/sci/ - Science & Math

>still no viable radiation shielding

>>10621039
So did the artist who made that thing not realize that there isnt anything in this world that can put that up there?

Just send enough astronauts that if some of them die of cancer, the others can still run the colony.

Oh, and have the actual colony on Mars be underground. That'll save a ton on construction costs.

>>10621039
{PANIC}
Nuclear propulsion BAD
NUCLEAR BAD!!!!
BAD. BAD. BAD.
{PANIC}

>>10621057
distributed launch, we've been doing it since Gemini
>>10621061
drilling is expensive too, but it's a good meme so it's my vote
>>10621061
ah yes, the WW1 strategy

>>10621072
Well, it'd be expensive in terms of energy, man-hours, and specialized equipment, but it seems like it'd be cheap in terms of how many pounds of cargo you need per cubic meter of living space.

You could bring a tunnel boring machine and hook it up to whatever the spaceship is using for power (hopefully nuclear like a champ) and then just have it dig out as much living space as you need, indefinitely.

This all assumes that you land in somewhere with hard enough rock for tunnels without reinforcements to be stable, or that you're willing to make some mooncrete, but overall it'd be a good way to add livable space quickly.

The downside is that I imagine being inside 24/7 would be pretty uncomfortable.

>>10621088
it goes from extremely expensive per cubic foot to merely insanely expensive up front costs and then merely high maintenance and upkeep to expand almost infinitely
a good trade imo

>>10621088
being inside 25 hours a sol wouldn't be so bad if the tunnels were long enough and the lighting was good
making a larger cavern would improve morale as well, imagine martian underground baseball

>>10621095
That's ISRU in general.

You can get almost any resource you need, at least on Mars. It's just a question of dealing with the high costs of starting up the production line.

>>10621043
dont need radiation shielding if you are going to Mars on a fast trajectory, 4 months in deep space one way is still within limits

>>10621102

also you do not need to be inside all the time, you can spend few hours outside every day without blowing through radiation budget

>>10621039

>>10621337
wrong thread?

>>10621377
Fuck jannies, deleting posts

>>10621410
fuck off, nigger

>>10621337
FUCK JANNIES

nice

Why was my nuclear propulsion post deleted?
The MTV-P02, pictured in OP design, is a nuclear propelled rocket, hence the reason for my post.
I was mocking the idiotic reactions people had to it--- ie NUCLEAR BAD!!!! If it wasn't for anti-nuclear hysteria, space exploration would have progressed considerably.

There is this seething imbecile who does not understand fission here who gets enraged at these posts. He calls me a shill for the nuclear industry. After he kept getting BTFO by me and nuclear gang, looks like he has no choice but to report the post instead of debate it.

>>10621546
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120003776.pdf

Rocket is the wrong term. Technically works but not accurate. Meant to say spacecraft.

>>10621542
I thought that those red boxes where added after the photo was taken to bring attention to some details, and I spent a while trying to see what was so important. I need more sleep.

>>10621546
see you could have just posted that first instead of some dumb non-constructive meme that needs to fuck off back to /v/ or reddit or wherever it came from

>>10621551
the important bit is the words ACS CENTERLINE in the middle of the pic, and the plumbing running down the side

>>10621558
I thought it was a good meme desu.

>>10621572
so that big concrete thing is hollow, huh? I wonder what it could possibly be used for? maybe it's to do with the legs
>>10621573
it's not

>>10621582
taller jig, for easier installation of stuff. also, legs could be higher off the ground so the jig has to be higher

>>10621561
attitude control... nice

>>10621558
>>10621582
It's a useful meme because it shows people flatout reject nuclear as a binary issue, they see nuclear and say NO. That is prototypical NPC behavior, imbecile.

>>10621587
calling people NPCs isn't productive, no matter how mad you are at the public at large

>>10621558
>>10621602
This is 4chan, not a fucking peer reviewed journal you autist.

>>10621602
I'm not addressing the public at large, brainlet.

>>10621609
why are you so buttfrustrated dude, your meme was shit
go home

>>10621546
Worshiping nuclear propulsion wouldn't save you if the payload were to explode in the high atmosphere, smart ass. Energy production is not the biggest problem for this kind of ship design, so there is no need to increase a failure consequences.

>>10621602
You are an NPC and I don't have to be productive on 4chan dickhead

>>10621635
the moderation staff thought your meme was shit too

>>10621614
Reductio ad absurdum. Go see a doctor. You might have had heavy metal exposure as a child.

>>10621649
>Reductio ad absurdum
Oh, so a rocket malfunction is absurd now? Nuclear propulsion has pros and cons, and people in ESA for example officially declared it was not worth the risk.

*ting ting ting*

>>10621686
what are the big chonky fins for

>>10621638
>Implying I'm the same person
>Implying you aren't a pathetic NPC

>>10621670
>In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments or the appeal to extremes, is a form of argument that attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible

>>10621546
nah, it's just that we haven't had a payload big enough to justify a nuclear propulsion. Oh wait we did, the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter which was going to be NASA's flagship mission to Europa. They even funded development of a new nuclear reactor to power it. It was going to have generate 0.2 MWe to run ion engines, high power radar, and high bandwidth comms. And hey, the US was actually doing development on high power fission power reactors. It got cancelled because Bush wanted money to go back to the Moon, which of course never happened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter
Developing nuclear propulsion is expensive and there hasn't been much political will to pay for it. But now at least NASA was able to successfully test the Kilopower reactors. It's not much, but it's the first reactor designed for space with moving parts. There is the issue that reactors in earth orbit can interfere gamma ray astronomy:
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/244/4903/451

>>10621717
This is why I wish that NASA could "lock down" programs cross-administration. I don't care if NASA redirects an asteroid, sends a massive nuclear science bus to Jupiter, returns to the moon, goes to Mars, or anything. I just want NASA to do something big and interesting without some Kennedy aspirant coming along 4 to 8 years later to slam the reset button for HIS personal project.

>>10621715
Since you like latin so much, can you maybe enlighten me on what argumentum ad logicam means? Until we can build safer rockets, bringing nuclear material into space is unnecessarily risky, and once again the propulsion is not the main problem of this kind of trip. The main concern is to be able to protect the crew from radiations, long term 0-G environment and mental issues linked to proximity and cramped space on board

>>10621747
you see that's the beauty of the gateway. NASA doesn't know if they'll be going to mars, the moon, or asteroids in a couple years so they want to build something to support doing all three.
>>10621762
>>10621670
>>10621614
As long as you don't start the reactor, the nuclear fuel will be less radioactive than an RTG. One can start the reactor when it has been confirmed to be in a stable orbit or on an earth escape trajectory.

>>10621782
Gateway is a joke anon, fuck off.

>>10621796
Gateway is a joke that's going SOMEWHERE, and even if it goes nowhere it'll still be above the moon and impossible to cancel

>>10621782
>you see that's the beauty of the gateway
While I'm glad that NASA is FINALLY doing some good beyond LEO, I don't like Gateway because it may end up like ISS 2.0. Where NASA (along with international partners) just messes around in this tin can to do some token experiments while not doing much beyond that.

>>10621807
at the very least it'll require lunar capable manned capability, and the ability to move mass to TLI
forcing the government to spend money on those capabilities enables all sorts of things

>>10621796
>>10621802
I don't think Gateway is funny at all

>>10621823
that's because you're a schizo, fuck off

>>10621796
do you have something better?
>>10621807
Probably, but hopefully we'll end up with some space infrastructure. Also the gateway is allowing NASA to at least consider propellant depots.
>>international partners
now that's the real joke, with SLS's flight rate we can't get very many of other countries' equipment and astronauts up there.

hmmmmm, stiffeners

>>10621826
>Blow gorillions of dollars on a quite literally useless at best and counterproductive at worst tin can of no value
>If you don't like it you're a schizo

>>10621832
>do you have something better?

Yes, want to go to the moon? Go straight there. Want to go to Mars? Go straight there. There may is probably a case to be made for LEO propellant depots but this lunar bullshit is retarded

>>10621837
anon, I'm calling you a schizo because you named your files "timesand" which is distinct enough that it can only be one person
and your plan sounds great but how do you sell congress on that? Gateway is something marginally useful that's extremely politcally expedient

>>10621818
>at the very least it'll require lunar capable manned capability, and the ability to move mass to TLI
>forcing the government to spend money on those capabilities enables all sorts of things
Maybe, and I like that NASA isn't just focusing solely on Gateway for lunar missions too. I guess time will tell, but I don't want NASA to end up wasting more decades half-assing things.

>>10621832
>Probably, but hopefully we'll end up with some space infrastructure. Also the gateway is allowing NASA to at least consider propellant depots.
Hopefully. To be honest I'm kinda surprised propellant depots have taken this long to develop.

>now that's the real joke, with SLS's flight rate we can't get very many of other countries' equipment and astronauts up there.
I think Ariane 5 can send ~10t to TLI, while it isn't as much as SLS at least it'll be something for the Europeans. Also, isn't the maximum expected SLS launch rate to be a launch every two years?

>>10621688
finns makeks thing sgo fadssdtdter

>>10621841
I'm not even that guy, stop assuming anyone who disagrees is one schizo. I'm not interested in selling Congress anything, I'm just pointing out what a pointless excercise it is.

