/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10579560
Should have dedicated this one to RUDs

Here’s to hoping it was a procedural or spec error instead of a design one for D2

I have absolute confidence that one day we will discover some form of FTL travel and nobody can convince me otherwise.

>>10579606
prove it

>>10579572
Well OPs pic lead to a RUD about 5 secs later

>>10579621
That's a pic of an Atlas V 411, and Atlas V has never had a RUD.

>>10579606
Faster than light is very likely impossible. Physics seems to conspire in a way that such things just don‘t work.

>>10579723
AI will find a way.

>>10579606
>Develop a system that allows speed of 1.1c
>Maybe visit one more solar system out of it

>>10579726
if you can go 1.1c, you can very likely go faster

Another big Obama legacy failure.
Commercial crew is a total disaster and has to go.

>>10579606
I like to imagine FTL being the great filter. It is so simple and trivial anybody can make it so any civilization intelligent enough to figure it out a bit after the wheel suicides itself with the first diy tests ultimately resulting in total planetary and maybe star system annihilation.

>>10579740
I think you meant Bush.

>>10579745
>Florida man DESTROYS entire planet and all of humanity with this one weird trick! Click here to find out more!

>>10579560
How do we send/receive signals from ships? Is it radio transmission? How much power is needed and what bandwidth do we get?

>>10579837
Radio, though there have been some tests using lasers to communicate with satellites. Don’t know if those were in the visible or IR range, though.

FTL is so damn slow though in reality.
30,000 years to get to the center of our galaxy at light speed?
We really need like 100000x light speed.

>>10579833
>Florida man obliterates all life in solar system trying to attach Alcubierre Drive to Ford pickup truck

>>10579877
Anon, we're just early.

>>10579877
Near C is perfectly fine so long as you have some form of stasis.

>Oh no it took 30k years to get here but I haven't aged a day

>>10579905
>Florida man tries to spinfuse the retrosynthetic warp membrane onto the crystalline gravitron catalyst
Lol, how dumb can can you be. Freaking Darwin Award, right there. Species deserved it.

Any news on the Crew Dragon anomaly? Every party seems awfully silent on that front.

>>10579877
Is this stuff even possible without violating causality? I keep reading about this stuff and I can't get my head around if it's even theoretically possible or now with what we know about space time and GR.

>>10580087
Nope.

>>10579606
Wormholes were recently shown to only allow slower than light travel.
>>10580087
Elon is angry and taking it out on spacex employees.

>>10580087

This is all you need to know:

>>10578220

>>10580167
>Elon is angry and taking it out on spacex employees
source: your ass

>>10580087
>anomaly
That's not how you write catastrophic failure

>>10580183
A
N O M I N A L
O
M
O
L
Y

>>10580199
how much do you get paid for shilling 24/7 here?

>>10579959
This
By the time we've developed FTL travel, the art of things like cryostasis will have been perfected
>implying we won't hit the technological singularity first where we give up our physical forms to becomes man-machines that don't have to worry about age.

>>10579723
Black holes already fuck physics in the ass.

>>10579745

The Road Not Taken by Turtledove.

>>10580360
Was about the suggest that myself.

>>10580336
I almost feel like the circle-jerking among mathematicians and "theoretical physicists" has resulted in this over-complicated convolution that we see as a black hole. I feel like the most likely explanation is that if mass has a proportionate effect on space-time, and if a black hole is just something that was so massive that it collapsed in on itself and became super dense, then what we're seeing when we look at a black hole is an object that has a mass that is greater than the limits of the fabric of space-time which just means that space-time can be further quantified. I'm almost certain that this is probably a widely agreed upon theory, but I've read some mega-autistic shit in my time that convinces me that there are people who actually believe that the core of a black hole is anything other than densely packed matter.

>>10579837
>Is it radio transmission?
Radio and lasers.

>How much power is needed and what bandwidth do we get?
Bandwidth depends on the distance, available power on the spacecraft, and dish size or laser aperture (= angular resolution). Sometimes you don't need high bandwidth, for example TT&C channels are typically very slow. Sometimes you don't even need any bandwidth at all. Example in case: Huygens and its failed wind speed experiment, when the Green Bank Telescope was able to detect 3 watt (!) carrier signal from Titan directly, which was enough to build the meridional wind speed profile during Huygens descent.

>>10580379
>over-complicated convolution that we see as a black hole
It's literally the simplest possible explanation for observable facts.

>I feel
What you feel isn't relevant until you prove it

>>10580429
Wait fuck I think I might have fucked my post up, I haven't slept in a while. What is currently the agreed upon theory in regards to what a black hole is? I've heard so much stupid shit I'm not even sure anymore.

>prove it
couldn't you say the same thing to any other person looking at a black hole and scratching their heads as they come up with theories?

>>10580379
>greater than the limits of the fabric of space-time which just means that space-time can be further quantified
The fuck does that even mean? What does "limits of fabric of spacetime" mean?

A black hole is simply following GR when wondering what happens when a a lot of mass is in one area. GR predicts it collapses to a singularity. Have a better idea? We're happy to hear it. What we are meant to expect according to GR so far holds up perfectly.

>>10580167
>Wormholes were recently shown to only allow slower than light travel.

In a purely hypothetical thought experiment on a purely hypothetical phenomenon

>>10579837
Like this https://eyes.nasa.gov/dsn/dsn.html

the autist who is here raging about spacex all day every day goes by Kekel Man on youtube and he does the exact same shit there

how embarrassing

>>10581101
What makes you think that they're the same person? Other than they hate SpaceX of course.

>>10581107
the idiosyncratic typing style jumps out at you and then you realize you're reading the exact same wall of interleaved greentext and responses that our resident retard posts every day

same fag

All 3 boosters recovered. Success for the Arabsat satellite mission.

>>10581365
Yes, it was a nice when it happened 11 days ago.

>>10581365
>That'll buff right out.

>>10581371
What? I just watched it live on youtube./....

>>10581379
>oh no, he's retarded

>>10581379
The launch happened on April 11, but there are tons of fake livestreams up to farm views.

>>10581390
Damn

>>10581372
It did land successfully, though. They just can't help with getting fucked sideways when it comes to the ocean. Time to offer lavish tribute to Poseidon, I reckon.

This just in, Crew Dragon anomaly most likely caused by the failure of an off the shelf aerospace part, some of them shipped from Boeing.
All third party shipments are under investigation.

>>10581558
what a dry comment

>>10581558
$BA stock tanking... time to buy puts

This update and ability to design your own engine piqued my interest, since you can't even do that in KSP, do any of you fucks own this game, is it good? It looks like KSP but with a touch more realism in design, and graphics, seems more barebones though

https://steamcommunity.com/games/870200/announcements/detail/1638657151422035648

this allegedly went on a classified payload:
http://www.tethers.com/HYDROS.html
why would a classified payload use these weird water thrusters?

SLS Study came back. Recommends AGAINST cancelling green run.

On the plus side, rocket's less likely to blow up on the pad. On the downside: RIP any chance of launch in early 2020.

>>10581692
Also waiting for opinion. Should I stick to KSP?

>>10581372
Nice to see a JCB has made it over there. Quality kit

>>10581692
My wallet is telling me no, but my body my body is telling me yes.

How accurate is it for really small rockets?

Hey /sfg/, so I'm designing my own N2O + Gasoline rocket engine and I have encountered a problem. The oxidizer-to-fuel ratio for the propellant combination is rather high at around 7.7. This not only complicates injector design but I also want to do regenerative cooling with the fuel which could be difficult since there will be so little fuel flow. I've considered switching the gasoline with methanol (which has a nicer OF ratio with N2O of 4.2) but it doesn't seem to perform as well as the previous combination and I'm also worried about how easy it is to get pure methanol.

Should I just try to deal with the high mix ratio? Should I switch? Should I just abandon regen cooling?

Thanks in advance, and the picture is the engine so far.

>>10581874
>matlab
oh no

>>10581897
It's either that or Excel.

>>10581838
Dunno, its on sale now so thats why I'm considering it

>>10581792
This feels more like what I wanted KSP to be, especially aesthetically. Its also nice how parts count is kept down by all the procedural stuff.

>>10581365
>two and a half boosters

>>10582175
>One shitty shop later...

>>10581692
It has a lot of potential but it's still got a ways to go before it can really compete with KSP. Though I haven't played it since it first released.

They really need to add astronauts/EVAs imo. It feels pretty sterile without them.

HOP WHEN

>>10582277
Have they put the new engines on it yet?

>>10581874
Still designing that pressure fed karmin line hopper en? What if you only cooled the combustion chamber and used an ablative nozzle?

>>10582433
>Still designing that pressure fed karmin line hopper en?
Kinda. I have scaled back my ambitions. It probably won't reach higher than where commercial jets fly at, sadly. But if I ever manage to build it and get it to work, then maybe I can give the Karman line a try again.

>What if you only cooled the combustion chamber and used an ablative nozzle?
I haven't thought about that, that's an interesting idea. A potential problem I see with this would be that getting the boundary between the regeneratively cooled area and the ablatively cooled area to mesh well. I'll revisit my cooling analysis to include that option though. Thank you.

