/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10577847
It's only clinking because of the stall warning shakes

>>10577847
that crewed mission is going to be delayed at least a year. There may be a congressional inquiry. It ain't gonna fly until they do this test again and it goes right.

>>10577847
So, is Elon rekt?

>>10577847
Considering all the problems Boeing have been having with Starliner recently, it would not suprise me if Starliner also encounters a few more testing anomalies...

>>10577847
>breaking news
>orion and sls delayed another 5 years

There will never be any safety as long as our space vehicles are large metal sticks of explosives.

>>10577945
SLS should launch its congressional supporters to space so that better rocket programs can be done.

>>10577847

As a boeing employee I am happy watching memeX fail.

Fuck them.

>>10578008
>larping as a Boeing employee to own the libs

wew lad

Russians right now knowing more delays means more fat checks for Soyuz seats.

>>10578029
Not him but I'm a contractor that actually works with Boeing sometimes. It wouldn't surprise me if Boeing employees were posting on /sci/ at all. The average person working there is the exact incel geek type that would browse 4chan.

>kaboom
>anomaly on the test stand.

https://spacenews.com/spacex-crew-dragon-spacecraft-suffers-anomaly-during-ground-tests/

>>10578209
Let me crush that tiny bit of hope you have anon. There is nothing left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe4ee56aHSg

It's time to reconsider Orion to the ISS.

Commercial crew is clearly a failure that has costed years and billions.

>>10578220
....how many died?

>>10578008
typical Boeing attitude
you dying would actually make the world a better place

>>10578286

non because it was a test. which is why they test

>>10578312
amazing, only Elon musk could be cunning enough to protect those men and women by making this a test rather then a real attempt

>>10578382
At least that makes him smarter than the people who ran the Shuttle.

ULA sniper strikes again

>>10577996
What do you suggest?

I blame all their competitors for espionage and tampering.

>>10578823
Well OBVIOUSLY this means that we should take away NASA's excessive budget of $20 Billion and use it for welfare. It'll definitely help with the meager socal programs budget of over half a trillion dollars.

>>10578823
Maybe some new way of generating energy?
LENR for example

>>10578897
Generating energy does fuckall for rocket propulsion in 1G at one Bar of pressure. You need a powerful pushing force that is also relatively safe to get from Earf to space. NSWRs and NPPRs and fusion torches are too hot and hazardous to use so we're stuck with cryogenic bipropellant rockets.

>>10578914
>What is MHD

>>10578980
>What is TWR

At da end of da day this is really NASA's fault for not having a reliable crew vehicle for the last 40 years.

>>10579053
>this is really NASA's fault for not having a reliable crew vehicle for the last 40 years.
I'd argue that it was Congress's fault because they have dictated significant parts of the design and then wouldn't let the Shuttle be improved upon because that would disrupt the contractors who had friends in Congress. And now Congress with the same contractors are trying to dictate spacecraft design again with the SLS.

>>10579066
Yes, Nixon was presented with four options post-Apollo (which he cancelled), and he de facto took the "no future presence in space" one, and the shuttle was tacked on as a compromise.

James Burke doesn't sugarcoat it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFFse7WQ12w

>>10578854
Did that gorilla holding the wheelchair eat it all?

>>10579084
Nixon was actually one of the best presidents we've had

>>10579084
Timestamp where he talks about the Shuttle, please?

>>10579091
I watched the end again and he doesn't talk about the shuttle explicitly. I was actually thinking of this video, and the von Braun anecdote at 1:13:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-57A7vV1fk

Incidentally, when John Young first learned that Congress had approved the shuttle, he happened to be on the moon at the time and the ground told him. You could almost hear him talking through his teeth when he said something along the lines of, "yeah, we'll need it."

>>10577847
why did the orange smoke come? what broke?

>>10579107
Thank you. Nevertheless, The Other Side of the Moon seems like a good video so far.

Some people wonder why there were no manned spaceflight programs beyond LEO for over 50 years after Apollo, when in fact it seems like Apollo almost never happened. Imagine the spaceflight industry if the American government decided to take the publicity hit and never really bothered with space.

>>10579114
The oxidizer component of the fuel/oxidizer mix generates red-orange corrosive fumes on contact with normal air. It's very nasty shit.

>>10579133
That sounds like something that should very much be contained, or replaced.