>>10621762
>>10621670
>>10621614
N—U—C—L—E—A—R
B—A—D!
>The people in ESA declared, OFFICIALLY DECLARED, that it was not worth the risk
THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED.
NO DEBATE.
THE PANELS FINDINGS ARE FINAL.

>>10621859
I like nuclear too anon, but get real, no one is going to approve that shit to launch from their soil. A space based nuclear system that is contained in a chemical rocket fairing until it reaches orbit, maybe, but a ground launched gas core rocket or something similar? Will literally never ever happen.

>>10621850
ah, thank you, excellent
>>10621857
of course, not, people who disagree with Gateway are sensible people with their heads screwed on straight who merely haven't been introduced to the insanity of the politics surrounding science spaceflight

>>10621871
I agree with you actually. I thought you were were saying never scenario. Project Orion and such had the potential for considerable value in space.

>>10621837
>>go straight there
how? How are you going to do that with NASA's limited budget and senators who say X% of it has to go to the SLS. The gateway at least has the chance to put some lasting infrastructure in place. If we go back to the moon like we did before, we're going to plant the flag and leave. I don't like the gateway either, I would much prefer Zubrin's moon direct. I just don't think it can happen.
>>10621848
>>propellant depots
didn't happen because they compete with the SLS
>>launch rate
once every year at best.

>>10621877
>Project Orion
I fucking wish but nobody's going to make that dream happen
mostly because miniaturized nukes are an extremely tightly controlled technology
>>10621880
prop depot is one of the functions of the Gateway and is still part of the plan, as far as I know

>>10621883
Also the amount of nukes required is beyond ridiculous. NSWR is the real deal but there is just no material that could possibly withstand the sustained fuck you fission reaction.

>>10621883
>>10621877
Orion can't happen right now due to international treaties. The outer space treaty bas nuclear weapons in space. The Partial Test Ban Treaty bans nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere, under water, and space. The UN also considers nuclear explosives of any kind to be nuclear weapons, so you can't get away with calling them pulse units.
The Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban treaty bans all nuclear explosions for both civilian and military use in all environments. Althought that one hasn't been adopted yet.
>>prop depots
haven't happened yet. They were prevented from happening by the SLS. Yes, NASA is considering them now, but couldn't earlier.

>>10621924
>[Propellant depots] were prevented from happening by the SLS.
I keep hearing about this. Does anyone have a source on pro-SLS management going againt propellant depots and an explanation as to why?

What do you guys think of the XS-1? Capable launch vehicle that could make access to space cheaper for small-sats? Or is it a meme?

>>10622101
friendly reminder that this "spacecraft" was supposed to carry humans within the next two months before this happened :)

>>10622120
What does that have to do with the XS-1? Why is spacecraft in quotes? What's with the smiley? What?

>>10622125
fuck off, racist

>>10622120
Reminder that you could slip on the soap in the shower and die, and nobody would care after a month.

Space is hard, everybody dies, few get to die in the service of expanding humanity. You're just a cuck, deal with it.

>>10622161
Two quotes apply...
"We fail down here so we don't fail up there."
Or my favorite,
"Failures happen. Stop the witch-hunt and get back to work."

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-planetary-defense-technology-demonstration-to-collide-with-asteroid-in-2022/

FINALLY, FUCKING FINALLY.

>>10622201
Awesome! Can't wait to see a demonstration of it.

>>10621542
"kys here"
kek

>>10622296
those all say "cut here"

>>10621102
You could have the lights inside the tunnels get dimmer and turn off at 24 hour intervals to simulate earth days.

>>10622303
fuck that, 25 hour sols
it's not like you won't have any windows or won't need to work outside

>>10622311
They have done experiments on this and not having the 24hr cycle fucks you up real hard.

i've been out of the loop for awhile because of work. what are some of the highlights from the past few weeks?

>>10622344
Falcon Heavy launch, Antares launch, Falcon 9 launch, Electron launch. Blue Origin is making some kind of announcement on Thursday. Progress in Boca Chica continues at a steady pace, with a new foundation laid for a future building.

>>10622355
do we know what the building is?

>for some reason fucking Orion and Starliner and crew capsules for LEO/ISS instead of superior SSTO that is capable of landing on re-entry and was 90% complete

Why are we so backwards, I can't think of a more perfect shuttle replacement.

>>10622378
Probably because SSTOs aren't possible with today's technology. And while I believe that spaceplanes are a better replacement for capsules, it seems like the spaceflight industry is abit cautious towards spaceplanes due to the Shuttle holding back spaceflight for decades. Plus, the X33 was only a scale model that wouldn't be able to deliver anything to orbit and by now the technology and equipment for it are gone. It would be simpler to start a new design from scratch.

Although it was a complete travesty that it was canceled so close to completion. Even if the concept didnt work, it would've been able to test new technologies that would've been perfect upgrades for the Shuttle. Imagine a Shuttle 2.0 with metal heat tiles that were stronger and easier to replace, or an XRS-2200 derivative that was easier to refurbish than the RS-25.

>>10622367
>do we know what the building is?
Nope. The size and shape of the structure, and the shallow foundation, suggest a tent structure for horizontal integration work on Super Heavy without the aid of specialized industrial machine tooling.

>>10622414
hmm interesting, thanks. its good that they will be working on super heavy soon.

>>10621043
just poo in bags and line the hull with them

>>10621138
limits aren't the problem
it's the fact that the radiation is there at all
shielding = no problems at all

>>10621924
>the UN
a toothless bunch of cucks
any treaty they make is nothing but toilet paper

>>10622641
This
Remember to eat lots of lead and mercury to ensure good poop density

>>10622820
you cannot bring enough mass with you for sufficient shielding

>>10622825
So why was orion cancelled after the Partial Test Ban Treaty was ratified?

>>10622378
SSTO has a horrific cost in terms of fuel efficiency. Now that reusable two stage rockets are hitting the scene, there's no reason to invest in something that's more complicated and less efficient.

>>10622825
The UN doesn't matter in and of itself, but it matters because it's the scoreboard that great powers use to keep track of what other countries are doing.

So if the US violates the UN's no nukes in space policy, Russia and China will feel free to put some nuclear missiles in geostationary orbit over California, or some sinister shit like that.

>>10621883
>>10621924
>Project Orion
I wish that stupid meme ship died.
The real reason anyone support it is because the concept sound awesome and trigger everyone who think it will make an instant warship, but it have no real feasibility or practical and economical use even if you limited it to very high orbit or a Lagrange point to avoid problems.

You are actually better building an nuclear lightbulb.

>>10623122
Technically a two stage reusable rocket is more complicated than SSTO, it's precisely because it's complicated that it allow save in fuel.

I hate Musk for being a self-aggrandizing idiot with too much money and childish understanding of coloniszation but I applaud the engineers who work to make reusable rocket work, multi-stage or SSTO.

>>10623060
which is why hauling absolutely everything up from the ground is fucking retarded
space has fucking everything in fucking massive quantities, we should fucking use it

>>10623087
Because it was a nuclear battleship during the Cold War. It's existence could've started an arms race in space that would've ended mankind in a fury of nukes.

>>10623264
the existence of cuba could have ended mankind in a fury of nukes, anon

>>10622390
>>10623122
What are you even saying, it was supposed to be the shuttles replacement anyways that was the original goal of the whole X-33/VentureStar initiative

And I bet if the program was still around during Columbia's disaster then progress towards that replacement goal would have only been accelerated further, as it so happened, the program was cancelled before that, at a time when NASA and the government didn't realize just how big of a mistake they were making, with holding on to the shuttle and with not having a ready replacement before its retirement

Thats how we got stuck with this SLS mess in the first place. Imagine if we had a fleet of Venture Stars already ready to take over shuttle operations, we would never have a manned spaceflight gap, never have to rely on Russia for ISS access and we could have been designing a proper dedicated launch system for deep space, rather than LEO/ISS operations.

>>10622125
He's just a retarded shitposter. Nobody using fucking emoticons is ever worth paying attention to or responding to. He's not even right either, that Dragon was supposed to be used for an abort test not fly fucking humans, he can't even get his bait right the absolute retard.

>>10623368
>What are you even saying, it was supposed to be the shuttles replacement anyways that was the original goal of the whole X-33/VentureStar initiative
True, although that may be one of the reasons why Venturestar was canned by Congress. The Shuttle distributed lots of money across the country, a Shuttle replacement would disrupt that pork.

>>10623437
Yeah, and the fact they continued to deny a restart of the program even to the USAF, USAF eventually said fuck it and I think that's when they started work on their X-37B

What could have been though..

>>10623445
>What could have been though..
American spaceflight has made lots of mistakes post-Apollo. I personally believe that Shuttle should never have flown but instead Saturn V should've been used instead. The Shuttle cost $1.48B per launch to deliver ~20t to LEO while the Saturn V was about $1.16B and sent ~140t. Even if Congress banned the use of Saturn for beyond LEO missions, NASA could've done so much more. Imagine a bigger Hubble or an ISS with Skylab sized modules.

>>10623466
We need to reload this save

>>10623471
>When the US fucked over NASA post-Apollo

>>10623476
thanks NIxon

>>10623493
This is why I'm really happy that commercial space is getting some traction. They're not leashed to political winds like NASA. Congress would have to be diabolical to try to stop SpaceX or Blue Origin from going beyond low Earth orbit.