>>10581692
I already owned it before this update, picked it up super cheap during a sale, anything specific you want me to check out?

>>10582447
Hypothetical 3D printed rocket Anon here, I know I suggested using a regenerative nozzle in the previous thread but for your very first test nozzle it will probably be significantly mechanically simpler if you use ablative cooling. I'm just thinking now about how much of a pain in the ass it is and how it increases rocket complexity to have regenerative liquid cooling and I certainly don't want to jump in that deep for a first test shot.

>>10582530
How's the engine maker in the game? Is it reasonably accurate?

>>10582539
I understand, and probably my first engine is going to be ablative too. But I was leaning towards regen cooling for two reasons. One, testability. With a regen cooled engine I can test fire it to make absolutely sure that it can work, while an ablative cooled engine would have to have it's ablator replaced which essentially makes it a new engine. Two, tooling and materials. I was going to 3D print the injector simply because it is a very complex part that I doubt I can machine reliably. Since I would already have a 3D printer (or have access to one), then I already have the tools and materials necessary to make a regen cooled chamber+nozzle. Whereas with an ablative chamber+nozzle I would have to get separate tooling and materials to make. Although, I have heard of a carbon infused plastic that can be useful as an ablative material.

I have worked with ablative cooling on solid rocket motors before so I feel confident that I can model that cooling system. Regen may be harder, but I know a friend who says that he knows a simple way to do do that so I'll talk to him later. He claims that you can model regen cooling as "two parallel and opposing flows".

>>10582564
Well bad news about the engine creator is you can't actually create any engines yourself, it's definitely NOT like Children of a Dead Earth's engine editor which for all of it's serious flaws did allow you to edit individual components to an autistic degree. Simple Rockets 2's engine maker simply allows you to pick from several pre-designed choices of engine size and type, you can change the fuel cycle on them and get back the expected returns or losses in efficiency, and there are a very small number of the most common fuels to chose from (Kerolox, Methalox, Hydrolox for the liquid fuel engines, and only hydrogen and water for the NTPR). You can tweak throat and nozzle size and scale up the rockets to double their size or scale them down to half their size and again get predictable returns in weight, cost, efficiency, etc. You CAN'T do it like in CDE where you can chance nozzle shape, throat diameter ratio, chamber size and material composition, pump size and material composition, quantity of regenerative cooling and a very broad range of propellant types. I also think they're significantly underestimating the sea level performance of their aerospike.

>>10579877
The whole point of moving to another star system is to put some distance between you and the decadent AI-controlled nightmares you left behind. You don't WANT ftl.

>>10580199
>>10580183
You can't spell "anomaly" without "nominal"

>>10581692
There's also Children of a Dead Earth.

>>10582684
I don‘t think that‘s true. You can‘t however write it without the word "nomal"

>>10583003
When your rocket misses the launch pad and hits the water, it may not be nominal OR norminal, but it might still be nomal. Who knows when you might need a corroded booster!
When you make a giant baseball glove ship to catch fairings from orbit, but it always misses and then gets torn apart in a storm, that‘s nomal because you can just pull the fairings out of the salt water and get the same results!
When you make a perfect landing but your booster tips over and half of it breaks off, that‘s still pretty nomal cause you can put the dented engines in storage somewhere.
When you recover your space capsule intact and blow it up during a test, it‘s still within nomal parameters because failing is a part of testing after all.

>>10579560
how would a person go about explaining to nasa about how to make a nuclear powered ship that works like something out of star trek?

>>10583023
>make boom in can
>put can away from main ship
>profit

>>10583023
>It's like God's own V6

>>10583085
What does god need with a V6?

>>10583114
God is actually really likes cars. Even his son secretly picked up on his hobby.

"For I did not speak of my own Accord..."
John 12:49

>>10581393
Us retards got to stick together and undumb ourselves. Next time, we should check the news first before rushing to post about it.

>>10583023
Submit a proposal to NIAC. If it's crazy enough it might work they'll fund you to investigate it. I'm betting what you described isn't crazy enough

ugh the scifi /x/ brainlets in this thread
> FTL travel plainly violating causality like it's a highway speed limit
> cryostasis because it takes 30,000 years to get to the next star
You retards seem to not understand that the entire observable universe can be crossed in a single human lifetime going slower than the speed of light and not breaking the fundamental laws of physics
By the time you approach c the relativistic effects make it possible. Pic related.

>>10583897
how?

>>10583897
yeah but even with beam core antimatter you won't be able to get that fast, and any fuel with higher energy density is as theoretical as a warp drive

just a quick thread survey

>degree pursuing/completed + major + how many years
>research interests + publications (if applicable)
>current job or most recent internship
>long term goals

>>10581792
>>10581692

Stick to ksp for anything serious (like full playthroughs and stuff), get SR2 for fucking about.
The building tools are so much more advanced than ksp but there's no real reason to build anything and the mechanics for actually flying your creations are so barebones and janky that you just won't be doing 1h+ missions out of pure frustration with the manoeuvrer planner.

ksp + rp-0/1 is still the best space sim ever created and nothing will rival it for a long time.

>>10583916
time dilation retard
>>10583920
a fusion torchship going at 1g will reach 0.9c in a couple of years.

>>10583979
>Torchship (or torch ship) is a term used by Robert A. Heinlein in several of his science fiction novels and short stories to describe fictional rocket ships that can maintain high accelerations indefinitely, thus approaching the speed of light. The term has subsequently been used by other authors to describe similar kinds of fictional spaceships.
please be more specific. what propulsion system are you actually implying will work for this

>>10583979
Dilation is fucking stupid and the worst aspect of GR, go dilate your sigmoid neovagina cunt

>>10583984
I don't really have a specific one in mind, there are tons of fusion based designs that can burn for years nonstop.

>>10583987
>Dilation is fucking stupid and the worst aspect of GR
And probably one of the most well tested and verified aspects.

>>10583984
Not that guy but the most plausible torchships use a z-pinch method of having magnetic coils squeeze and crush tiny pellets of fusion fuel into ignition and eject the resulting plasma for thrust, or a similar method but instead of magnetic coils high energy lasers are used to ignite the fuel pellet and magnetic coils are then used to confine and direct the jet of plasma. Also most torchship ideas are predicated at least somewhat on a manageable fusion reactor also existing to provide the startup power necessary for lasers and superconducting magnets to operate. I'm more partial to some kind of afterburning NSWR, a tiny stream of nuclear salt water is released into a neutron reflective combustion chamber and undergoes spontaneous fission while at the same time some other relatively dense liquid reaction mass is injected into the chamber, say water or ammonia which becomes superheated and is ejected from the rocket. It wouldn't provide enough ISP to get to .9c but still vastly more than enough to put you anywhere in the solar system while also giving significant acceleration speeds which could be regulated simply by regulating the mass flow of fission fuel and reaction mass. Ideally the combustion chamber and bell should be large enough that by the time an exhaust plume exits the rocket nearly all if not all of the nuclear fuel has fissioned off, one of the downsides of NSWR is that a system which does not sufficiently burn all of the fuel in the chamber will release some still fissioning products in it's exhaust, making an inefficient NSWR one of the dirtier high-ISP systems.

>>10581874
>unironically asking /sci/ of all places

>>10584090
I've gotten help from /sfg/ before. They can be helpful.

>>10579606
we don't need FTL really, just a system that makes a warp bubble/shield that will let us go a high percent of c without dust fucking the ship in the ass
that's literally the only problem, grains of sand becoming nukes past 20%c

>>10579959
near c IS stasis
the extreme time dilation at 99% will make any journey feel like a couple days

>>10584119
>the only problem, grains of sand becoming nukes past 20%c
That's as theoretical as the engine itself. No one knows how a warp bubble would function.

This is something I didn't previously know about JWST. And frankly it's a little bit alarming.

https://twitter.com/bispectral/status/1120517334538641408

>>10583979
>>10583984
>>10583999
"Infinite acceleration" just falls apart at face value though. Lack of fuel isn't the main barrier to that, you just can't accelerate anything forever. Your car could have plenty of gas but you're still not going to reach lightspeed flooring it on a long straightaway.

>>10584888
Page doesn't exist

Is 5g actually harmfull?

>>10585023
Pssh, nah

Apparently the first marsquake has been detected.

Is there any reason for manned spaceflight other than just the novelty of it?

>>10585095
If you'd like to get work done at more than a snail's pace with minutes or hours of light lag, if you'd like to be able to fix easily fixable problems instead of losing million dollar pieces of equipment to some small issue, and if you'd like to actually interact with extraplanetary environments, then you want manned missions, robutts are still shit at solving unexpected problems, and also there will come a point where the species simply demands more room to spread, and nothing has more space than space.

>>10585088
You sure it wasn't just the mole probe hammering away

>>10585095
As good as robots are, they're not great at everything. They're really quite bad at repairing themselves, for example. Currently, there isn't enough equipment in space to make an on-call repair function worthwhile. Instead, we just build a new one and send that up.