>>10579053
>That one guy over in the corner doing actual work while everyone else is taking a giant selfie
Based black man

>>10579200
Most programs do try as best as possible to reduce the use of hypergolic propellants, but for some applications they're still necessary, like if you need moderately good ISP but also need propellants that don't require cryogenic storage. They're also obviously easier to ignite in a rocket engine because they instantly go off on contact with one-another.

>>10579221
I hate it when the office does shit like this.
Management forced everyone to create a social media profile last month. Last week they said my pic wasn't right for their look and had a photographer come in. "In case I wanted to sign up for those services."
REEEEEE

Lol, explosion escape rocket is also explosion

>>10578823
Embrace the explosions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

>>10577852
Kek

>>10578008
Boeing, you've served us well but have become stagnant and bloated. I'm sorry old girl, but it's time to put you down.

>>10577847
NEW SPACE SEETHING

>>10579090
I am sorry to hear that. It would however explain the financial situation of the US.

>>10579053
The few.
The calm
The quiet
The competent
The people who delivered.

vs.

The .... the .... I mean the....

>>10578195
Proof that incels rule the galaxy?

>>10578220
Absolutely NOMINAL anomoly

>>10577999
But what would they launch on?

>>10578823
>pic related

>>10580155
If anything goes wrong how do you abort? Dragon is supposed to be able to abort at any phase of flight. Skylon still uses explosives, just less.

>>10580165
It's designed for horizontal take-off and landing:

You can abort at any stage of the launch and safely return to the runway

>>10578031
I think everything Soyuz related America has canceled and will not pay for any more launches.
They are stuck with this Elon guy and Boeing now.

>>10580168
Highly unlikely

Source or it didn't happen

>>10580166
But what if you have an engine failure? Or flame out?

>>10579053
imagine the smell

>>10578823
Trump solution: clean coal.

>>10579973
I loved this concept.

>>10579053
Why can't /pol/ fuck off?

>>10580046
I recommend the "Apollo 11" documentary that was just released for a great snapshot of that era. There is very little bullshit on top, just superb editing of never seen footage shot for a cancelled MGM documentary.

>>10580155
>SSTO
Nah probably not, but skylon's engines are really fucking cool.

>>10580155
>Shows pic of a tube with two engines made out of explodium strapped to it.

I propose a launch loop, made entirely out of ALUMINIUM

>>10579114
The orange smoke is N2O4, the oxidizer for rocket fuel. It's hypergolic, so it doesn't need air to ignite, only the presence of the rocket fuel.

That orange smoke is incredibly deadly. It kills on skin contact and is genuinely terrible.

Once again disaster proves the future belongs to space planes.

>>10580674
Indeed. No one can be killed in a space plane when they don't exist. They are the ultimate solution to safe space travel.

>>10580680
So that's how the SLS will have a perfect safety record! That's genius!

>>10580178
...You glide back home or to the nearest airport. Worst case scenario, you have to make a water landing.

>>10580783
Supposing the engine problem didn't damage the ship. I thought the shuttle taught everyone why having rockets *beside* the crew/cargo area is not a fabulous idea.

>>10580819
>I thought the shuttle taught everyone why having rockets *beside* the crew/cargo area is not a fabulous idea.
Having an explosive boomstick anywhere near the crew/cargo area is a horrible idea, but otherwise it wouldn't be a SSTO.

>>10580860
>Having an explosive boomstick anywhere near the crew/cargo area is a horrible idea
hmmmm

>>10580895
And that's why those capsules are thoroughly tested before putting crew inside.

>>10580915
The shuttles were tested too.

>>10580915
This capsule was already docked to ISS at some point. If it went off then it would destroy the station and kill everybody inside.

>>10580919
Yes and? It's almost like rocketry is slightly hazardous.

>>10580919
>Musk: Uh oh spaghettios!

>>10580918
the engineers that made the shuttles warned everyone about the eventual catastrophic failure they would have, yet nobody listened to them.

>>10580919
Unless the tanks get ruptured by some micrometeorite or similar, there is no real way that a situation like that would happen.

>>10580967
>yet nobody listened to them.
Well it's not like those astronauts were going to murder themselves now is it?

>>10580919
That's shocking! SpaceX should be dismantled

>>10580919
Isn't this basically a different capsule? The crewed version of the dragon has different requirements to meet.