>>10623593
Which means we finally get some competition going, which means congress can't sit on their fat fucking asses collecting pork off NASA for a decade anymore

Yeah thats a good development at least

>>10623593
You're jinxing it.

>>10623493
rest in fucking peace Skylab, killed by Nixon

>>10623603
I don't think its a competition between government and private as NASA is actively fostering comercial interests in space. If anything, Congress should be happy about private competition coming in because that means that they don't have to pay for BLEO missions anymore which is probably one of the big reasons why they've gimped NASA for decades.

>>10623605
>knocks on wood

>>10623631
NASA should be only concerned with BLEO as far as I'm concerned, leave the LEO to private commercial companies

Flagship missions, pushing the boundaries of human spaceflight ever further, thats what NASA is/was best at

>>10623671
there's nothing in LEO beyond comsats for commercial ventures, restricting their access to the moon, mars and the belt would be a tragedy
NASA should be concerned with distributing government funds and nothing else

>>10623671
If the BFR works even 25% as well as they say it will, then the private sector has a dramatically better BLEO capability than NASA has.

I envision NASA's future role as designing and operating space missions, and then paying SpaceX to use their rockets for them. NASA provides the cargo, SpaceX does transport.

>>10623674
imagine actually thinking this way
>commercial space stations
>space hotels
>private space labs
>space tourism
>Etc

I'm not saying restrict anything, I'm saying NASA's priority should be deep space not LEO, thats where all the funding should go, thats how we get shit like NTR engines and mars missions and venus flybys funded when theres no ISS to babysit anymore once its handed over to private companies or de-orbited or taken apart, whatever its fate.

>>10623688
I'm sorry anon I'm too busy jacking it to dank lunar titanium

>>10623671
There's still stuff NASA can do in LEO, but they shouldn't be forced to stay there for decades.

>>10623674
>NASA should be concerned with distributing government funds and nothing else
No. That mindset is what made the US throw away the ability to send people to the moon and beyond and then waste billions to barely reach low Earth orbit for decades.

>>10623688
Not so sound pessimistic, but I don't think space tourism will take off unless theres a significant drop in launch prices. For example, with Blue Origin, even their relatively cheap karman line hopper was too expensive.

>>10623719
lel who cares about NASA's ability to move payloads into orbit, now that commercial space is on their game they can just buy that capability

>>10623719
>That mindset is what made the US throw away the ability to send people to the moon and beyond and then waste billions to barely reach low Earth orbit for decades.

Yeah we need to get away from the mindset ASAP

>>10623724
That was the intent behind Venture Star, NASA would lease it for flights, instead of operating an expensive to maintain fleet of shuttles

>>10623724
I didn't say anything about NASA delivering payloads though?

>>10623727
that was your entire argument why NASA should do things other than distribute money, anon
although they should keep making satellites and telescopes, they seem to be pretty good at those

>>10623745
No. My argument was that NASA should be pushing the boundaries of spaceflight. This doesn't specifically mean carrying cargo. This means making telescopes to see deeper into space, sending probes and people to other worlds, and to help foster a permanent human presence of Earth.

By focusing on distributing money to keep Congress happy NASA is restricting itself. Because what projects makes Congress happy and what's best for spaceflight don't align. Things such as nebulous development projects, vanity missions for presidents, or givning money to "prefered" contractors. By focusing on those things NASA was held back for decades.

>>10623771
oh no, I never specified keeping Congress happy. what I really meant was that they shouldn't be trying to design a rocket (on account of congress) and should restrict themselves to buying launch services and designing payloads

SHUT UP BITCH
IT BEGINS

>>10623788
please explain

>>10623788
>In a grain silo above the ground there lived a hobbit

>>10621039

Intergalactic, Planetary.
Planetary, Intergalactic.

>>10623797
They've opened up the skin and marked up the hull for "ACS pods." My best guess there is that ACS stands for Attitude Control System.

>>10623771
nasa should be doing basic research and the rest should be outsourced to private companies, with nasa acting as a mere customer

this includes outsourcing all launches, LEO space station, and everything possible

it is the only way to remove politics and bureaucracy from spaceflight

>>10623803
my money is still on them using the autogenus pressurization gasses off of Raptor for hot methane RCS

>>10623269
Yeah, but canceling the project to build Cuba was not really an option.

>>10623437
>a Shuttle replacement would disrupt that pork.
Would make opportunities for more pork.

>>10623801
Beastie Boys

>>10623820
Niggers have proven over and over again that they are submoral animals. The real question is why isnt anyone listening.

>>10623466
Yeah, too bad they didn't get to make those decisions from here in the future, with the benefit of hindsight.

Perhaps they could have foreseen that the Shuttle would get Proxmired into near worthlessness. But they must have forgotten to tuen on their precognition.

>>10623820
Not really. The X33 was meant to be made by one company where the company can find ways to make the vehicle cheaper. Meanwhile the Shuttle was made all across the country and its cost could be made nebulous so that the expense can be covered.

>>10623466
shuttle was a good idea at the time, and the rise of spacex shows that the rationale behind the shuttle - rapidly reusable two stage launch vehicle - is the correct one

unfortunately shuttle turned to shit during development and ought to have been cancelled in early 90s at the latest, no matter how much effort was already spent on it

sunk cost fallacy is a lethal one indeed

good thing that musk does not seem to suffer this fallacy at all, considering how he is not afraid to make radical changes to starship design on a whim

>NASA this
>NASA that
>NASA should do this
>no NASA needs to do this

SHUT THE FUCK UP FAGGOTS

It's clear as human we can never come to an agreement, there will always be an impasse, this is why the selection of long-term goals and milestones in space for NASA should be left up to AI to decide, that way there is no room for bias or political bullshit getting in the way

As luck would have it we have such AI capability already, let's see what the AI recommends as NASA's next steps-

>>10623493
Even though I'm all in for space exploration and exploitation. But it is hard to argue with Nixon that space expenditures were a priority, but not the ONLY priority, when deciding how to spend federal dollars.

At most, I'd argue that it was a higher priority than Nixon ( and Presidents and Congresses since his time) have rated it. But I also recognize that such decisions will have to reflect more points of view than mine.

I am hopeful the emergence of for-profit manned space flight is coming at the right moment, and not prematurely. And I'd wish thatthe division of tasks between industry and NASA was bieng more thoughtfully defined.

>>10623810
This nigga knows.

Let NASA do all of the science stuff, let the private sector handle all of the engineering bits, because they can do it way cheaper.

>>10622641
Didn't know ISRO came to /sci.

>>10623845
okay now this one has potential, only an AI could be smart enough to come up with this

>>10623870
This AI has somewhat different goals...

>>10623834
NASA could've realized how poorly the Shuttle was coming along really early. From the fact that every single payload available would have to be launched on Shuttle in order to keep the launch rates high enough to reduce the cost per launch to something that was reasonable. From having the DOD dictate massive design elements even though they were reluctant to use the Shuttle. From the first few flights of Shuttle that showed that it won't be able to meet its reuse goals without a massive redesign.

By that point NASA could still restart production of Saturn V and save themselves the trouble of Shuttle. NASA could even use the excuse of heritage hardware like what SLS is doing now to justify it to Congress.

>>10623844
Hopefully BFR doesnt end up like Shuttle part 2 for SpaceX. Good luck to them though!

>>10623845
Dude, AI can't even tell the difference between a person and a tree reliably when driving cars and that has been in development for a decade. Theres no way an AI that can manage an entire space agency can be made today. There's still some good a human run NASA could do, it just needs to be cut off from political winds.

>>10623889
Nonesense, AI will lead us to the right path

>NASA still needed to develop a detailed plan in order to determine how it would implement any eventual plan.

Already this AI shows a deep and comprehensive understanding of the way NASA operates

>>10623909
Where are you getting these pictures from?

>>10623912
Have you been living under a rock? Be warned its surprisingly addicting

https://talktotransformer.com/

>>10621039

>>10623227
This. At worst, they could haul mass off the moon and use it as shielding instead of hauling it off Earth. At best, they could use mass from asteroids.

>>10623870
>Advance the development of a new generation of advanced launch vehicle systems that will maximize reliability, minimize payload weight, and accelerate rapid transition-from one crewed mission to the next.
Shouldn't it be "MAXIMIZE payload weight" as thats whats needed for launch vehicles? A launch vehicle with minimized payload weight wouldn't be very useful.

>>10623915
Thank you.

>>10623923
heh

>>10623923
Kek

>>10623929
Are you questioning the AI's wisdom?

It can assign budgets too, no more congressional bickering! Only progress!

>>10623843
X33 did not have built in pork distribution. Congress could add that feature easily, they have a lot of practice.

But yeah, I was not so much thinking about that specific program is shuttle replacement programs in general.

At the end of the day, far as I can see, the problem for so long was a lack of committed leadership at the national level to get behind any program with resources enough to actually accomplish it, and a sufficient commitment in time to get shit done. Kennedy's death and elevation to martyr status ensured Johnson would keep Apollo going with full national support -- by the time Nixon came along with less interest in preserving Kennedy's legacy alive, the program was ready to land on the moon and let Nixon take a bow for that. Since then, national leadership has consisted of each new President and occasional congressional leaders announcing some new way to go to Mars or something, setting the date after they will be out of office, and then not committing real resources to it.