The more stuff in space, though, the more stuff will need repairs. Once the annual cost of a continuously-manned repair station is less than the cost of all the equipment that breaks each year, it will make sense to keep people up there just to fix stuff. I'm imagining something like ISS, with a rotating crew and some manufacturing capabilities.

>>10585107
>>10585189
But it seems like the scientific community is satisfied with remote control robots and get plenty of data from them.

>>10585189
>Once the annual cost of a continuously-manned repair station is less than the cost of all the equipment that breaks each year, it will make sense to keep people up there just to fix stuff.
You mean like if the launch costs drop? Hopefully that happens, but that promise was made plenty of times before and they never really achieved that or worse made things more expensive (Shuttle).

>>10585206
I don't give a fuck about the opinions and satisfactions of the scientific community, they're human beings and consequently slightly retarded at all times and seem to currently be preoccupied performing felatio on the climate doomsday cult, I'm far more interested in expanding the sphere of humans beyond the Earth and the technologies which will be necessary to achieve that end.

>>10585189
What about robotic satellite maintenance? There's an arms race for that right now because robotic maintenance satellites could hang out near other countries satellites and disable them without causing kessler syndrome if war ever erupted.
>>repair themselves
robot arms are quite reliable. Some are even rated for 10 years of operation, by the time it breaks better tech will have come out.
>>10585107
We're getting better at handling light lag as robots become more autonomous.

>>10585206
>You mean once the launch costs drop
Not exactly. It's more that, in any given year, a certain percentage of orbital infrastructure will fail, often in ways that are relatively easy to fix. Currently, we just write off the broken satellite and send up a new one - a huge cost, but one we don't have to pay too often simply because there isn't that much stuff up there to break. If the amount of orbital infrastructure was significantly greater, though, the cost of replacement parts plus a crew to install them could conceivably be less than the cost of simply replacing everything that breaks.

Basically, when (% of satellites that break annually) * (number of satellites) * (cost to build satellite + cost to launch satellite) >= (cost of repair crew habitat + cost to launch supplies + repair crew salary), you can have a profitable repair/refit business.

Also, I'm not this guy.
>>10585209

>>10585023
Only if you have a weak cardiovascular system.

>>10584783
I know
I'm just tossing shit out there
because of time dilation, slowboating to the stars is perfectly viable so longs as we can do so at high percent of lightspeed without getting our ass blown out
as it stands, we can only really go 10-15% before anything we could construct would get blasted apart, the engine is a separate problem entirely

>>10585023
It will have detrimental effects over time, but 0g is probably much more of a concern. If you spend several months at null-g returning to Earth will JUST fuck your shit all the way up. Insomnia, headaches, swelling in the legs, nausia, etc.

>>10585253
Of course robots might get better and more capable before your scenario ever happens.

>>10585253
It's also worth mentioning that going from the Earth's surface to low Earth orbit takes a ridiculous amount of energy, significantly more than it does going anywhere in space. It takes almost as much delta-v to get from the surface of the Earth to the ISS as it does to get to the ISS from the surface Mars. The point being that going from Earth to space is always going to be a huge bitch relative to doing basically anything else space related. So no matter how low launch costs relatively get, it'll be relatively easier to just do everything in space.

>>10584988
The tweet was deleted. But here is the paper it linked.

https://www.scribd.com/document/407354589/Event-driven-James-Webb-Space-Telescope-operations-using-on-board-JavaScripts

>>10585379
>JavaScript powered 10 billion dollar space telescope
>poo in L2

>>10585379
Isn't Java being phased out, and support and updates being stopped? Or was that something else?

>>10585418
it's JavaScript. the same shit you're probably running right now viewing this post
>>10585405
It's JavaScript with a special interpretator. They carefully regulate the amount of CPU and memory the scripts use. Basically it's a way they can send high level commands to the spacecraft rather than straight up machine code. It also lets them handle errors better. Before if it couldn't find a guide star everything stopped and they had to hurry to write new commands to unfuck everything up. Now if it can't find a guide star it just says fuck that and moves on the the next one.

>>10579837
>How do we send/receive signals from ships? Is it radio transmission?

Fuck radio, quantum entanglement.

>>10585702
That's not how entanglement works dickhead

>>10584783
Most likely anything passing from outside the bubble to inside the bubble would experience such extreme tidal forces that it'd be completely shredded and probably release massive amounts of energy. If the warp bubble is extremely powerful, as it would be if it could make your ship move at effective speeds faster than light, then the tidal forces may be so high that the matter in whatever it hits gets tidally squeezed and compressed all the way down into a shower of micro black holes which would rapidly decay into extremely bright bursts of light. Remember, black holes the mass of a large mountain output hundreds of gigawatts of energy per second, so a black hole with the mass of a kilogram is going to output trillions of petawatts for a very brief interval, which would make both the power output and duration of a nuclear explosion seem tiny and glacial

>>10585206
>the scientific community is satisfied with remote control robots
The scientific community is known to be full of shit-for-brains know-nothings. Just because a guy comes up with a good idea for how Jupiter's insides work doesn't mean he has any grasp whatsoever on how spaceflight works. Hell, a very large fraction of people who literally build rockets all day have less intuitive understanding of orbital mechanics than anyone who's managed to get into orbit in Ksp. If you want an opinion on why we should send people into space, don't ask the desk jockeys who've babysat a space probe for a decade, ask literally any geologist or biologist who goes outside at least once a week.

>>10585236
>>10585206
>ywn get to work a comfy space junk collection job because of big gay robots

>>10585702
>quantum entanglement
By its nature it's impossible to transmit information through quantum effects.

>>10585702

>>10586894
Transmit recoverable information?

>>10586953
Any information whatsoever.

>>10586809
>wwn have lunar bases or even manned flybys because Congress wants to give free money to contractors instead of spending the money on something useful

>>10587001
Right, paradox state coupling. Impossible information exists, therefore it isn't information.

I got to thinking about the Challenger disaster again the other day and how it's largely considered a management failure or even more of a philosophical failure than a scientific or engineering failure. The engineers "knew" the shuttle was going to blow up. The O-rings were not rated for those temperatures. They let management "know" but management went ahead with the launch anyway.

I tried to learn the names of these "managers" and really pin down the individuals who were truly responsible but I found that even the names of these engineers who "knew" about the technological limitations asked to remain anonymous when talking to reporters for decades. Pic-related is the name was one such guy, who in the typical dark humor of Google is listed as the one responsible because he said he felt guilty in an article where he finally gave his name.

I'm trying to find the temperature when the Challenger launched on one of its earlier missions. Wasn't it also very cold on February 3, 1984, for example? Did they also raise concern over the O-rings on that date? Were those concerns ignored and, given the launch was successful, was that event used as justification to ignore further warnings? I've never found anyone mention this earlier date when they launched in cold weather.

Apollo 7 was right to mutiny. I wonder if NASA selected for even more obedient astronauts after that.

Aren't most workplace accidents characterized by toxic leadership as opposed to poor safety protocols?

>>10587015
No, it's just that quantum mechanics is such that the only thing 'transmitting' across space is the collapse of the wave function, but you can't look at the wave function without collapsing it, and you can't monitor a wave function to watch when it collapses, because doing so would collapse it. Literally all you can do is entangle the spin of something with the spin of something else, give one of the things to someone else with an envelope that gives instructions on when to check the particle and read its spin at a later date, then go a long distance away, then check the particle's spin on the same day the other guy checks his particle, such that the time between both observations is shorter than the time it would take a light speed signal to cross that distance. Then, both of you meet up and compare spin data; you'll find that every time you go a spin value of A, he got a value of B, and vice versa. Doesn't matter the distance between the particles either; they could be separated by quadrillions of light years and be measured within a picosecond of one another and the wave functions will collapse to opposite values for the two of you every time.

The reason it's impossible to transmit info this way is because the actual state you'll see appears totally random every time; it's only if you directly compare results with the other guy that you'll see the pattern. You can't influence what the wave function will collapse to, you can only influence when it collapses, and that's only known to you, because if anyone else tries to look then they will be the one to collapse the wave function instead. You can't do morse code, you can't do zeros and ones, you can't transmit any data at all using quantum entanglement. Even if you could output a signal by collapsing the wave function in some kind of pattern, it would be impossible to listen to this signal, as there is no way to 'listen' to a wave function without instantly collapsing it.

>>10587070
>what is Skylab 4
honestly anon it's a miracle we don't have space pirates yet.

>>10587049
Him and Roger Boisjoly were probably part of the same powerless commission they appointed at Thiokol to shut up the engineers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Boisjoly

>>10587478
UMLchads report in

>>10587049
>I'm trying to find the temperature when the Challenger launched on one of its earlier missions. Wasn't it also very cold on February 3, 1984, for example? Did they also raise concern over the O-rings on that date? Were those concerns ignored and, given the launch was successful, was that event used as justification to ignore further warnings? I've never found anyone mention this earlier date when they launched in cold weather.
As far as I understand it, they were aware that cold temperatures impacted o-ring performance for awhile because recovered boosters from launches in cold temperatures had burned through primary o-rings and had only been stopped by the redundant o-rings. Part of NASA's justification for telling Thoikol's engineers to STFU was that since both o-rings hadn't been failing they needed to prove the exceptionally cold temperatures of the next day would actually cause a total failure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FehGJQlOf0

>>10587832
Ah! Thank you for this! So the oft-cited temperature rating was not original to the manufacture of the O-rings, but had nonetheless been determined to be the cause of O-ring erosion on at least one prior cold-weather launch. That makes a lot more sense.

