $450 million on a moon-orbiting ISS? This whole thing sounds like trash

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbital_Platform-Gateway

>>10552375
is there anymore to this gallery, I really like the warped perspective of this image

>>10552546

>>10552585
>There's an entire part dedicated to criticisms

nice

>>10552586
Maybe? I don't recall where I got it, don't know the artist or anything. Try image-searching it, maybe you'll get something.

Accidentally find this while looking for old Times cover.
So weird to read something like this today.

>>10552611
History showing that soviets was on right path, a lot of thing they planned to implement, like flyback boosters, fully reusable orbital stage and so on actually exist today or being actively developed.
I'm kinda curious how efficient would be those flyback boosters compared to vertical landing boosters.

>>10552659
>I'm kinda curious how efficient would be those flyback boosters compared to vertical landing boosters.
My best guess would be that winged boosters would hurt the performance of the rocket compared to thrustback boosters (like SpaceX). The wings, landing gear, and other parts would add more dry mass and result in less payload capacity compared to a thrustback rocket of the same size. However, winged rockets may allow for more flexible returns. Landing on runways can allow for a faster refurbishment time. In theory transportation would be easier, as a jet engine (either made into the booster or attached later) can be fueled and the booster flown remotely to it's destination. SpaceX's Falcon has a small diameter for it's size due to restrictions in transportation. If the Falcon's could just fly themselves to the launch pad, then that restriction would be gone.

>>10551330
would it not be better to put auto inflatable "boats" on the outterside of the fairings like an airbag, so it floats ontop of the sea, to minimize the salt water corrosion

>>10552585
Isn't a moon base 10 times better. You have a chance to refuel and actually build habitation modules. If you are in space now you are functionally tied to landers.

Also is it functionally feasable to land a taller platform to land landers on so that it doesn't kick up moon dust as it approaches

>>10552737
>Also is it functionally feasable to land a taller platform to land landers on so that it doesn't kick up moon dust as it approaches
Just bring a push-broom.

>>10552291
KSP definitely

>>10552218
imagine the smell

>>10552791
Burnt O2 and hot steel?

>>10552737
In some ways yes, others no, there's less risk in orbital rendezvous then in landing as we recently saw with beresheet, on the other hand a base gives you free shielding and more natural movement from having fractional g. Dust will be an issue though, there will have to be some way t get rid of it before surface teams get unsuited, and it will inevitably get into machinery, you could solve that though by perhaps spreading some kind of binding agent over the surface to create roads and colony foundations.

>>10552765
just use a lander to blast the dust away
>>10552800
I love the smell of hot steel

>>10552809
That seems more like a step forward with more advantageous compared to the station.Those don't seem like insurmountable problems, but building a second iss would set space development back by quite a bit

>>10552391
>>10552404
The plan for commuter (earth-to-earth) BFR is to use floating platforms, though they're more likely to look like oil platforms than the current barges for improved stability. The reason you need to use floating platforms is the launch noise and the sonic booms from entry are too noisy for most places to put up with.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0

>>10552822
that's not "the plan", that's the current fetish of internet commentators

>>10552816
>I love the smell of hot steel
BALLS OF STEEL

>>10552826
>describes rough plan put forth in multiple talks by SpaceX heads, not just Elon
>>"that's the current fetish of internet commentators"
>https://youtu.be/Dar8P3r7GYA?t=879
>timestamp is 14:39
May I purchase some of what you're smoking?

>>10552820
Well thankfully so long as Bigelow keep to their plan to launch a pair of B330's in 2021 and 2022 there will likely never be another space station as space inefficient and slapped together as the ISS.

>>10552860
Bigelow is a scam run by a paranoid retard, and everything beyond the shit they've already flown is vaporware

>>10552874
what

>>10552884
go check out Glassdoor. Bigelow is a ayylium truther

>>10552884
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Bigelow-Aerospace-Reviews-E373179.htm
apparently they're completely incapable of keeping competent engineers onboard

>>10552894
I mean it is an aerospace company in fucking Las Vegas

>>10552611
>Hey Baikonur why are those towers so ta-
>NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

>>10552901
and everybody who's ever played Fallout New Vegas knows that never goes well

>>10552905
daily reminder that for a full moon landing with an N1 the astronaut had to do an EVA to transfer to the return vehicle with his briefcase full of moon rocks

lol

>>10552890
Why in the world would I give a single fuck about what he personally believes about shit not related to efficiently packaged space habitat modules? I wouldn't give a fuck if he were a flat earth 9/11 truth ancient ayylien believing scientologist evolution denier. All I care about is that they've already booked an Atlas (ULA has decided they'll use the Vulcan now but so far as I know it's still on) to launch the first B330 in 2020 and presumably will book another to launch the second module in 2021 to operate as an LLO station similar to LOP-G in 2022. BEAM also actually works, people have been in it, shit is stored in it, the concept is sound. I'll cross my fingers and hope to fucking God that they succeed because those modules are leaps and bounds better than the aluminum shitcans in use right now.

>>10552924
the inflatable meme is the future but it won't be Bigellow taking us there

>>10552924
seconded, can he get the modules built or not. I don't personally care if they are made of tanned human leather

>>10552927
is it? they were dependent on launch costs still being pretty high, thus the need to have more space than the fairing can allow. Assuming starships delivers, you can launch cheaper steel modules for... cheap. No origami and compacted structures to deal with

>>10552928
(he can't because the armed guards and intense paranoia drove off all his engineers)

>>10550787
Except for that time the first stage had a partial failure and the upper stage had to expend all o its delta V to save the mission, which then meant the satellite payload had to pick up the slack and thus burned through a significant amount of its maneuvering propellant and shortened its orbital life.