I guess there's only enough money for 2 SLS launches.

>>10623889
>NASA...just needs to be cut off from political winds.

No, because that is fucking impossible.

Those of us who support space exploration need to get better at directing political winds.

>>10623957
it is impossible to cut nasa from politics completely, but it is possible to minimize the role of nasa into merely defining the basic mission goals and providing fixed price payments for meeting those goals, COTS style

leave architecture design, manufacturing, ownership and operation to private companies

that way political interference in spaceflight will be vastly reduced, while taxpayer funding will still flow

>>10624020
>operation to private companies
That kind of mindset at the outset would never have given us Apollo

What do you guys think about the Smart Resuse system on the Vulcan?

I think it's a neat idea and that it can definitely work. While it may prove to not be as cheap in the long run compared to flying back the booster, things could turn out to be the opposite and it would've been good to have multiple ways of reusing rocket parts available. Plus it seems simpler to implement than flyback boosters.

>>10624029
private contractors were instrumental in the US beating Soviets to the Moon, and anyway, Apollo was kind of a pointless stunt for the money spent on it, we may have made more progress is that funding went into trying to reduce launch costs instead

>>10624045
>pointless stunt

Not to me, not to millions of Americans

>>10624020
There should probably be things NASA demands from all American made spacecraft that are going to be allowed to launch from US government pads and participate in US government missions though, like certain levels of quality standards, a universal docking port and some level of standardized controls, a certain reliability standard, stuff like that to ensure that even if you could fly ten different rockets from five different companies that they will all be able to carry a spacecraft that can dock with all other US government approved spacecraft in the same way, which astronauts don't have to re-train to understand how to fly, which can be relied upon to be safe for human operation and to fail out as safely and predictably as possible.

You're right though insofar as political interests should only be dictating the general mandate, NASA administrators should only be coming up with the general plan of how to get it done, and the engineering, economics, and manufacturing of the tools to get that job done should strictly be the responsibility of those who actually know how to do it.

>>10624035
Makes sense if the most valuable component for them to recover is the engine housing and engines, I wonder if there isn't a better way than using a helicopter?

They have to launch over ocean right? That may limit options then since they don't want it to touch the water ideally

>EM-1 will launch on EM-2

Two missions for the price of one!

>>10624035
On one hand it can work fine so long as the first stage engine block is light enough for a helicopter to lift and it's technologically not as programming heavy or novel as flying back the whole booster. Downsides are such a system can't be implemented if the first stage booster block is too heavy for normal helicopters to carry, it's still going to be more expensive than a first stage flyback because you're still losing all the tankage, plumbing, etc which will incur greater reflight costs than only a mild refurbishment, and it adds more dry weight to the system that isn't going to contribute anything to flying the payload, thus reducing overall payload capacity.

>>10621043
What is a magnetic bottle.

>>10623813
cancel Cuba build Orion
>>10624048
the best thing that came out of it was confirming that there wasn't anything weird that would kill a human beyond Earth's magnetic field and Skylab
I guess the samples were good too

aw shit boy's they doin it
https://spacenews.com/apollo-fusion-obtains-hall-thruster-technology-from-jpl/

>>10624134
ion thrusters look so cool

>>10621039
I propose to change the name of this general for /uuusfg/ USA USA USA Spaceflight General

Because you know, the USA is the only country in the world with a space program.

>>10624183
Unanimous consensus,

Motion is approved

>>10624183
No. If you want to bring more attention to non-American spaceflight then you mention it rather than complain about it. On top of that, American spaceflight is by far the most active compared to other countries. Either stop trolling or stop posting.

>>10624175
yeah, its a pity my farts have more thrust than ion thrusters.

>>10624197
switch to electric farts

>>10624183
The nips are litterly firing copper rods at rocks in space and will have those samples back on earth in a year
And ESA also has a shitload of projects next to the ISS joint partnership, and unlike NASA where a majority of the research and projects gets canceled every 4 years esa actually finishes the work they start.
https://www.esa.int/ESA/Our_Missions
And india and china are pretty much backtracking the entire US spaceprogram staring in the 60's.
In the next decade they will catch up.

>>10624215
>firing copper rods
close, they're using a shaped charge to shoot a jet of super hot molten copper

>>10624175
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opM5pEkMuWs&t=10s
They really have that sci-fi aesthetics.
Also, it really cheap and simple technology, I wonder why it not more common.

>>10624134
Air-breathing version when?

>>10624250
To do what?

>>10624215
Does ExoMars mission still happening in 2020? I remember they had issues with 2016 mission and their lander crashed.

>>10624251
https://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Engineering_Technology/World-first_firing_of_air-breathing_electric_thruster

>>10624251
theoretically if you hall thrustered atmospheric air in an ultra low earth orbit you could actively orbit in the stratosphere with nothing but your thruster degrading and your solar panels getting dirty to stop you

>>10624262
ah no I lied, it's thermosphere altitudes, not stratosphere

>>10624255
Wiki says its still happening, not that it's a reliable source.

>>10624256
>>10624262

Thats a neat concept.
satelites with that kind of tech could outlive humanity if shtf on earth.

Looks like they're using Falcon 9 cold gas RCS thrusters for attitude control.

>>10624305
that was fast
so it's nitrogen, right?

>>10624307
The Falcon 9 thruster pods use nitrogen, so I assume there's no changes there.

>>10624305
why do they even bother with the sheet metal on top?

>>10624293
I would be pretty neat to dip down into the atmosphere to get reaction propellant, then use it as a space tugboat to boost satellites into higher orbits.

Does anyone know what the European contributions will be for LOP-G? I know that ESA will supply the ESPRIT module, but is there anything else? Will ESA use the Ariane 5 for such missions or wait until Ariane 6 is flying and proven?

>>10622326
25 hours is close enough to not fuck you up.

>>10624634
How much mass can 5 move to TLI?

>>10624638
it's like 24 hours and 40 minutes or something

>>10624634

>>10624672
will Soyuz finally fulfill it's intended purpose as a lunar module?

>>10624639
The best I can find is some forum post on NASA Spaceflight which claims 9.4t. Which may not be enough to put modules up there, but could work for resupply missions.

Source: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=34151.0

>>10624638
No it's not, they have done tests with martian day length and the subjects experienced a state of permanent jet lag. You can't just handwave away billions of years of evolution based on a 24 hour cycle because it's "close enough".

>>10624672
I was wondering where the Russians were sleeping, but then I realized.
>they sleep outside

>>10624734
This is literally the first I've ever heard of this and stands in direct contradiction to all of the experiments I have ever heard of. A citation is desperately needed to show that you are not full of it.

>>10624672
wait a fucking second
which vehicles are these?
from left to right:
SLS
Delta IV (ded)
???
Falcon 9 w/ Dragon 2?
???

>>10624743
What experiments? You are retarded and full of shit

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi8sZ2R2IriAhUf8HMBHS8xBMUQzPwBegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.space.com%2F5668-living-mars-time-scientists-suffer-perpetual-jet-lag.html&psig=AOvVaw0yxgNFvZAjJL2MXxqhVEDj&ust=1557362120782102

>>10624763
And this

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/12/011224075947.htm

>>10624767
most of the issues plaguing those guys are due to the fact that they're still living on Earth
if they were living on Mars the natural day cycle would help them adjust, and also everybody else there would be on the same schedule

>>10624785
Now you are just making shit up with literally zero proof.

>>10624175
The multi electrode ones are even cooler.

>>10624791
lel so are you, none of those studies were controlled well enough and we don't have data from the surface of mars

>>10624799
Better than the shit you are spouting

>>10624305
I love how mad max this thing looks

>>10624799
>>10624806
Can we agree that the natural circadian rhythm is slightly longer than 24 hours, and is modulated by light, both natural and artificial?

>>10624825
yeah sounds reasonable

>>10624757
SLS
Atlas V
Zenit 3F
Falcon 9
H-IIA

>>10624835
cool thanks
what the fuck is a H-IIA, and can such a tiny thing deliver any payload to TLI?

>>10624837
Nip rocket

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-IIA

A second RCS thruster group was added.

>>10624854

>>10623933
what is the name of this meme

>>10624854
Huh, looks like they're just re-using falcon-9 RCS blocks.

>>10624900
I mean why not, right? you've already got a bunch of them just lying around due to how many block 4 boosters have been scrapped after recovery

hmmmmmm
delicious memes

>>10624893
It's in the subtitles.

>>10624920
better

>>10624342
>>10624262
>“This result means air-breathing electric propulsion is no longer simply a theory but a tangible, working concept, ready to be developed, to serve one day as the basis of a new class of missions.”

Exciting, so what is the potential, how far can they take this?

I like the idea of satellites scooping up their propellant and staying on orbit longer. What about developing specialized orbital re-boosters that generate their fuel and the fuel to reboost other satellites or space stations via this method?

Also whats the feasibility of using a more advanced/powerful version of these to act in vacuum the way SRB's act on launch? As a kind of booster that accelerates the craft into its final orbit, and then jettisoned, letting the final stage retain all its fuel for a great dV potential for some probe mission out to the outer planets for example, so that it can get there faster.

It feels like this thing can be such a potential game changer, you have a way to generate thrust without requiring extra propellant to be carried, just the thruster itself, but whether that's a significant enough amount of thrust per engine for the kinds of implementations I just mentioned is the question I suppose.