>>10581010
no this is (was) the DM-1 capsule.

>>10580997
Yes, and the goverment should take away all the falcon9's, rename them to SLS and give them to boeing, that way they will finaly have a working rocket in house.

>>10581010
it was the exact same configuration for the manned launch this summer.

>>10581078
>it was the exact same configuration for the manned launch this summer.

Nope, DM-2 incorporates several design tweaks e.g. a toilet and heated fuel lines.

It'll be interesting to find out what happened and exactly how the dragon flys. If it was Draco related can they be replaced with solids for abort or are they needed for de-orbit aswell?

>>10578823
Get rid of hypergolics as soon as possible.

>>10580919
There are talks already in congress to disqualify spacex from the commercial crew and have only one provider as originally intended.

The consequences of this failure will be quite severe.

>>10578823
Block buy 500 russian rockets.

>>10581302
>and have only one provider
Surley this decision is out of pure concern of the passengers and not because of some backdoor lobbying.
Not that i'm woried, spaceX will become a major player int the sat&cargo part of the industry now that the falcon 9 has proven itself.
The human rated part failing will probably not take that much of a hit on the entire falcon 9 succes story.

hell, maybe the SLS will actually have a change afterall to put humans in space now.

>>10577883
NASA wasn't rekt after their manned flight exploded. I think Musk will pull through.

>>10580919
No, they never docked a capsule that landed in sea water with minimal refurbishments, just to see what they could get away with.

>>10581302
>There are talks already in congress to disqualify spacex from the commercial crew and have only one provider as originally intended.
I thought two commercial providers was always intended? It's a good idea to have at least two so that if one provider started to have problems, then the other one can pick up the slack. The Shuttle era had this exact problem, American manned spaceflight pretty much stopped whenever there was an issue with the Shuttle.

Then again, Congress seems to hate spaceflight but love their contractors so they might boot SpaceX out so they can give more money to Boeing for an extended development phase.

>>10580918
Barely. From inspecting the discarded boosters from previous flights, the manufacturer of the shuttle's SRBs noticed, long before challenger, there was increased wear on critical o-rings in colder temperatures. NASA, despite being aware, never gave a fuck. When a manager found out about the issue, that NASA didn't care and wasn't telling anyone, and that the Challenger was going to be launched the next day in freezing temperatures, he had his engineers work out the safe range. They recommended the SRBs not be used below 53 degrees Fahrenheit. NASA told them to get fucked, prove that they would fail, and leaned on them until they issued a written recommendation to launch Challenger the next day. The next day, the o-rings failed and the shuttle went boom. The crew did not die instantly. The commander was aware of an issue moments before failure (he would have had time to jettison the crew capsule and escape if the shuttle had such capability), and after the explosion at least some of the crew remained alive and had time to put on LSS before dying on impact with the water several minutes later.

Insulation breaking off and damaging shuttles was known for years before Columbia. In fact, during a classified mission a shuttle experienced what would have been catastrophic damage, but survived because by chance the damage only revealed some steel that could survive reentry. Despite seeing the shuttle damaged catastophicly, NASA didn't give a fuck. While Columbia was in orbit NASA was aware it had sustained serious damage, ignored information saying the debris had been much larger than what the shuttle could take, and had the capability to rescue Columbia with a second shuttle. Despite this, since they had gotten away with reentry with catastophic damage before, NASA decided to roll the dice. Again, the crew became aware of a problem before the shuttle was destroyed and likely experienced the shuttle breaking apart around them. The shuttle program was a disaster.

>>10582000
Wow. No wonder the Shuttle was seen as a spectacular vehicle. It would be seen as a miracle if it worked perfectly.

But damn, I wish they went with something else like reusing the Apollo equipment for LEO, but considering the amount of fuckery that was going on with NASA at the time the Shuttle was born, that too would've been messed with. But a man could dream.

>>10582015
I just don't fucking get it, with computer modeling, additive manufacturing and much improved machining a Saturn-like rocket would be so much simpler and cheaper to scratch-build these days compared to trying to cobble together a Saturn out of aged shuttle parts and non-functional avionics systems. F1b engines are both more powerful and dramatically simpler than the original F1's and importantly are much easier to prepare for launch because of that simplicity. Some additive designs are even more simple, getting the entire engine down to only 100 and change components which are probably mostly actuators and turbopumps which could probably be simplified further by replacing conventional hydraulic actuators with electrically powered compliant mechanisms or something like that. Instead of doing some work upfront to do a synthesis of newer and better technology they decided to take a regressive approach of duct-taping together older, less efficient last generation technology.