It's not like having summer tires on your car, for example, which come from the manufacturer stating that at a specific temperature they are more vulnerable to crack and must be allowed to warm up again before use. The tolerances had not been originally as well-understood and the updated contractor's recommendation on the cold weather rating came very late and very close to the launch.

If I'm buying tires for my city's school buses and on paper they pass manufacturer tolerances and on the day before the first day of school after winter vacation the service guys say "hey those tires wore down pretty badly last year because of the cold, I recommend not using those tires until April" I might think well they worked well enough last year to get the kids to school so I'll use what I got for now.

In the car world performance tires get tested out on the track with lots of competition, but in spaceflight it's just NASA. Imagine a Formula 1 race with one team and one car and that's your only source of data on high performance tires.

>>10579726
If you can go FTL at any speed > c, you can time travel
If you can time travel the notion of speed is irrelevant, you can just time travel to make up for the time lost traveling

pad expansion

>>10586809
there's a small robot in leo right now

I demand more picture dump.
Please post more pic

there has been a huge amount of work being done

>>10581874
Just use everclear like the Germans

>>10589613
OH MY GOD! THEY'RE BUILDING A WATER TOWER!

>>10589804
or.... ARE THEY?

>>10589613
What are they even doing here
When's drones
Why'd some asshole ruin it for the rest of us

>>10587462
Be the change you wish to see in the world

>>10589772
I live in a very wet area, my rocket fuel might disappear if I look away from it for too long if it were everclear.

>>10587113
very well explained

>>10589876
Then you'll never need to worry about launching it's a win-win

Hey /sfg/, do you think that space tourism would ever take off within our lifetimes? Why? Why not?

If it did and you had the spare cash and time for it, then would you take a trip?

Is manned spaceflight outside of science or colonization missions just a meme?

Pic related.

>>10590503
>If it did and you had the spare cash and time for it
And health. But yeah, absolutely.

>>10590503
>>10590517
As in yes, I would go sightseeing if it ever became a thing and I could get there and back without dying.

>>10590517
>>10590519
Are you worried about a catastrophic failure of the spacecraft or do you have a medical condition that you're worried about?

>>10590534
The latter.

SLS assembly plan has been revised to save time. The LH2 tank will be joined horizontally before the engines are joined vertically, instead of the other way around.

The joining of the upper section to the LH2 tank is beginning now. Pic related.

Core stage assembly is projected to be complete by Q1 2019 at the latest.

>>10590640
Fucking finally. Maybe it'll meet its belated June 2020 goal.

The fact that people think this:
>>10589619
is going to fly before this:
>>10590640
is laughable. One's a test article, the other's flight hardware.

Zero chance in hell EM-1 doesn't fly before BFR barring some sort of catastrophe.

Possible for BFR to fly CREWED before SLS does in EM-2, though not likely, IMO.

>>10590666
>SLS will fly before BFR (or SHSS whatever Elon calls it this week)
I agree. SLS has all the parts necessary and it just needs to be assembled before launch. SpaceX can develop rockets quickly, but not fast enough to beat SLS with BFR.

However, I'm still rooting for BFR. SLS has been delayed so much and has so much political baggage attached to it that I doubt that it'll be useful for the future of manned spaceflight.

>>10590688
>However, I'm still rooting for BFR.
I am too. I'm just not against the SLS because of it. Here's why:

If BFR works out as promised, there is no doubt it would be THE most trans-formative event in spaceflight EVER. Absolutely no question about it. In that regard, I absolutely wish SpaceX luck.

However, I'm not willing to bet the farm on it. And while the SLS is a flawed rocket, it's not as bad as its critics claim. It's near-space shuttle levels of cost for near-Saturn V levels of capability.

Ergo: I will be on-board with cancelling the SLS the day the BFR flies and proves it works, and not a moment before.

Finally, a lot of design decisions with the SLS make more sense when you consider that NASA had just ended its stint with a "reusable" rocket, and had absolutely no intention of going through THAT again. This was before the Falcon 9 had even flown, much less landed a stage. So in that regard, I find it hard to blame NASA for not trying a "revolutionary" design like the Shuttle again. They just wanted a rocket they knew would work.

Anyway, that's my two cents.

>>10590716
Nicely written, and I agree with you. People get caught up in the faults of SLS and forget that it does have some use. I admit, I do that sometimes as well.

I do have one small point of contention with your write up.
>And while the SLS is a flawed rocket, it's not as bad as its critics claim. It's near-space shuttle levels of cost for near-Saturn V levels of capability
There is nothing wrong with SLS technically. On paper it's a very capable rocket with the necessary payload range to send people back beyond low Earth orbit. But the major issues of SLS are the politics that are permanently attached to it. It's a rocket that's primarily designed to please Congress, not to launch payloads. The longer it gets delayed the better off Congress is. That isn't going to disappear no matter how much Trump and Pence (or whomever replaces them) argue for a faster return to BLEO.

However having SLS and having it be useless is better than canceling it today and risk BFR and New Glenn getting canceled or indefinitely delayed.

All in all. I hope SLS finally goes by smoothly.

>>10590765
>There is nothing wrong with SLS technically.
>send people
Solid rocket boosters.

>>10590835
SRBs are only more dangerous than LRBs if you're an idiot and strap the crew to the side with no abort system in case of problems.

>>10590835
While I disagree with that design choice too, at least crew on SLS have an escape system that'll save them. The Shuttle only had hope and positive vibes to protect it's crew.

HOP WHEN

>>10590835
Neither shuttle incident, only one of which was caused by the SRBs, would have happened if the shuttle had an abort system.

>>10590922
I doubt an abort system would've helped for the Columbia. Or are you talking about that old concept of an abort system where the front half of the Shuttle detaches and acts like an independent capsule?

>>10590503
Only if I got payed for it

>>10590931
Columbia wasn't caused by SRBs. Arguably, it WAS caused by the shuttle being side-mounted, which is, once again, not a "feature" the SLS shares.

>>10590931
It's not a bad plan tho

>>10590931
>Or are you talking about that old concept of an abort system where the front half of the Shuttle detaches and acts like an independent capsule?
A capsule. The shuttles originally had ejector seats for the commander and pilot, but they were basically useless and disabled once crews of more than two started flying. A capsule wasn't pursued because of the difficulty, which is my point. The shuttle was only so dangerous because it had no viable abort method. Soyuz is only as safe as it is because it can abort when a rocket inevitably fucks up.

>>10591016
True. Although the SLS may have the same launch escape issues as Aries I, where the burning SRB propellant from them self destructing can burn the parachute of the capsule. However, the SLS can carry heavier payloads than Aries I, so perhaps there's room in the mass budget for a larger launch escape system so that the capsule can be carried further away.

>>10591017
Hey, it can work. I do the same with my space planes in KSP. It makes them look ugly as sin, but it works.

>>10591026
>Unsafe to fly
>Scared aerospace away from reusability
>Confined the most capable space agency to LEO

The Shuttle was a mistake, they should've just kept flying Saturn V's.

>>10591061
It was a huge mistake. Doing basically anything else would have been better. The only thing it had going for it was its ability to capture the imagination of the American public, but I think a bigger, better, more functional space station would have been as good or better in that regard with some better PR.

>>10591100
>>10591061
One of many things you can thank Nixon for.

If you think that's bad, just imagine what will happen next year when Bernie Sanders becomes our president.

>>10591110
Nixon in general is a very underrated president, but he took a real dump on the space program. It's unfortunate the USSR folded and there was no political will to execute Bush 41's Mars plan. But I think the reality is people just don't give enough of a fuck about space these days to make anything happen in Congress.

>>10591032
>True. Although the SLS may have the same launch escape issues as Aries I, where the burning SRB propellant from them self destructing can burn the parachute of the capsule. However, the SLS can carry heavier payloads than Aries I, so perhaps there's room in the mass budget for a larger launch escape system so that the capsule can be carried further away.
This is the reason why the SLS LES is so heavy - they worked out those issues, and found that the only way to fix them was to make an LES so powerful it can outrun the SRBs until it's REALLY far away.

>>10591124
You'll never escape the planetary tape gangs with that attitude.

>>10591124
>But I think the reality is people just don't give enough of a fuck about space these days to make anything happen in Congress.
Reminder that Apollo had a public approval rating of 50% at it's best. I'd hate to be a downer, but it feels like very few people care about spaceflight.

>>10591160
And the few who do don't vote.

>>10591100
It was one of the most beautiful and technically advanced rockets to have ever flown, and taught us a LOT about the advantages, disadvantages, and pitfalls of re-usability.

It was also a deathtrap that was only allowed to keep flying because the crews knew what they were signing up for and there was no other viable option at the time.

It was a beautiful, insightful, failure, and really, if it had been pitched as what it really was - an EXPERIMENTAL vehicle, not a space-truck - people would be a lot less hard on it.