>>10625004
Meant to quote
>>10624256

>>10625004
it's an electric thruster dude, it generates millinewtons of thrust

>>10625019
well make it generate more!

>>10625004
Ion drives are really only useful for station keeping because of the abysmal TWR and super high power requirements.

>>10625036
air-breathing ion drives are really cool because they have an ISP determined by the life of their consumables, but are otherwise exactly as meme as regular electric propulsion

What happened to all of the anons who were designing their own rocket engines? Are yall busy with finals?

>>10625043
Yeah it's a great application for keeping satellites up more or less indefinitely but that's pretty much the only use for ion drive unless some super magic fusion source that weighs nothing can be developed, also if thin film solar continues to get lighter on its current trend then it could absolutely have applications for human flight in the inner system. Would require very substantial weight improvements though.

>>10625004
Mostly it means LEO and VLEO satellites can stay in orbit for a very long time.
Could be a huge cost saver for things like Starlink.

PLACE BETS NOW! What's blue origin going to announce about Shackleton? A Moon mining mission? A new launch site for extreme inclination orbits? That they're going to finally launch stuff into orbit?

>>10625043
>consumables
but an air breathing ion drive shouldn't have consuma... oh wait it uses fucking OXYGEN plasma. That's gonna chew stuff up.
>>10625065
keep an eye on perovskites. So one big determinant of the mass of spess solar panels is the thickness of radiation shielding. Turns out like 5-15 micrometers of glass is enough to add years of life to a solar panel over fucking nothing at all. Well guess what? Perovskites don't care much about radiation cause they're made of fucking lead and what not. Even when they do get damaged you just heat them up and they self heal. And you can make em' real fucking thin, like 2 micron, much thinner than other solar cells. In the lab they're already as good as gallium arsenide in terms of efficiency. They ain't too great here on earth cause water causes them to degrade. Well guess what doesn't have much water?
>>10624342
>>space tugboat
are sort of a meme. You spend 6 months boosting on ion on drive going through rad belts. Adds like 7 years worth of equivalent rad exposure that you would get at GEO. It's all electrons though, so maybe you could do something to shield it?
>>10624293
except most reaction wheels don't last worth a damn. Once you lose pointing ability, and hit the atmosphere ass ways, you're fucked.. Maybe if we get bitchin' mag lev reaction wheels this'll be a thing, until like some shitty code boinks the wrong bits and it all goes to shit.

>>10625241
none of the above

>>10625244
The thing I love about the perovskites is that they have a ridiculously high maximum theoretical efficiency, something like 80%

>>10625244
Damn with panels 2 micron thick you could definitely get the energy density for those fast af vasimir trajectories, although I guess it would also depend heavily on how the panels are spread and stiffened out but I'm pretty sure the weight savings on the panels would let you have a decent support system without btfoing the weight budget.

>>10625244
all ion drives have erosion, basically
it really limits what they can do, and most research is into either eliminating that or pumping up the power (usually both)

>>10625241
>A new launch site for extreme inclination orbits?

What's the point of that?

>>10625302
Americans have this bizarre fascination with not dropping rockets on villages, I guess

>>10625302
It's a joke anon. What's the best ppace to launch satellites from to get into a polar orbit? Why the poles of course! Maybe Blue origin will announce an antarctic launch site.

>>10625321
ho ho ho

>>10623593
>Congress would have to be diabolical to try to stop SpaceX or Blue Origin from going beyond low Earth orbit.
The question is if there will be a real commercial interest in going beyond LEO/GEO.

>>10625373
both Blue Origin and SpaceX have stated an interest in going beyond earth orbit, although Blue mostly wants to go to the moon as far as I can tell

>>10625373
I think with Elon, he's banking on the "if you build it, they will come" goal of BLEO operations. Right now there is no strong economic incentive to go beyond low Earth orbit because there's nothing out there worth turning a profit for. But there may be a reason once someone sets up a basic economy out there even if the profits aren't immediate. It would kinda be like how the American west was settled.

>>10624183

>>10624634
Ariane 6 isn't planned for heavy launch

>>10625382
>>10625398
That's my point. Elon and Jaff want to, but unless they can make money doing it either it won't happen or it'll only happen once. The big problem I see is that at present the only commercial value for space is satellites, tourism, and micro-g research. I really doubt research is going to pay any bills simply because unless you have governments willing to fund a research station like the ISS, entities wanting to do research won't have the funds to support space operations. Tourism has an economies of scale problem where even though there are people willing to pay eight figures to go to space, there's not enough them to sustain a booming space economy, although if you had another compelling reason to host a space station/moon base, it could probably make some additional money. With satellites, you could imaginably run a business by mining materials from the moon and shipping them to LEO to reduce what has to be launched from Earth's surface. But there's so many unkowns to it. You'd have to be able to, without consumables from Earth because that would make it unviable, have a way to extract rocket fuel from moon, mine on the moon, refine on the moon or in orbit, and do assembly in orbit. We think we can do all of that, but it's a lot of R&D and risk for a private company to undergo. Typically you'd want NASA to figure it out, so that private companies don't have to be the first mover and risk spectacular failure after investing huge sums of money. But NASA has been thumbing their butt. But even if all the problems were solved, that would hurt SpaceX and BO, since as launch providers any progress in in-orbit assembly reduces payload demand at worst, and does nothing at best. And you've got the same kind of problems with deep space mining and bringing it back to Earth. Unproven technologies, huge R&D costs, and uncertain strategies.

>>10625382
>>10625398
>>10625580
Elon and Jaff are people with too much money/responsibilities only interested in new frontier fantasies or the nolvety appeal.
None of them truly know (or care) about advancing mankind as a space civilization, they only want their names as part of what will be one of the greatest achievement of mankind. Assuming they think beyond their lifetime.

If you had rational people with long term plans and budget to drive mankind into a star-faring space civilization none of them would try sending men on the surface of Mars until it doesn't feel difficult. Even a Moonbase would only be useful if "somehow" it was impossible to work on adapting human to space in Earth Orbit, or way later when you do need humans there instead of robots.

So the first step to get mankind into space colonization is to reeducate people to look up for more useful achievement and long term project.
It's part of the reasons I don't expect real advance in space colonization before we invent immortality and really get into genetic modification.

>>10624827
In that case literally all you need for an experiment is to block all natural lighting and simulate a Martian day cycle using artificial light, correct? Gravity isn't what regulates the circadian rhythm.

>>10625580
even if there are no significant private funds available, there is this constant stream of 20 billion dollars per year from government, it is enough money for a nice moon base and beginning of a mars colony, the only question is how to divert it from corrupt hacks towards our boy elon

>>10625637
Cuck

What will be the next big SpaceX failure?

>>10626285

Astronauts or tourists.

It is sad human lives have to be lost but it is the only way to put an end to that incredibly harmful to space flight private company.

Thoughts.
(pls no bully)

>>10626297
What kind of post is this? I can't separate sarcasm, b8 and genuine stupidity on this site anymore.

>>10626390
It's probably a troll considering the fact that very few people think SpaceX is harmful to spaceflight.

>>10626390
Sarcasm you dingus
He's obviously padorying oldspace shills

>>10626390
>>10626398
Very few people understand why SpaceX is harmful to spaceflight.
Thought on my side it's only Elon musk the problem, he wasting people time and money trying to make moon/mars rated rocket when he should just be helping the engineers make access to orbit reliable and cheaper.

>>10626415
>padorying oldspace shills
Believe me or not I don't actually come here often, what is that oldspace meme?
The belief that everything good was made in the 70s? Or that there should be no private company in space?

>>10626390
>I can't separate sarcasm, b8 and genuine stupidity on this site anymore.
That's probably because you're an actual idiot.

>>10626431
>he should just be helping the engineers make access to orbit reliable and cheaper.
But SpaceX has already achieved that. The Falcon 9 is a very cheap launcher even without reuse IIRC, and SpaceX is constantly modifying the design to improve them. So if SpaceX fails to reach Mars then they have the Falcons to fall back on as revenue generators. Or if SpaceX were to completely fail and dissolve, then there are still other launch companies who are now pushing for cheaper launchers too.

how meme is lunar mining?

>>10626462
big meme, like your sex life

>>10626462
It's not a meme. Even basic mining such as gathering regolith or sifting for water is essential for even a small semi-permanent lunar base. Theres other metals on the moon that can be used for construction.

However, He3 mining is a big meme. There's one ton of He3 per 150 million tons of regolith. So that endeavor isn't really worth it.

>>10626462
Mining for what?

>>10626452
They are still far from it and he isn't helping.
The Falcon 9 are still far to be reliable and bringing them back into service still cost as much as building a new rocket. They even went on saying once that they were abandoning the 2nd stage reusability even if Elon backpedaled (likely against his will). They only survived thanks' to governement support and right now they are wasting the limited private funds they have on the ridiculous BFR project to satisfy Elon's ego.
BFR which 'of course' is supposed to replace the Falcon 9 despite the need for smaller, cheaper shuttle service.

Only way I can mitigate his action is if he turned out to be a liar who never intended to go for the Moon and Mars, but wanted support and investment for reusable rocket. But repeated lies about ridiculous project like his own is why all space program ended up looking like waste of money (and I don't consider it's just "his money").