>>10577847
>can hear the champagne clinking

>>10582256
You haven't thinked about what would the shuttle contractors if we went back to a Saturn design. Those SRBs must be used for something.

>>10582256
There's loads of reasons as to why SLS was chosen over better designs and why SLS is being run the way it is, but I'll try to keep it simple.

>F-1Bs and 3D printing
The aerospace industry is naturally very technology conservative. Sure new technologies will be hyped up and testd, but what is actually used would be something proven and reliable. So while on-paper F-1Bs and 3D printing seem like a great idea, they haven't had a chance to prove themselves. Plus setting up a new production line for essentially a new engine that used (then) new manufacturing processes seemed more expensive than just reusing technology that is already available.

And then there's the political side to this...
>Instead of doing some work upfront to do a synthesis of newer and better technology they decided to take a regressive approach of duct-taping together older, less efficient last generation technology.
This is mostly because the contractors who make parts for the SLS have lots of friends in Congress who in-turn can write into law that said contractors have to be used by NASA. These contractors are pretty much getting free cash to 'develop' SLS while the congressmen feel good about themselves for providing jobs for the american market. This is why SLS is so ponderously slow, if it were actually finished then the production lines would have to be streamlined to produce the rockets which means less jobs for the contractors which means less money for them.

It's all a mess, and it's not even a modern issue. You can see the seeds for this being sown during the Apollo era. Just the political issues weren't apparent because Congress wanted the same results as the people who worked in spaceflight.

>>10582280
Then the very first thing they should invest in before they build anything is a team of people to sit down and have a big think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ0dT61jFqM
>>10582307
Congress really are a bunch of fuckers, they seem allergic to any project which could actually benefit America significantly. I wonder if it's maliciousness or professional cowardice that's made them so pathetic and ineffective.

>>10582332
>I wonder if it's maliciousness or professional cowardice that's made them so pathetic and ineffective.
I invoke Hanlon's razor. Congress' sortsightedness (why isn't that a recognized word?) with American spaceflight is most likely just greed. At least China has made come of the old farts in the American space industry realize that they have fallen out of grace somewhat. Hopefully space will be taken seriously by the people who fund it again.

I honestly wish I can be like Boeing with my projects. Where I can just way "Oh sorry, I didn't finish the work, not even halfway done. But hey, if you give me the reward money for finishing on-time and extend the due date then I pinky swear that I'll get it done" with crossed fingers behind my back.

I'm serous, NASA gave Boeing reward money FOR BEING LATE. No wonder America has struggled to send something beyond LEO that weighs more than a Prius. Pathetic.

>superdracos use mmh
>mmh combusts in the presence of any rust
>Crew Dragon went for a swim in the ocean a few weeks ago
Who thought this was a good idea?

>>10582553
You could argue that NASA is indirectly to blame for insisting on conventional 'chute assisted splashdown as opposed to propulsive landing, and then obviously directly blame the ocean as a landing environment for being one which readily generates rust in any unprotected metal. If the thing could propulsively land, or do a combination where it pops chutes to slow down and then uses it's rockets to touch down then this wouldn't have even been an issue to begin with. It could also just be that the next capsule simply needs better water seals or there needs to be a more complete process of applying anti-corrosives.

>>10582917
It's pretty shitty for SpaceX. Saltwater damage is probably their best realistic hope, and if they can prove the issue originated from the dip in the ocean Crew Dragon might only be delayed for as long as it takes SpaceX to source more capsules. But it's still a pretty big blow. In that case, there's no way they can reuse Crew Dragons for cargo resupply missions until extensive verification, which means they can't use the subsequent reentries for testing propulsive landing. Sucks to suck. What's really shitty is as the cards lay now, the ISS is scrap in five years, and there's no plans for a US replacement yet. With this setback, there's really no way they're getting Crew Dragon certified for crew reuse before then, so they're stuck making a new capsule for every mission, relatively few missions to try to make some money, and potentially very sparse missions if at all in five years.