I still appreciate it for what it is, and what it tried to do. I just wish it had done it better.

>>10591165
Considering how many in Congress support SLS as a jobs program (which their support is one of the major reasons why America didn't have a launch vehicle after the Shuttle, and their use of the space industry to redistribute tax money to contractors is most likely the reason why manned spaceflight has been stuck in LEO since Apollo) what can the few who care do? Waste their vote on a Congressman who's going to have an unpopular opinion of indirectly wanting to kill jobs across multiple states? And some of those states are poor and don't need thousands of more people out of a job.

>>10591182
U6 unemployment is low enough that they'd probably be fine within a year.

>>10591182
>muh pork program
come on. really?

The legislators who created NASA were geniuses. They knew that the only way the program would survive after Apollo was if the money was distributed - in that regard, an accusation of "pork" is accurate.

HOWEVER, because of those choices, NASA's budget is the biggest in the world, and we do more than anyone else (except maybe the Soviets at their peak) in space.

Saturn V is equally as pork as the shuttle is equally as pork as the SLS. They were all supported because of "muh constituent's jerbs," but that doesn't invalidate all the good we got out of them.

>>10591197
we could have gotten loads more good, had they not been as porky as they are

they do good work, they're just horribly fucking inefficient about it

>>10591197
Fair point, but this "brilliant" system has gotten bloated to the point where a launch vehicle that reuses decades old parts takes over a decade to build and tens of billions. That massive budget doesn't mean anything if it isn't being used properly.

It's that mentality in management that SLS isn't a rocket program but a jobs program that has lead to a lapse in American spaceflight capability. It's the need to keep the program running for as long as possible to please contractors that has resulted in so much delays that very few people take NASA seriously about spaceflight anymore.

You're right, the fact that the projects are pork doesn't in of itself invalidate the project. But it's when the need for pork interferes with the project and others (like how funding has been cut from Commercial Crew to fund SLS more, or when heavy payloads that have been done are forced to wait on SLS when cheaper launches are available now) is when it becomes an issue that needs to be resolved.

>>10590503
If bfr works yes (works as in its as cheap as elon says it'll be), if bfr doesn't work then probably but a lot later when new new space becomes a thing.

>>10591223
>new new space
Do we have to wait for another fifty years for that to happen if new space fails?

>>10591223
>post-new space

>>10591232
>trans-post-new-new space

>>10591164
Isn't this too close to the road to try stuff like that?

>>10591307
?

>>10591307
I don't think that's a public road.

>>10591173
>EXPERIMENTAL vehicle
You're not supposed to use experimental stuff for 30 years. It should have died in 1981.

>>10591325
It should've been upgraded at least. But it's design effectively froze once it started flying. Redesigning the tiles to be more robust and easier to service so that each Shuttle didn't have 200 unique tiles that needed to be replaced each flight. Simplifying the engines so that they didn't have to be refurbished for each flight. Replacing the SRBs with liquid fueled boosters for more controlability.

Reminder that if the money from the Shuttle were redirected to continuing Saturn V, then NASA could afford 6 launches of Saturn per year during the Shuttle's life. Sure, that launch frequency would be impossible, but it shows how much money was wasted. Imagine the possibilities. The ISS could've been made from larger components. There could be a lunar station or even a lunar base. Probes wouldn't have to be tiny to reach the outer Solar system. But no, we just have dreams of the Moon/Mars that get pushed back every election cycle.

>>10591316
I don't know, man. There's been some of those on the interwebs

>>10591316
It's publicic road but they have special exemption by the Texas legislature to close that beach that nobody uses

>>10591352
Capitalism eventually leads to complete erosion of govt and tends to 100% of wasted resources. SLS? F-35? CAHSR? JWST?

>>10588891
The way it will actually work is that if you try to follow one of those gay trajectories that lead to time travel, you'll run into a wall of your own past light cone and disintegrate. FTL will be fine so long as you fly decent paths that respect the direction of time.

>>10587974
>Imagine a Formula 1 race with one team and one car and that's your only source of data on high performance tires.
That's how they do it though...

>>10584119
Whipple shield running ahead of your ship + powerful magnetic shielding will make short work of faggot dust grains. The shield to plasma-ize the obstacle, the magnetic field to deflect it.

>>10591418
Socialism eventually leads to complete erosion of creativity, initiative, ambition, dignity, honesty in general, respect for your fellow countrymen in general, logical, reasonable resource logistics and many, many other things. Guess how I can tell that you weren't born in USSR.
Capitalism is very, very far from perfect, but with very careful, measured application of SOME, select socialist concepts it can passably work in short cycles (i.e. requires routine maintenance). Nothing else seem to, not without eventually leading to some major disaster in one or another way.
And yes, porkspace is a disgrace.

>>10590503
>would you take a trip?
yes but not on that glorified bottle rocket. I want to go oribtal

>>10590503
>would you take a trip?
Yes but not on that glorified bottle rocket. I want to go orbital

>>10591325
Right. Exactly. It should've been billed as an experimental vehicle, used for a while, and then they could've tried "Shuttle 2" or whatever, using what they learned from the first incarnation.

Instead they acted like they could jump straight from the concept to the final product, and all the issues of the program happened as a result.

>>10591365
RIP rocket hat.

>>10591453
I was under the impression different teams can and do use the same tire manufacturers.

It's not as if tire manufacturers can only sell to one team, is it? One team that doesn't even compete with any other teams and only races for PR?

>>10590716
>It's near-space shuttle levels of cost for near-Saturn V levels of capability.

Not at projected launch rate of once per year at most. It will exceed the cost of the Shuttle per kilogram to orbit.

>>10592301
If they only launch one or two it'll have a cost of over 10 billion per launch.

>>10592347
What a fucking waste. Think of all the space shit that could have been done with the SLS budget.

>>10591487
I was born in Poland and can NOT confirm that dignity, honesty or respect to your fellow countrymen has changed since. Also the creativity, initiative and ambition just run away abroad or creates bullshit in financial sector.

But furthermore - what you would call "socialism", I would not. If socialism is supposed to be give aways to society, then the first thing that should be given away is power. You know - "power to the people". There exists false understanding fueled by US propaganda, that socialism = totalitarism, and capitalism = democracy. This is not true. The fight between freedom and totalitarism is the biggest fight of humanity and started long before even money was created, not to mention monetary systems.

>>10591487
Also what creativity, initiative and ambition had the illiterate peasants of the Tsardom of Russia before the commies?

>>10592370
I was born in Slovakia and while there are issues, if you deny that lots of progress has been made since the fall of communism then you live under a rock.

As for the definition of socialism, all real world countries that attempted socialism failed miserably. You can claim that they werent socialist, but then socialism is just an utopia that never existed. So either socialism is a huge failure or irrelevant. All the most developed countries in the world are capitalist with some public welfare on top, and that is what it really boils down to.

Success of SpaceX is just a microcosm example of this paradigm. Private company with public assistance. Best of both worlds.

>>10592370
So commies fucked your country over hard both economically and culturally. And recovery is slow. That's terrible. I guess nazis didn't do you any good either. The interesting thing here is that the former were building "advanced socialism" (because communism is waaaaaaay to advanced so you gotta start somewhere, right) and the latter are literally called "national socialists". Might be just a coincidence, though.

>US propaganda
I don't think I've seen much of it in the last 15 years. Soon after the Cold War has ended? Yeah, sure. But now they even got their own socialist infestation rampant.

>that socialism = totalitarism, and capitalism = democracy
That's like saying "water = good". Let's pour 10 litres of water into someone and we'll see how good they feel.

>>10592384
So commies were the only ones who could provide the oppressed (no irony here) with education? Because I don't remember commies overthrowing the government and drowning everything in blood and tears pretty much everywhere else in the civilized parts of the world. There doesn't seem to have been either serfdom or overwhelming illiteracy among the working class and farmers at the end of XX century in contemporaries that were comparably developed when commies came to power in Russian Empire and conquered or annexed their neighbours.
Again, SOME aspects, like protection for the vulnerable categories of citizens, can and should be used until we as civilization are ready to leave such matters for voluntary assistance from well-off citizens. And some nation-wide organization of such assistance will always be necessary so why not make it into laws for now. But the core tenets are pure poison.

All in all, this might be an interesting discussion seeing as you guys are not the typical fare who gets involved into these matters nowadays, but politics has became a topic that invariably attracts shitposters or worse, eventually. So I'll have to refrain from further replies on the subject, apologies.

>>10591539
What? Suborbital is not good enough for you?
Lord Bezos will not be pleased!

>>10591539
Any particular reason why you want orbital versus sub-orbital?

>>10592725
are you trying to lay the "it's only for suborbital tourism anyway!" trap? suborbital rockets aren't as industry changing

>>10592787
>are you trying to lay the "it's only for suborbital tourism anyway!" trap?
No, I was just curious about your choice.

>suborbital rockets aren't as industry changing
Sure, but they are cheaper than orbital rockets and thus would allow for more tourism. More space tourism could mean more public interest in spaceflight, which is always a good thing.