>>10550832
>Compare that to their Statement that it takes around a month for them to build the whole rocket
No, they roll a new rocket off of the assembly line roughly once per month, the actual build process takes in excess of a year.

>>10552931
Or you could launch fuckhuge modules and expand them for even more pressurized volume. If anything the inflatables are going to see use simply because you can get more pressurized volume up in space per launch, cheaper launch costs or no.

>>10552927
That module on the ISS seemed pretty cool, though not particularly space-saving.

>>10552942
hmmm, I guess it scales exponentially with the start volume

>>10552931
Armarid fiber modules are more durable and can contain equivalent or greater radiation shielding and the whole point of a soft expanding module is that you can pack a module with greater internal volume into a smaller fairing, allowing (relatively) small rockets to carry much larger modules. The B330 is going up in a Vulcan who's fairing is five and change meters (though later versions will be closer to 5.5). If you could somehow build a fairing big and stable enough a Falcon Heavy could lift 3 of them to LEO in fully expendable mode, although I don't think any kind of fairing could fit 3 modules in it, just talking purely about weight here. The future is coming old man.

>>10552972
Just out of curiosity, how large is the F9/FH Fairing?

>>10552972
>the whole point of a soft expanding module is that you can pack a module with greater internal volume into a smaller fairing
Or you can pack a truly enormous module into a titanically large fairing.

>>10552984
5.2mx13.1m or 17x43 feet.

>>10552992
So not quite/*barely* big enough to launch a inflatable module?

>>10552999
it's just a tad short, I believe

>>10552999
Well, at least on Bigelow's website (assuming a B330 here for ease of discussion) they claim the B330 will be collapsed to 1/3rd of it's fully expanded size for flight, the total module width is 6.7mx16.8m so collapsed it will be 2.2mx5.6m and it weighs 23,000kg. Assuming this is true you could stack two of them ontop of each-other and launch them in a Falcon Heavy normal fairing, or five of them into a cargo Starship (4 side by side with another stacked on top), the same into SLS block 1b but with three in bottom and two on top.

>>10553010
Pity. Retooling for making a larger fairing even if its only by enough to launch one ain't worth it either.
I suppose if Bigelow really wanted to launch one on an F9/FH though, they'd package the module in their own fairing as part of a package, then send the package to SpaceX for attaching and launching.

>>10553015
I think me and the other guy were talking about the next size up.

>>10553023
Certainly the BA1150 and BA2100's will be doable, but only for the upcoming generation of heavy lifters, the size isn't important because both will be more than manageable at 1/3rd expanded size, however they weigh 70 and 100 tons respectively so only Starship and SLS1b would be able to carry the 2100, and the medium sized rockets (or New Glenn) can't quite manage the 1150, leaving only the heavies usable in hoisting it.

>>10552989
the future I dream of

>>10550544
Dubs.

Why are lots of satellites blowing up in GEO lately? In the past two years, there's been at least six that we know of (pic related). At some point you have to consider that something malicious may be happening.

>>10553324
us tests? maybe related to that missing sat?

>>10553328
All but one satellite are Western satellites. The non Western one is Indonesian. I don't know if there is a pattern, it's just interesting and really makes you wonder.

>>10553342
yeah.... it sure does. Surely there is no massive black project centered around oribtal dominance at play being tested

>>10553324
>something malicious may be happening
it's called Kessler Syndrome

>>10553361
I don't know about that. How often do we lose spacecraft in LEO to explosions? It can't be averaging three per year like it is in GEO.

Maybe it can be due to collisions? https://twitter.com/TSKelso/status/1116414695525601280

The satellite almost hit a TDRS satellite. I guess we're lucky that GEO seems to be unpopular where instead LEO is the new hotness.

>>10553365
the thing is that all the way out at GEO, debris will never de-orbit, so everything that's out there will stay out there clogging it up forever

>>10553376

>>10553376
Yes but GEO is fucking yuge compared to LEO

>>10553403
https://youtu.be/H-Q7b-vHY3Q

>>10553403
GEO is a circle/ring around the equator, not a series of orbits like LEO, so debris just needs to flow along that circle to cause problems.

>>10552911
Standard Kerbal operation.

>>10552292
The top of the BFS is still obstructed. Do you think they'll build in the ability to tilt the payload adapter before decoupling the payload?

>>10553417
is slowing down earth's rotation such that GEO changes an option?

>>10553087
Do not push enormously large modules into your fairing. It is not titanically large.

>>10553324
>Why are lots of satellites blowing up in GEO lately?
Leading question. Source me up first, senpai. Then we can talk.

>>10552546
>High heels
>Construction site

Woman

>>10553749
https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/new-video-of-intelsat-29e-satellite-reveals-dramatic-anomaly/

>>10553935
oh wow

>>10552737
>Also is it functionally feasable to land a taller platform to land landers on so that it doesn't kick up moon dust as it approaches
Or you could just build a big wide platform out of some kind of regolith concrete, it's not like there are winds to blow moondust onto your platform.

>>10554105
Huh. Funky.

>>10554158
just melt it into a granite slab

Ded thred, someone make a new one.