>>10582000
The stuff with the heat shield wasn‘t just known before Columbia. It was known before the first Shuttle ever flew. Pretty much every flaw with the shuttle was glaringly obvious before they ever launched the first one.
http://www.iasa-intl.com/folders/shuttle/GoodbyeColumbia.html

>>10578008
Perhaps you should get back to fixing all of your suicidal airplanes first. So far the score on extinguishing lives this year is Boeing - 347 , SpaceX - 0

>>10582307
>seemed more expensive than just reusing technology that is already available
Gee, if only there was some sort of way to find out whether how it seems is how it really is beforehand. If only we had some way of estimating prices and adding them together. But alas, we don‘t so all we‘re left with is counting by our fingers and sticking with the gut feeling of congressmen when it comes to two-digit billion dollar programs.
Using space shuttle engines that were meant to be reused on a none-reusable vehicle is a fucking joke.

>>10582945
Does the cargo version really need to be fueled with hypergolics? It doesn‘t need launch escape after all.

>>10582997
No, and I don't think it does, which is why NASA has said SpaceX's cargo mission is still scheduled to fly next week. But I believe, rather than go down the rabbit hole of certifying propulsive landing before flying humans and delaying who know how long, SpaceX had planned on taking used crew capsules, since NASA doesn't want humans in reused capsules without extensive testing, and repurpusing them for cargo missions. And then, on the way down, with much less at stake, testing propulsive landing. That's not going to fly now, because unless SpaceX is really lucky and this failure turns out to be a nothing burger, there's no way NASA is letting reused crew capsules near the ISS for a long time. SpaceX will be lucky to get fresh Crew Dragons to the ISS in the next year. Basically, their realistic best case scenario at this point decimates any chance of them doing the kind of cost effective testing they like to do. Consider how critical it was for them to be able to test rocket landings basically for free after commercial missions. They were already losing the rocket, and it was already up in the air, they lost very little in trying to recover it and learning from the attempt. Their method for that kind of testing for Crew Dragon's propulsive landing and reusability just went out the window.

>>10581986
>I thought only two
SpaceX lobbied hard to prevent down select to single provider as was desired by Congress - Boeing. Dreamchaser dropped out because Sierra Nevada lacked enough lobbying power to do the same.
Now SX's position is greatly weakened no matter the cause of the failure while the opposite is true for Boeing to whom this is a gift from God especially after the recent pressure from the WH for SLS alternatives.
The end result is any public-commercial architecture for BLEO is DOA and SpaceX likely dropping out from the commercial crew program.

>>10582997
You need those for RCS.

>>10582994
I was worse than that. NASA followed Boeing's estimates. NASA used the estimates from a company who would get billions if they got the contract.

>>10583398
>SpaceX lobbied hard to prevent down select to single provider as was desired by Congress
I was not aware of this. Is there an article on this?

>>10583401
Strictly speaking, you don't. See SLS EUS and its Integrated Refrigeration and Storage.

>>10579036
what IS TWR?

>>10583653
>I was not aware of this. Is there an article on this?
There isn't one, you're talking to a troll

>>10583705
Thrust to Weight Ratio.

>>10583780
thanks

>>10583653
Closest I could find is
>https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/key-house-appropriator-and-nasa-agree-on-commercial-crew-downselect/
>NASA wants to ensure there is sufficient competition to yield at least two companies that will be able to provide commercial crew services. It does not want to narrow the field (“down-select”) too quickly in this phase of the program. Congress, however, wants to limit the amount of funds it must provide to support those companies. NASA funded four companies in the second CCDEV round, but in the FY2013 Commerce-Justice-Science appropriations bill crafted by Wolf’s subcommittee and passed by the House on May 10 (H.R. 5326), the House told NASA to choose only one company, or at most one “leader” and one “follower.” The Senate Appropriations Committee’s version of the bill (S. 2323) only cautions NASA not to take on obligations to more companies that can be “practically supported” in the current budget environment.

This "leader" and "follower" thing could explain how Boeing got about 2 billion more. I'm sure more concrete info can be found in appropriations bills and reports but digging through bureaucratic papers and their cryptic writing is no fun at all.

>>10583830
>A contractor is years beyond and over budget on a project that just recycles parts that they own
>"lol lets give them more money on this other project"

The shameful state of the American space industry. I almost wish that the Chinese beats us to Mars.