>>10592725
Suborbital has four stages:
1. Face melting rocket
2. "Roger, zero G and I feel fine. Capsule is turning around. Oh, that view is tremendous!"
3. E̫̳i̶͖̼͍͚̝͔̦g̘̙̠͟h͝ṭ͙̼͠ ͍͎̯̭̩̼͝g̙̼͓͠ ̬rͅe̢̗̹ę͔̬̩ͅņt̙͔̻͍̠r̼͎͕͓͉̠̟͢y
4. What that's all?

>>10592424
Imagine being an American claiming that communism is bad, at least their countries still friggin exist as nations more or less, now you have Joe Biden campaigning for the foreign hordes and claiming America is only an idea

>>10592923
This. I legit want to 2 week holiday in a space hotel in orbit around the moon.

>>10592394
> if you deny that lots of progress has been made since the fall of communism
I don't, but two things:
1. "Fall of communism" for my country ment actually a coup change doctored by CIA and the destruction of economy. Now biggest companies on Polish market are from abroad - a neocolonial market. So a lot of progress that can be seen is only relative to flipped, fallen state from it's last days, not it's better days.
2. "Communism" in Poland or Slovakia was not even run by our own govts. We were prisoners of Russian dictators. That's hardly communism. But still even then there was progress. War torn Poland was rebuild, so even that caricature of communism did not meant stagnation.

>As for the definition of socialism, all real world countries that attempted socialism failed miserably.
Check jewish kibutzes, Scandinavia, the whole China that is winning the game right now. Don't believe the US propaganda.
(I'm ok with somewhat free market. I agree that micromanagment of it is retarded. But the market must be controlled by govt, not the other way around)

>Success of SpaceX is just a microcosm example of this paradigm.
Musk said he is a socialist.

>>10593012
>Musk said he is a socialist.
Literally false.

>>10592424
>So commies fucked your country over hard both economically and culturally.
You mean: rebuild it after the war? Poland was a colony of the USSR. Still came out better than for example Mexico as the colony of USA.
> literally called "national socialists". Might be just a coincidence, though.
You need to read more

>US propaganda
>I don't think I've seen much of it in the last 15 years
What western media says about: Venezuela, Syria, Ukraine, Lybia, Iraq, Iran, Russia, Scripals even. You have eyes but you do not see.

>So commies were the only ones who could provide the oppressed (no irony here) with education?
You're changing the goalposts. Not saying the only ones. I'm saying there was progress even in Stalin's Russia.

>There doesn't seem to have been either serfdom or overwhelming illiteracy among the working class and farmers at the end of XX century
That is not true even for Poland - about 30% of illiterate farmers before the War 2. However Russia, as rich as it was, was also a very backwards country then - 76% illiterate! Very easy to manipulate.

>But the core tenets are pure poison.
Which ones do you mean?

>>10593015
This board overuses "literally".

>>10593092
Damn. I guess he did literally say it..

But obviously not referring to socialist national economic systems here.

>>10593096
Maybe now you won't be so scared of this word and start having fruitfull conversations about it. Not just imagining that socialism = Stalin + holodomor + destruction * despair.

>>10593103
"socialism" is unironically one of the most toxic and abused words online. I almost always refuse to discuss it unless someone first specifies exactly what they mean by "socialism ". Musk trolling people by giving his special "true socialism" definition is actually pretty common.

In an attempt to steer/sfg/ back to spaceflight...

What do you guys think about India's crewed space program? Do you like it that more countries are pushing towards space? Do you think that having the winged spacecraft on top of the rocket may induce aerodynamic instability?

>>10593107
And how is it toxic?
Also compare that please to the toxicity of capitalism of US empire - you know, the erosion of it's own govt as well as destabilising other coutries, also the destruction of climate and the environment leading entire world to a gigantic holocaust.

I agree though that word "socialism" is more fluid than gender.

>>10593151
Because saying the word "socialism" immediately starts endless arguments where each party is arguing for or against it based on different interpretations of what it actually means.

>>10593149
I think they know what they are doing. The more the merrier.

>>10593155
Here I agree

>>10593163
>The more the merrier.
Agreed. Hopefully more countries (and private companies) joining the "space club" is a sign that space is becoming more accessible and that space doesn't have to be this near inaccessible challenge.

I wish good luck to them all.

>>10592347
The fuck kinda voodoo math you using?

>>10593177
Yup. As long as they don't spew shit from there on us all. Like destroying satellite in orbit and such.

>>10593092
>>10593096
>>10593103

Musk is not a socialist anymore (if he ever was), unless by socialist you mean public healthcare system and such. See his more recent tweets.

>>10593277
That's literally all he ever meant by calling himself "socialist". Perfect example of people abusing the term.

>>10590849
>SRBs are only more dangerous than LRBs if you're an idiot
Boi this is NASA we're talking about here

>>10591124
Imagine a version of the eighties in which all the freshly unemployed mid westernern auto workers get employed to rockets.

>>10593323
To be fair to NASA, back then they were obsessed with a regular launch schedule with the Shuttle at the expense of safety (which I don't know why exactly). While that was stupid, that was NASA back then. NASA of now is alot more safety minded.

>>10593331
It wasn't *that* long ago that they killed everyone on columbia because they couldn't be bothered inspecting a huge block of ice smashing the heat shield tiles on launch. Heat shield tiles they knew were brittle as sweet fuck. They ignored requests from engineers to check out the wing with a powerful telescope, or inspect with an EVA. It was Challenger 2.0 for the most part.

>>10593343
Yeah but the logic was that if the tiles were broke the crew was dead anyway, so what's the point?
(Y'know, disregarding the fact that you could've probably pulled off some Apollo 13 shit and saved 'em).

>>10593343
Wasn't ice, it was a chunk of foam off the external tank. Foam and supersonic airflow didn't mix well.

>>10593347
>Yeah but the logic was that if the tiles were broke the crew was dead anyway
Nonsense. They could have launched another shuttle or a soyuz, or made even adjust the re-entry procedure to reduce the heat on the damaged region as much as possible. There was certainly things they could have done. It's sad remembering Apollo 13 when you recall all the effort they put into saving those fuckers and how little they tried to save both of the failed shuttles.

>>10593350
That's right, i remember now..

>>10593350
>>10593353
To add further to this, it was the carbon-carbon leading edge that was struck. That part experiences some of the highest heating during reentry, so there was no way Columbia could make it back in one piece.

>>10593385
IIRC the way the shuttle re-enters has it yawing back and forth to bleed off speed. I wonder if they could have done an entry sequence where the good wing edge was kept forwards while the damaged wing would have been kept out of direct plasma exposure.

>>10593393
We'll never know because NASA didn't try anything. Maybe recovering the crew via a second Shuttle was out of the question because they were worried that a strike would happen again.

Honest question, besides age is there any real faults to continued use of Soyuz? Or for that matter, building new ones?

>>10593438
Well I'd say having the US and everyone else depend on Russia to get people into space is probably not an ideal situation.

But technically, the Soyuz seems perfectly capable besides the fact it appears Dragon 2 will likely usurp it on cost alone.

>>10593452
>Well I'd say having the US and everyone else depend on Russia to get people into space is probably not an ideal situation.
Is Russia not willing to sell rockets? They'll sell nuclear subs, why not rockets?

>>10593457
The US and other don't get on with Russia. Relying on them for space shit is not ideal. They could pull access at any moment should relations sour significantly.

>>10593438
Russian rocket building quality seems to have been dropping with the upside down accelerometers and intentional holes.

Another problem is that Soyuz is at it's limits of capability. It's like the Falcon 9, its really good at LEO but lacking beyond that. Except that it carries less payload than a Falcon 9.

For crew, Soyuz is limited in space due to it's small core diameter. So it can't carry much crew and supplies. And the previously stated problems with capability, that can't be feasibly fixed without a serious upgrade. An update Roscosmos can't afford.

TLDR: Soyuz is only really great at LEO operations and small crew transport. But beyond that, its limited.

But LEO is still big, and Soyuz is reasonably cheap and reliable. It'll probably keep flying for a little bit longer.

>>10593149
As long as they keep aero center behind mass center they'll be fine, which is why they have fins on the bottom there

>>10593092

He's being cheeky here. Like a libertarian saying he's the real "socialist" because "libertarianism is best."

>>10593438
I mock them due to the venerable heritage nature of the hardware design (directly descended from the R7 that launched sputnik) but it's a fine capsule, if a bit cramped.

>>10593571
Most libertarians wouldn't call him libertarian either, as he's pro public health and carbon tax.

>>10593573
>I mock them due to the venerable heritage nature of the hardware design
Why exactly? Sure some other rocket projects that use heritage components are messed up partly because of the components, but the Soyuz seems to be doing well despite this.

>>10593571
Nah, he has the prometheus gene or such - serve the mankind. Otherwise he would go into finance not rockets and electric cars.

Can anyone offer input on this?

https://patents.google.com/patent/US10144532B2/en

>>10593665
Reminder that you don't have to prove that a device works in order to patent it.

On top of that, it seems like another Dean Machine or EM Drive. It's a machine that tries to break the laws of physics as we know them without actually understanding the physics behind said laws. Plus it reads like a bad spout of technobabble from Star Trek.