Other companies aren't pushing for cheaper launch because of any messianic aura from SpaceX. It's just technology marching on. Governmental space agency could have done the same if they funding didn't depend on whoever is president for the next 5 years.
But if other company get no trust because SpaceX oversold itself and fail, that's might be another harm done.

Well said friend and stay strong we are winning this.

>>10626588
>bringing them back into service still cost as much as building a new rocket
Do you have a source on that?

>Other companies aren't pushing for cheaper launch because of any messianic aura from SpaceX
IIRC Ariane 6 is being developed as a response to Falcon 9.

You still haven't explained why SpaceX is somehow harmful to spaceflight. You just explained why you think SpaceX isn't being smart to develop BFR.

>>10626368
do you know what a "moment arm" is?

>>10626462
it really depends on what you're mining for, if you want oxygen, water, iron, titanium, aluminum, or silicon, you're in luck

>>10626588
lol F9 is more reliable than A5 now. Pretty sure you’re a troll but whatever

>>10626462
The only thing worth mining in the solar system is the hypothetical metalic hydrogen in Jupiter...the rest of rocks are worthless for the cost and headaches related to.

>>10625513
Wait, why would India actively shit up space and make it a dangerous place to be? This isn't like them.

>>10626588
>they're not going to develop a reusable second stage for their medium lift Falcon 9
>so why are they trying to develop a reusable second stage for their new super heavy lift rocket???
it's because you have more margins to play with the bigger you make your rocket

>>10626688
>the rest of rocks are worthless
The rocks, while maybe worthless to Earth, can be used to build space habitats. That way less material overall would have to be sent off Earth.

>>10626588
you are an idiot

>>10626688
Helium.

Dragon at ISS

Cancer treatment investigation among science delivered by SpaceX Dragon to Station

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/cancer-treatment-science-delivered-dragon-station/

>>10626740
helium fusion is a meme, it is much harder than ordinary fusion which we still cannot achieve

visual flyby of whirlpool galaxy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBhqr0KkntQ

>>10626751
Maybe he ment helium just as a gas. If I recall correctly, there is a helium shortage coming up.

>>10626762
like lmao wtf nigger just suck up some alpha decay like how is helium shortage even real

What does /sci/ think about skylon. Everyday astronaut teached me that SSTO is bad, so whats up ?

>>10626603
First: Back to >>10626431
I said ""on my side it's only Elon musk the problem"" I've got admiration for the actual engineers who work for SpaceX while he take credit and sell stupid expectation which is going to lose the trust of investor. With some luck he will be ejected out of the company (just like with TESLA).

Next, I based my observation on the various return about what it facture his client, how SpaceX had subvention and how they naturally expect a benefit ...to spend on the BFR. (link below)
Never said they didn't make a gain, thought the very first rocket were not cost effective but you have to subtract the ridiculous exaggeration of Elon (or his shills).
I'll be amazed if they do reuse rocket 100 times with 100% efficiency, but again if Elon is incapable of listening to common sense he claim to want to ditch F9 as soon as he get his bigger rocket. So no "falling backing back on F9 for revenue". Despite it being a logical choice.
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/9/17254384/spacex-falcon-9-block-5-upgrade-rocket-reusability-savings

>IIRC Ariane 6 is being developed as a response to Falcon 9.
Oh please, Ariane 6 have LONG been planned smaller and cheaper simply because the ESA realized that Ariane 5 was too big and needed several clients to piggyback to meet ends. If it was actually built as a response they'd have tried the reusable route since there's no other way to match one.
You overestimate how fast they adapt.

>>10626674
Who care about A6 here? If you want to compare reusability it's against the only other one we had: The space shuttle.
Since the Falcon9 is unmanned they aren't counting crash on their way back and reliability have a risk to drop sharply if they fail to repair a component/rocket.

>>10626828
I'm more interested in the cryogenic ramjet it would use.
SSTO is inefficient for rocket
For spaceplane, we don't have the engines yet which would make it work, and the maintenance will be costly.

[funds securing]

>>10626837
learn how to speak english first, then come back and try posting

>>10626828
>Everyday astronaut

>>10626837
>I said ""on my side it's only Elon musk the problem"" I've got admiration for the actual engineers who work for SpaceX while he take credit and sell stupid expectation which is going to lose the trust of investor. With some luck he will be ejected out of the company (just like with TESLA).
How is that harmful to spaceflight though? If Elon is as flawed as you said, then the issues would be only in SpaceX and not spaceflight as a whole.

>>10626848
more importantly, what the fuck do the words facture and subvention mean
also I like how he attributes the words of Elon's rabid retarded fanbase to Elon himself
generally a bad post, all around

>>10626859
I really hope that he is just misinformed. Sure, SpaceX isn't perfect but they aren't an "incredibly harmful to space flight private company."

>>10626867
apparently "facture" is an extremely old middle english word about the way painters use their paint that nobody has used in centuries, and subvention is just another word for "subsidy" that also nobody has used for centuries
so extremely misinformed

>>10626877
>>10626867
I think >>10626837 and >>10626297 are different people judging from the way they post.

>>10626881
no shit, one is a coherent shitposter and the other one's some sort of ESL, probably a russian

What keeps you up at night?
>a titan surface probe is a finalist for nasa funding, but it might go to yet another comet mission

>>10626904
>What keeps you up at night?
That the United States threw away the ability to go to the moon and beyond because they didn't want to pay for another Apollo and were afraid that NASA would keep pushing for it if they had the capability. Resulting in a gimped space program that barely did anything in LEO for decades.

>>10626848
Told you, Elon Musk is exaggerating his claim and selling ridiculous new frontier fantasy, will setting as some sort of "Tony stark".
Everyone will remember his grandiose promise, so when he fail to delivers investor MAY lose trust. Meanwhile he's keeping the attention away from his competitor who happen to be other technology who may also be better on the long term.
His new frontier fantasy that will happen thanks' to an unique and marvelous BFR is keeping people from being interested in long term infrastructure like space-dock or you know: doing large scale research to know wether or not human can survive on Mars first.

again: SOME people think SpaceX is harmful
ME, I only think it's Elon Musk and thanks god there's engineers to do a very useful product. At this point I'm hoping he is lying and is somehow trying to shield the company by being the only one with ridiculous claim. But with what happened to TESLA I think he's better gone.

>>10626859
The 'shills' part refer to exaggeration of Elon musk own success. He cultivate the kinds.
Also by facture I meant "bills" that I forgot to translate. I let you guess which nationality I am if you believe it matter.
Since you are interested in feedback, your post is very low quality. As are the retard who just shit on ESL despite not being able to fill simple error by themselves.

>>10626904
>Venus could have been a second Earth
>space race could have been much more exciting - the race to be the first to land on Venus
>the race to colonize Venus
>what would it be like for humans to step foot on and breath the atmosphere of another world
>how would we even begin to colonize Venus once we confirmed its gravity, atmosphere, temperature are all ESI 0.899 or so
>far distant future where both Venus and Earth and the langrange points of these worlds are filled with humans, stations, cities, bases, and daily interplanetary travel is a reality
>what would war between Venus and Earth nations look like
>what kind of missions would Venusians launch towards Mercury while Earth focuses on Martian exploration/colonization
>etc..
>instead Venus is a hot, crushing, sulfuric acidic hellhole

aaaaaa

>>10626668
Yes. Where do you see that as a problem? The actual space station would be modular and configured as desired; the block is just a placeholder. Now that I look at it again it'd be better not to have a thruster on the reactor, but on various parts of the station and then just pull the reactor. If you're talking about the tether, it wouldn't be a rigid structure at all, just cables and hoses. The intake would be relatively independent of the station, it only has thrusters to counteract drag and gravity (since it'd be orbiting significantly below the station at the same angular velocity, it would lose altitude). It's only connected to get power and propellant for its thrusters, and to pipe atmospheric gases up to the station. The idea would be to fly the station as high as possible to minimize drag on its large, unaerodynamic structure, and fly the intake as low as possible to scoop O2/N to be used to maintain orbit.

>>10626867
They reduce the potential for Boeing, Lockheed, et al. to milk the government for funds to do nothing but thumb their butts for decades, which makes them harmful to the status quo.

>>10626925
I guess that makes more sense, but I think you're overthinking some of these issues. While Elon does hype up SpaceX plenty much, much of that hype is backed up by demonstrations of hardware which shows that SpaceX is a capable company.

>Elon Musk is exaggerating his claim and selling ridiculous new frontier fantasy, will setting as some sort of "Tony stark".
It does seem abit too grandiose of a goal, but he and SpaceX are at least attempting it. Rather than what most space companies/agencies do, make some presentations about how cool a base on Moon/Mars is but then never really do any real progress towards that goal. And even if SpaceX fails or struggles towards this goal, it'll make people look towards agencies like NASA and ask them "what the hell are you guys doing since Apollo?". And hopefully it'll encourage NASA and other agencies to actually do something in spaceflight beyond just growing crystals in tiny labs in LEO.

>Meanwhile he's keeping the attention away from his competitor who happen to be other technology who may also be better on the long term.
While SpaceX is very popular, its far from taking away attention from other companies. For example, Blue Origin is still getting attention despite only going to the Karman line.