>>10593254
I meant if they only fly two total. All the development costs, which are 10-20 billion or something will break down to only two vehicles.

How would a Saturn V with updated liquid hydrogen engines and fuel tanks fair against modern heavy lift vehicles?

>>10593961
>Saturn V with updated liquid hydrogen engines
Do you mean if the first stage was replaced by a hyrolox stage? Probably not that good since it really needs that kerolox first stage for that extra thrust. Even with the kerolox first stage it had a thrust to weight ratio at the launchpad of 1.35 which is kinda low.

If you just meant an updated Saturn V with modern equipment and manufacturing techniques, then it would fair pretty well. 140t to LEO is pretty impressive. However the cost of restarting Saturn V production lines would be so high that NASA might as well just designed a whole new vehicle. The original engineers on Saturn V are all gone and while the technical details are available, they don't contain alot of the finer details necessary for production such as in-factory modifications and tollarancing. Plus the parts for Saturn V were made using old manufacturing techniques that are inefficient and expensive today and it's not easy to just change that.

While it would be amazing to see a Saturn V 2.0 flying. It's better to leave it be and either support current heavy lifters like SLS or the upcoming ones like BFR or New Glenn.

>>10593801
That's not really a fair comparison though, as we have no idea at this juncture how many times the SLS will fly. It's like saying a shuttle would cost $27B per launch back before the program flew and it only had no launches scheduled; there are better (and less misleading) ways to compare cost than [Program Cost]/[Arbitrary Predicted Num. of Launches]

>>10593961
Saturn V was expensive. In inflation-adjusted terms, it makes the SLS look like a bargain.

Could the cost have been brought down if we'd stuck with it and refined the design like the Russians did with Soyuz? Almost certainly. Did we? No.

Trying to make a new Saturn V today would be dumb. You're constraining your design for the sake of parts that haven't been built in 60 years. You get little benefit from improvements in rocket manufacturing, and you can't re-use any of the Saturn infrastructure, because it's all dead and gone.

In short: you'd be better off doing something new than to rebuild it.

>>10593417
>Maybe recovering the crew via a second Shuttle was out of the question
The official report made it clear a rescue could have been performed with a second shuttle. NASA management shut it down due to the expense and impact to missions, on the justification that shuttles had taken blows from foam before and came out ok.

>>10593981
>>10593961
Actually, something that's always interested me: hypothetically, would it be feasible to make a single working Saturn V using the parts from Johnson Space Center and KSC?

All of the JSC Saturn V stages are real flight articles chosen from the parts meant for Apollo 18-20. The majority of the S-V parts at KSC are real flight articles as well.

Now, the JSC parts are in rougher condition than those at KSC, as their Saturn V used to be on display out in the Houston weather, which did a real number on them, so you'd probably want to use the KSC parts as much as possible.

But I think between the two there's enough flight hardware in a good enough condition that you could theoretically assemble a flight-ready S-V from them.

How crazy of an idea would this be? I know it's not something that will ever actually happen, but I'm wondering if it's something that COULD be done if there was actually any need for it.

>>10593981
>Could the cost have been brought down if we'd stuck with it and refined the design like the Russians did with Soyuz? Almost certainly.
This is what we should've done. I know hindsight is 2020 but it wouldve been so much better than the Shuttle.

>>10594000
>But I think between the two there's enough flight hardware in a good enough condition that you could theoretically assemble a flight-ready S-V from them.
nice idea. But no one knows how to work with that equipment anymore. A lot of that knowledge has been lost. I doubt is could ever be made space worthy.

>>10592284
>I was under the impression different teams can and do use the same tire manufacturers.
Yes, right now the teams all use the same tire manufacturer(pereli). During the preseason when perelli is developing that year's tire, they pick one team to do testing with, and share that data with the rest of the teams to design their cars around. There's been some talk of developing a generic f1 car to do the testing with so no team has the advantage of extra testing.

>>10593997
That's pretty shitty. No wonder NASA is safety obsessed nowadays.

please don't use the word "healthcare" if you mean "health insurance", it's intellectually dishonest

HOP WHEN

>>10594051
wat

>>10594000
As much of a rockstar Saturn V is, its just not feasible to do sadly. Maybe the F-1B and J-2 engines will make a comeback.

>>10594043
Doubtful. They're just "safety obsessed" with the commercial crew so they look like they are doing something important and shouldn't have their space launch departments completely privatised.

The biggest issue with re-using the old Saturn hardware is, alongside the fact most of the knowledge on how to build it has been lost, the fact the parts are far more complex and hand-built compared to how things are done today.

Maybe using the Saturn design as a template, and using more modern technologies to replicate it today could be doable. 3D-printing the F1-B chamber and injector plate plus some 3D modeling for more efficiency improvement shenanigans should certainly help at least.

G2 J-2s could be designed around Methalox operation instead of Hydrolox.

>>10593763
Lame. I want to fly into space to meet Princess Zurgulon

>>10594111
>Maybe using the Saturn design as a template, and using more modern technologies to replicate it today could be doable.
This is a winner right here. Don't try and make a copy of the Saturn V, but take the best bits of it and realize them using today's technology.

Like, I want to impress upon everyone here just how much better and precise modern manufacturing is than it is in the 60s. The computerization of everything means you don't even really need to try that hard for good tolerances any more. Parts that used to be needed to be measured by hand and corrected to fit into tolerances after being manufactured can now pretty much be thrown straight onto the assembly with nothing more than a cursory check. We're REALLY good at building things precise the first time. Way better than we were in the 60s.

The F1B is interesting, because it's basically how we'd build an F1 today. You remove the exhaust being injected into the chamber and just dump it off the side to simplify the engine bell. You get rid of all the tiny parts that used to be made by hand and replace them with big assemblies manufactured in lathes, mills, and 3d printers. In the end, you get a rocket with maybe 95% percent the efficiency at 10% the complexity and amount of parts at maybe about 50% of the original price. That's a winning formula right there.

I also had an idea for a semi-rigid inflated fairing as a way of saving weight and cost, but it would put additional stress on the payload, both from the pressurization/depressurization as the rocket accelerated and climbed and from the fact rigid fairings also have sound-deadening material inside them to protect the cargo.

>>10594148
Then you'd have to reinforce the fairing to withstand the pressure from the inside - essentially, you'd have to make it a pressure vessel. Or you'd have to design a system to keep the pressure balanced with the outside air, in which case you'd have to make sure that system doesn't fail, because the fairing would implode or explode from the pressure imbalance otherwise.

Don't see how you'll end up saving weight in the end.

>>10594070
There's a huge difference between government healthcare and government health insurance, is probably what he is trying to say.

>>10594133
Hopefully NASA doesn't have to resurrect Saturn V once SLS actually starts flying. While that rocket is a managment and political nightmare, and every leader involved should be demoted to janitors at least it could be useful. An eventual return to the Moon would be nice no matter how late.

>>10594111
I hate this mythological aspect the Saturn has taken on, I'm sure you're not meaning it this way but I have heard other people go "oh Saturn V would be so much better, it was sooo much more advanced and we couldn't even manufacture it these days because it was so much more complex" and I keep fucking thinking you fucking retarded nigger complex is not a good thing when you're riding an exploding space penis at mach-3, F1's were complex because at the time that was the only way to build such a powerful machine but simpler is better wherever you can make it so.

>>10594175
Well, my idea was to be pressurized from the inside to about 5% (max, not sure if overpressurized or balanced would be more optimal) above the current pressure (static + dynamic). I said semi-rigid because while there's the inflatable shell component, there's also the internal ribs instead of 2 solid half-shells.
Said ribs would have 2 primary functions:
1: mounting spots for the sound-deadening material
2: Basic shape and structure (gives the pressure shell something to connect to at the top end and around the mid)

In addition, having the fairing built this way could open up the possibility of having many more fairing sizes available to the entity buying the flight. Instead of having to machine or fabricate an expensive metal or carbon fiber composite shell, all that would need to be done is replace or modify the ribs (maybe modular click/bolt together construction) for the mission profile, then put on the appropriate pressure bag.

I figure if we could launch rockets that were summed up as pressurized steel balloons with engines attached, why not take that concept and turn it into a fairing?
Its a stupid idea I know, but its an idea just the same.

>>10594220
I would think anything semi rigid would be torn to shreds at mach + speeds through the atmosphere.

>>10594213
>oh Saturn V would be so much better, it was sooo much more advanced and we couldn't even manufacture it these days because it was so much more complex
That's the common sentiment you've gotten? The most common reasoning I've heard about the Saturn V over the SLS was that the SLS was somehow too new and complex and surely a design from the 60s that had already proven itself would be easier to make than SLS.

Or are you talking about the Saturn V in general? The Saturn V does have somewhat of a mythical status around it.

Also I think that the anon you're replying to meant by complex was that a 60s engineer would have to design a certain component into parts because machining it as one part was impossible back then. Thus requiring "complex" parts that had to fit and lock together, and maybe have extra pieces to them just to hold them together. Meanwhile an engineer of today could easily CAD up an equivalent component and easily find ways to simplify it. Plus additive manufacturing simplifies things even further.