>>10626925
>he's keeping the attention away from his competitor who happen to be WORKING ON other technology who may also be better on the long term.
Fixed

>>10626925
>when he fail to delivers investor

>>10626762
There was a shortage coming up since supplies have come as a byproduct of natural gas wells until now. Then some companies started prospecting directly for helium, and low and behold they started finding a bunch in Tanzania.

So, I've been playing too much Kerbal Space Program.
Them 60s people were fucking insane.
It's a goddamn miracle it didn't end up as a disaster.
I guess Cold War motivates people.
Also, I've been thinking on how to improve BFR. And it's quite easy.
2 options:
-Have Super heavy with a shitty nosecone SSTO. Refuel. Dock with Starship and payload, and voilà, you've got yourself a super-heavy lift booster in fucking orbit.
-Make a transfer stage. Same idea, but it's basically Starship without the payload.

Yes, it will take an insane amount of refuel trips to make it work, but oh baby will it go fast.

>>10627031
>Them 60s people were fucking insane.
Didn't LSD get popular in the 60s? Could explain alot.

>Have Super heavy with a shitty nosecone SSTO. Refuel. Dock with Starship and payload, and voilà, you've got yourself a super-heavy lift booster in fucking orbit
Neat idea, but why would that be necessary? The Super Heavy and Starship use the same engines so they both can go just as far in space. Plus Super Heavy has no way to reenter from Orbit so its pretty much stuck up there.

>>10626951
>It does seem abit too grandiose of a goal, but he and SpaceX are at least attempting it.
You see the problem, is that he shouldn't be attempting it either.
Musk isn't some grandiose visionary who have a long term plan on how mankind will colonize Mars. He just believe in "If we build it, they will come" and I'm not sure he even care if someone come up with a solution later, he just want to be known as the one who made it possible.
No one stop him because that's just words for now and he's the one who hold the paycheck. I'm sure he'll find some extremely rich tourists for the first flight, but that's not helping space infrastructure.

Governmental space agency don't need encouragement, they need funding that aren't cut every time there's a new president (maybe a restructuring for some), and in my opinion they ARE doing an excellent job at growing crystals in tiny labs and developing technologies that would be required for all the long duration missions that we might use later.
It's something people forget too easily. There's a lot of other prerequisite tech before we can live in space, the spacesuit, the life-support, coffee machine that work in 0G and other greatest achievement of mankind.
There's no reason to send human to pick rock on the Moon or Mars since robot exist. However there is a need to study the impact of space on the human body if we ever want to colony. Wether or not it's cheaper to build a moonbase or a bigger rotating space station is a debate worth having.

Companies like Bigelow do more for the future of mankind in space than anyone supporting to colonize Mars by sending human with old technology and improvising because they die there.

>While SpaceX is very popular, its far from taking away attention from other companies.
Well, that's not a blackout. But they are keeping away from less showy company/tech.

>>10626960
We are talking about the BFR to Mars, you should take time to read.
You still have to explain the oldspace meme.

>>10627044
Well it would be a disposable Super-Heavy. For when you need to push lead into space.
I'm more fond of my second idea, because the tug stage should able to barely push Starship in a highgly eccentric orbit and still have fuel left to get back to LEO , for re-use.

>>10626925
Ah, you're French then
That mad about your destroyed space program? Wait until Bezos finally gets his rocket in the air and destroys your last remaining market

>>10627048
>Companies like Bigelow do more for the future of mankind in space
>my eccentric billionaire is better than your eccentric billionaire
Yikes!

>>10627088
Worse, my failed eccentric billionaire is better than your successful eccentric billionaire

>>10627088
Are you that desperate to be contrarian? Billionaires have nothing to do with this.
Bigelow make INFLATABLE SPACE HABITAT and it seem to work. That's a technology any space infrastructure need, even on the surface of a planet.

>>10627083
Hush, I take comfort in how my country isn't governed by a manchild plutocrat.

>>10627083
I'm French and fuck ArianeSpace.
They're just a money-grabbing pork jobs agency at this point. Well, actually for the last two decades.
Can you fucking imagine ESA has about 2/3rd NASA's budget and still can't a person into space?

>>10627102
>Are you that desperate to be contrarian? Billionaires have nothing to do with this.
>Bigelow make INFLATABLE SPACE HABITAT and it seem to work.
Are you actually fucking retarded? SpaceX and Bigelow were both founded by eccentric billionaires, both of whom want to go to the moon and Mars.
>Robert Bigelow said "We as a company have lunar ambitions. ... and we also have Mars ambitions as well."
And Bigelow has a balloon on the ISS. Elon has a profitable rocket company flying reused liquid orbital boosters, and has accomplished what people literally thought was impossible. Bigelow bought inflatable habitat tech from NASA and finished its development. I'm not sayin it's not cool or important, because it is, but you're a fucking idiot for criticising Musk fanboys while praising Bigelow in the same post. Also, Bigelow is American. Frogs are only good at sucking thick American cock.

>>10627126
You are trying too hard to shitpost anon, Bigelow make the infrastructure needed for all future exploration/colonization of space.
Who funded Bigelow doesn't matter as they aren't planning retarded plan like abandoning all inflatable space-module market as soon as you can can send a gigantic one to Mars on Elon's BFT. That's what make this company more useful than all the retarded Mars Direct or Mars one shills.
Your racist slurs really make you pitiable.

>>10627162
>Bigelow make the infrastructure needed for all future exploration/colonization of space.
And you call muskrats deluded holy shit. Stop sucking off some billionaire.

>>10627048
>You see the problem, is that he shouldn't be attempting it either.
But why? Your post explains why it may fail, but doesn't adress why he shouldn't do it. If SpaceX fails on their Mars goal, then they have the Falcon 9 and BFR to be able to carry payloads for other important missions. As you can see with how frequently the design of BFR changes, SpaceX is completely fine with abandoning an idea if it won't work.

>There's no reason to send human to pick rock on the Moon or Mars since robot exist.
Sure. A probe every 5 years that digs 6 inches into the ground is alot if spaceflight is a rare and infrequent thing. Meanwhile actual geologists on Earth can go out and gather their own samples by the truck-load. Why can't space exploration be like that instead of relying on data gathered by a dozen or so probes that are older than most people on this board?

>Companies like Bigelow do more for the future of mankind in space than anyone supporting to colonize Mars by sending human with old technology and improvising because they die there.
First, while SpaceX is much more failure accepting than NASA I doubt that they'll send anyone to Mars until they're sure that no one dies. Second, Bigelow is making some new and cool technologies, but they've only sent one example to space. A closet on the ISS. Sure they have some demonstrations on Earth, but anyone can refit an inflatable bouncy house to look like a cool space habitat. What about some actual hardware demonstrations? Don't get me wrong, Bigelow's modules are neat and represent a step forward in space habitation, but they're falling into the trap that most abitous aerospace programs fall to, just talking about how cool their work is rather than actually doing it. Such demonstrations require a cheap launcher, and SpaceX is offering such services because they want to foster a bigger space industry.

>>10627048
>Well, that's not a blackout. But they are keeping away from less showy company/tech.
That is true. Often the best tech isn't showy. The Soyuz launcher is a fine example of this. But its those companies fault for not generating hype for themselves by being secretive about their developments or taking slow steps when it isn't really necessary. An example is Blue Origin.

Look. SpaceXs Mars goal isn't harmful to spaceflight like how the Shuttle was. SpaceX doesn't dominate the spaceflight scene like how NASA did, their equipment is safe unlike the Shuttle, and they can easily shift their goals to fit whatever works unlike NASA who was tied to an expensive vehicle due to political issues.

SpaceXs Mars goal is fine. I think you're worrying too much about it.

>>10626688
>metalic hydrogen in Jupiter
impossible to get to, impossible to get out and very, very likely not metastable anyway, so absolutely pointless.

>>10627102
They made one inflatable space habitat, the owner went insane and then ran out of money

>>10626462
We don't really know. All we know about is the regolith itself, but nobody has been going around prospecting on the moon yet. So who knows, maybe there's huge veins of platinum 2 meters under the surface. Or maybe there's just more stone and dust.

At least this spate of shitposting is entertaining

>>10627221
Even if there's only more stone and dust all the way down, much of it is iron, aluminum and titanium rich silicon basalt, which is basically the motherload for construction

whydunwe just move Titan to Earth

Saturn isn't using it to its full potential.

>>10627336
no

>>10627340
imgunnadoit anyways

>>10627344
godspeed

>>10627346
pls donate to my kickstarter

>>10627167
>But why? Your post explains why it may fail, but doesn't adress why he shouldn't do it.
There's no real reason to send human on Mars or the Moon outside of the achievement. As other in this thread pointed out we don't have thousand of the technologies required for a colony to work of have any efficiency. This is not even a foothold for future colonist, we'd end up needing to rebuild it entirely once we discover how we should have done it.
If one truly want to help with space colonization/use or exploiting asteroid the first step is making said equipment and the cheapest access to LEO for space-assembly, and studying human/life-support there or on the Moon if it turn out to be cheaper.

You are going to keep needing a small rocket for transfer so no ditching F9, and the BFR is simply too big to be useful without a long term plan. Hoping tourist will keep paying for it isn't a long term plan. SpaceX must would be better trying to sell it as a way to put large/heavy structure into orbit for use in much bigger project. But such project aren't built in a vacuum (figuratively speaking) the government isn't guaranteed to pay billions for those projects just because.