>>10594224
Would an internal pressure being higher than external dynamic pressure help with that though? Maybe make the nose-cap of it of a more rigid material than the rest of the fairing-bag and attached to the internal ribs.
I know this is probably not ever going to work, but hey, its an interesting thought experiment all the same.

Also another thing I didnt think of: what to do when it comes time to drop the fairing. Right now, I consider the entire fairing-bag as one unit. Internal ribs are split like a normal fairing. But how would you pop or otherwise remove the fairing bag so the ribs could open and fall away?

Would it be possible to make an extremely large zeppelin-esque platform floating high in the air from which to launch rockets, allowing them to carry less fuel getting through the atmosphere?

>>10594263
You know how heavy rockets are, right? But yeah, it is "possible." Just unrealistic. Launching from another vehicle might be a thing, like using a jumbo jet for a booster essentially.

>>10594263
The major thing you need to achieve orbit is horizontal velocity not altitude. While a platform on a zeppelin would require a smaller rocket due to the fact that you can have more efficient engines on your first stage, the mass savings are small. You won't save much money doing this, plus then you have to pay for the zeppelin and it's operating costs.

Launching from an elevated platform is really only feasible for incredibly small launchers where they need every bit of efficiency they can get.

>>10594266
>You know how heavy rockets are, right?

Millions of pounds, but suffciently large gas chambers could support it.

>But yeah, it is "possible." Just unrealistic.

I don’t see what’s overtly unrealistic about a kilometer-wide blimp in comparison to other supervehicles like cargo ships, NASA’s crawler transporters, or those giant strip-mining machines. Would probably weigh less, even. I’m no Blimp engineer, though.

>>10594234
I was just talking about the Saturn V in general, it's a sentiment I usually pick up from the "I-fucking-love-science" types who of course know literally shit-all about any actual form of science or engineering. I agree with Anon about everything he said though, a lot of people don't consider human tuning when talking about complexity. More parts might not be an issue so much if it didn't consume hundreds of extra man-hours of labor to individually fit, test, and fine tune each one, but it does so the fewer the parts and the simpler the design the better. It's a real shame F1b's were shelved in favor of goddamn SRBs again, fuckin' firework pieces of shit.

>>10594353
>I was just talking about the Saturn V in general, it's a sentiment I usually pick up from the "I-fucking-love-science" types who of course know literally shit-all about any actual form of science or engineering
Alright. I want sure what you meant because most of the time when I talk about rockets its with other rocket nerds. I still like Saturn V because of its sheer size and power. The engineering behind it to make it work was insaine and awe inspiring.

>It's a real shame F1b's were shelved in favor of goddamn SRBs again, fuckin' firework pieces of shit.
Agreed. I guess SRBs offered a faster development, for all the good it did. Then again, SLS is meant to meet political goals not spaceflight goals.

>>10594364
>I want sure
*I wasn't sure

Oops.

>>10594353
>It's a real shame F1b's were shelved in favor of goddamn SRBs again, fuckin' firework pieces of shit.
Again: SRBs are a legitimate tradeoff. Their bad reputation comes from being used in absolutely idiotic situations.

Remember, while the SRB failing is what led to Challenger happening, what actually caused the explosion was it puncturing the LH2/LOX tank. All of the thrust-producing parts of a spacecraft are liable to explode horribly in the wrong situation: LRBs are no exception.

The aforementioned stupid design uses were:
A) Sticking the shuttle on the side of an ET
B) Not installing any viable abort system on the shuttle
C) Using an SRB as the ONLY booster (Ares I)

They're big cans of boom. Used wisely, they're no more dangerous than any other booster, liquid or otherwise.

>>10594426
I'm not actually enormously against SRBs, I just wish the F1b's weren't shelved in favor of them. What really actually pisses me off though is the use of HydroLOX for the main stage, it seems on the surface that someone with only a very thin knowledge of rocket propellants would chose HydroLOX for a sea level first stage booster because while it's theoretically on paper the most efficient it also ruins components via hydrogen embrittlement so they can't even be refurbished while also being the most insulation demanding and least volume efficient propellant, making tanks to contain it so large and heavy they effectively eliminate it's efficiency payoffs, not to mention demanding some of the largest turbopump machinery due to requiring more equipment to achieve the desired mass flow rates. If I had to build SLS I'd go with a LOX/RP1 or MethaLOX first stage booster and secondary boosters using the same propellant, with either a MethaLOX or HydroLOX second stage.

>>10594482
>I'm not actually enormously against SRBs, I just wish the F1b's weren't shelved in favor of them.
It mainly came down to the fact that all of KSC's RP-1 infrastructure got ripped out during the transition to shuttle. Rebuilding all of that infrastructure would be a significant cost. But that's not the reason the Advanced Boosters competition got called off.
The real reason the competition got called-off was because they switched from the Block IA upgrade path to the Block IB path, meaning that the advanced boosters weren't necessary at that time.
Now that NASA is looking into replacements again, Orbital ATK's made their BOLE design a hell of a lot better than what they were offering back then, so odds are pretty good that's what they'll go with.
>What really actually pisses me off though is the use of HydroLOX for the main stage
It's not as bad as it sounds. The SLS Core acts a lot like a shuttle ET, but fires for a lot longer. Think of it like this: the SRBs are really the "ascent stage," and the Hydrolox core is just an oversized mid-stage. There are gravity losses from this configuration, but the RS-25s are so efficient that they're not very bad.
>If I had to build SLS I'd go with a LOX/RP1 or MethaLOX first stage booster and secondary boosters using the same propellant, with either a MethaLOX or HydroLOX second stage.
Well, the SLS is the result of Congress listening to the DIRECTfags post-shuttle (which is why NASA was mandated to use shuttle parts), but NASA still wanted the power of an Ares V, so they made some "minor" changes that ended up basically making the whole rocket an entirely new design except the RS-25s. It's vaguely shuttle-shaped (aka shuttle-derived), but it's really not just differently-assembled shuttle parts. This pissed off the DIRECTfags, by the way, which is why they hate it.
Point is: I don't disagree that it may have been better to do a clean sheet design, but the political origins of SLS wouldn't have allowed that approach.

>>10594508
>Well, the SLS is the result of Congress listening to the DIRECTfags post-shuttle
I think its less to do with DIRECT and more to do with contractors not wanting to lose their Shuttle money.

>>10594508
Pretty comprehensive summation Anon, thanks. Hope it still gets work done even if it's fundamentally doomed to be cost inefficient at said work, hopefully it doesn't encounter any RUDs 'cause I think that would be enough for the powers that be to strongly consider canning it.

>>10594523
A lot of people say that. I'm certain it played a part, but consider that at the time the DIRECT people were appearing in congressional meetings and basically rebelling against NASA management to argue for shuttle-derived architecture. If the contractors played a part, it was a secondary one.

Of course, the DIRECTfags only wanted that shuttle architecture because they were trying to minimize that gap between shuttle and its successor as much as possible. Unfortunately, when NASA switched to 5-seg SRBs and decided to stretch the core tank, any chance of that went out the window.

The modern SLS core tank is only similar to the shuttle ET in the fact it contains Hydrolox fuel and has orange insulation. There's little to no design commonality other than that, because it had to be redesigned to withstand the stresses of 4 SSMES and 5-seg SRBs.

>>10594549
I'd also like to add that the DIRECTfags were likely underestimating the work that'd need to be done to rejigger the shuttle equipment into an inline, more conventional, launch vehicle. If you really, really, want a super-heavy lifter with shuttle hardware commonality and minimal schedule gap, Shuttle-C was probably the best bet. Even the Jupiter would require significant mods to the ET, just like happened with the SLS. They'd just've been a little less extreme.

Shuttle-C, on the other hand, would've only replaced the orbiter. Everything else could've remained the same. Really, the only reason I've heard for why it was never pursued was that the astronaut office was terrified Shuttle-C would mark the end of NASA's human spaceflight program, since astronauts would no longer be necessary to operate the vehicle. In retrospect, these concerns were probably overblown.

Nonetheless, Shuttle-C didn't happen. Jupiter didn't happen. SLS did. Any advantage pursuing those other shuttle-derived architecture options has evaporated at this point. The shuttle industrial base is gone. The only bits of it still around are those needed for SLS. The DIRECTfags failed, and it's not clear whether they could've ever succeeded.

Either way, it's a moot point by now. This is the situation NASA's stuck with, so let's hope they can make the best of it.

>>10594318
I meant unrealistic for money. Helium is expensive, and we might not have enough for something like that. And hydrogen would have the public going "hurr durr hindenburg" which is the same as loosing money.
Don't get me wrong, a floating launch pad sounds badass. And sounding badass is the first step to success in rocketry. Unfortunately the second step is politicians cutting off your balls and replacing them with lead weights.
>tfw 4chins still hasn't implemented midsentence greentext

>>10593149
If they stop shitting in LEO then the poos can get into space

If the Saturn program continued in a logical fashion without this shuttle bullshit we would have ended up with something like BFR 30 years ago.

New thread:
>>10594903

>>10594318
Would you control the position with a train?