It would be horrible for people trust if they get scammed into an impossible project just to satisfy someone's Ego when they should be shown much better use of those technology.

>>10627167
>Why can't space exploration be like that instead
The probes are vastly more cost effective. If you gave to the searcher the budget for your manned missions with shovel they'd send 10 tons probes they've been dreaming to build to explore planet/area too dangerous for any manned mission, they'd capture an asteroid or set up a modest Moonbase and explain you what they are studying is the crew. Of course they'll still give the crew some exploration to do to test spacesuit and test reusable probes.

(...)

>>10627385
(...)
>Inflatable Space Station
I never said Bigelow were magical or flawless, their biggest error was developing the tech and expecting a market far before we had any launcher capable of putting their product up there. But in the short-term they are still developing a technology that's required for ANY FUTURE OF SPACE EXPLORATION, they build the infrastructure, even the infrastructure needed to test if human can life in space at all.

That's why I see them in a better light than selling fantasies that look awesome but aren't practical, useful or doable yet.
Again, I'm NOT arguing against SpaceX. The problem is just the egocentric CEO who is far to be the most reasonable and trustworthy businessman.
I'd even prefer to believe he's lying on everything and the BFR will stay a prototype until there's a real contractor willing to pay for it.

>Space Shuttle
I totally agree it was absolutely too big and expensive for the needs of the time and a result it did harm the development of any further cheaper shuttle.
But that's exactly the error Elon Musk plan to reproduce here: Making a rocket far more expensive than needed, "ditching the previous one", all without a real market or use for it.

Aside, the Shuttle have a success rate of 98%. You can't say it wasn't safe, especially since SpaceX just lost a crew capsule during an engine test.

>>10627123
>Can you fucking imagine ESA has about 2/3rd NASA's budget and still can't a person into space?
nasa hasn't gotten a person into space for years

>>10627388
>far more expensive than needed
bigger does not equal more expensive, anon

>>10627397
>bigger does not equal more expensive, anon
All other things being equal, bigger does, in fact, mean more expensive.

>>10627401
it's a good thing things aren't equal, and bigger lets you do other things that make it cheaper
like build it in a field out behind your shed-tent

>>10627048
I'm telling you, here's how it's going to work out.

Musk is going to build the BFR. It'll turn out to be the best platform on the market for getting people to other planets by far.

NASA will end up designing living quarters, and paying SpaceX to ship their astronauts to Mars.

We'll put down an American flag and give a rousing speech, then there will be a school shooting or something and everyone will forget about it.

>>10627397
in spaceflight it does

>>10627424
only if you're not recovering hardware

Stop responding to the FUD shill spouting garbage.

>>10627419
Now that you mention it, there was a school shooting earlier today.

>>10627577
Oh never mind, it was yesterday.

All those Boeing shitposter shilling SLS when we all know it won't launch at anywhere near the required launch cadence to get us anywhere.

>>10627603
I don't think Boeing nor SLS has been mentioned ever since the debate about if SpaceX is harmful to the spaceflight industry or not started. Stand down.

>>10627614
>muh infrastructure
Inferred Gateway.
SLS can't do anything without it.
Unfortunately, at an optimistic 1 launch a year, infrastructure won't help much.

>>10627603
True
https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/nasa-lsp-studies-alternate-orion-options/

NERVA. It's coming back baby. Get NTR'd chemical rocket cucks. This is because there's gonna be a land rush, but in space. Gotta play that long game so billionares don't own space. Yeah good luck owning mars musk when the gov deploys a nuclear powered space battleship on yo ass.

>>10627911
>Nuclear powered battleship

It's takes decades and over a trillion dollars for the US government to develop a fucking new plane, let alone anything like that. Besides you are still talking several months for a Mars transit with an aerobrake capture even with NTR improvements and it's doubtful that the engine core will be more than a single shot job given how hard it is just to make chemical engines reliable.

>We gon free the shit out of Mars from the despotic tyrant Elon Musk
>BFR launches from Mars
>Dumps some gravel into aerocapture path of USS 9000 gorillion dollars
>Pebble hits battleship
>Lost with all hands
>Have to wait another 2 years to launch another

Any predictions for Blue Origin's announcement tomorrow? Hopefully something more exciting than shitty tourism to the karmin line.

>SLS will never fly
>JWST will never fly
>WFIRST will never fly

Time to just close out NASA for 5 years and open a new agency that burns money faster the the fucking military and never gets a job done.

>>10627933
That DOESN'T, fuck there goes my inflammatory shitpost.

What's up with the sudden uptick in shitposts today?

>>10627933
>SLS will fly once, maybe twice
>JWST will fly, everyone will be hype and then one of its nigtrillion bullshit complicated parts fails to deploy
>WFIRST will be cancelled

Ftfy friend

>>10627929
Probably something gay, but New Glenn or New Armstrong annoucements/updates would be cool

>>10627941
summer is upon us

>>10627941
It's one fag, you can tell from the writing style. Probably the same fag that has been plauging us for months on end.

>>10622101
meme

>>10627966
Why though? Because it's a small sat launcher? There does seem to be an over-saturation of small-sat launchers lately.

>>10627978
>capable of performing 10 flights in 10 days, with a payload capacity greater than 3,000 lbs for a cost of less than $5 million USD per flight

I highly doubt they will be able to achieve this with a composite airframe and SSMEs. Refurbishment of the space shuttle engines was a very time consuming and labor intensive task if I'm not mistaken.

>>10628172
>https://www.rocket.com/space/liquid-engines/ar-22-engine

>>10628172
The AR-22 is a version of the SSME so maybe it's easier to service.

>>10627925
>>evades your pebbles with MASSIVE amounts of delta V
>>sets collision course for your colonies
>>drops nukes
>>gets out of collision course
>>avoid atmosphere entirely so that radiators don't get damaged
>>enter highly inclined orbit and radio "come at me bro" with 5 MW EIRP just because we fucking can
>>wait for remnants of martian forces to attempt intercept, just evade them till they're outta delta V
>>drop nukes if any resistance is encountered in the future.
It was over when the first nukes hit. After that you just gotta mop up any remaining launch capability so you can station nukes above the martians.

>>10628187
>MASSIVE amounts of Delta V

Confirmed for not knowing anything about NTR. It's not a sci fi fusion engine moron.

>>10628187
>NTRs
>Radiators

>Avoid atmosphere entirely
>Fly off into interstellar space for the rest of eternity because it's not possible to carry that much propellant without a one man capsule as your payload

>>10628193
of course, but the specific impulse is higher than chemical rockets, so you've got more delta V to waste
>>10628200
expendable propellant drop pods

>>10628215
the amount of delta v you gain with the higher ISP you lose and more by switching to propulsive capture instead of aerocapture
if you're going to nuke mars just to fuck with Elon it's easier to do it with regular nukes, no need to bring people along for the ride
likewise, it'd be plenty easy for him to drop hundreds of tons of rocks on capitals

>>10627925
u know wut m8? Lets' fockin' fight. What are the parameters of the pebbles you launch from your BFR and when do you launch them? You may assume a similar entry profile as that used for curiosity.

>>10627048
Why does every concept/render have the rockets landing right next to a base? The habs/etc. would get blasted to fuck every time the rocket landed or lifted off.
You would have to land that shit hundreds, if not thousands, of meters away.

>>10622257
>>10622201
>object with mass X collides with object with mass Y. What happens next? Fund our $200M project to find out!

>>10623176
>Technically a two stage reusable rocket is more complicated than SSTO
Yet far easier because you aren't trapped in the catch-22 of having to have absolutely the lowest dry mass possible due to having a single stage, yet ALSO absolutely needing all the TPS and extra structural beef required for a reusable vehicle.

>>10624920
So was this meant to be reusable or just an air launched meme rocket? Also I'd like to see the performance for that version plus one with the Merlin 1C engines upgraded to modern 1D engines.

>>10625004
>game changer
SHUT THE FUCK UP
FUCK

>>10625241
They're gonna name their booster landing pad ship 'Shackleton' lol
big waste of time

>>10626925
With Starship you don't need meem ass space stations and you can do reduced gravity research by tethering two Starships nose to nose by a 1 km long tether and spin it around at less than 1 rpm, and tune the rate of spin to simulate any amount of gravity that isn't so high that it'd break the hard-points on the Starships.

>>10626929
That timeline would be way worse because we'd still not be able to do Venus missions anyway, since we lack the technology to land a Saturn V sized rocket on Venus' surface. Space race would have ended at a flyby mission to Venus at most, and even up to today we'd be sitting here blue balled as NASA fucked around and nobody else did anything notable either.

>>10627336
Its atmosphere would be stripped away by the much more intense heat and light this close to the Sun, and the surface would start to sublimate to water vapor which would also escape until what was left of Titan ended up smaller than our own Moon. If we're gonna move anything to orbit around the Earth in place of the Moon it should be Mars, and we should put our own moon around Venus and move the two of them to where Mars currently orbits. Badda bing badda boom, Earth has easy access to a nearby object with essentially unlimited water supplies and an atmosphere that makes two-way transport very convenient, Venus gets a low gravity but still large close proximity base of operations, and also gets moved away from the Sun so it can calm the fuck down and eventually cool off enough that we can maybe terraform it.

>>10627388
>Shuttle have a success rate of 98%
Two of five vehicles failed and killed 7 people each time. Most deadly vehicle in space history.