/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10655769
sls is such a fucking old idea

>>10655771
seriously

>>10655769
Orion/SLS at least has some cool tech coming out of it. Upgraded SSME, neat things like that

>>10655772
it's

Roll-loft stuff is back

>>10655776
crazy

>>10655777
And by roll loft I mean roll lift

>>10655773
The extra performance of the RS-25Es is mainly a function of abandoning reusability. It is an improvement in a sense, because the new design will be a lot simpler (and cheaper), but they're not trying to be bleeding-edge like the original SSMEs.

Orion is really cool tech-wise though, I agree. Basically how we'd build the Apollo capsule with improvements in the life support tech that were pioneered on the ISS.

>>10655769
its all fake. just like the dc to ac converter circuits you find online. youtube channels with brown peoples hands making fake shit and using chinese dc booster modules to make a spark

go try . this is /sci/ right at least some of you must own some old junk technology you can dismantle to see fake bjt oscillators

this is why your people will never go to the moon and they had to fake it . this is why tesla will fail and spaceX will never do anything of merit. this is why america doesnt have real factories

>>10655797
lol

>>10655771
>>10655772
>>10655776
>>10655784
I mean, it kinda makes sense. It's the final realization of the old booster-sustainer idea that's been in rocketry since the beginning.

>>10655786
Lots of leg stuff added

>>10655800
It's not bad (IMO), it's just funny how long the idea's been kicking around.

By the way, related question, is there some sort of advantage to parallel-staged rockets with sustainer cores over traditional serially-staged rockets? The proliferation of the former suggests there is SOME sort of advantage to the design.

some Boca Chica footage https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL219PNElds

>>10655786
sorry anon but what you really meant to type was rofl lofl

>>10655808
>By the way, related question, is there some sort of advantage to parallel-staged rockets with sustainer cores over traditional serially-staged rockets?
My guess is that while it's easy to make a rocket engine that can light on the pad or in the vacuum in space, it's much harder to light an engine while it's still flying through the air. So if a rocket needs a stage separation while it's still in the atmosphere, it's easier to make it a booster-sustainer type separation rather than a typical stage separation.

An example of this is the Saturn INT-17 (related to >>10655771), where the air-startable J-2's were modified to drop this feature to save on weight. Which implies that such startup equipment is relatively heavy compared to other startup systems (like for on the pad or in space).

>>10655808
>By the way, related question, is there some sort of advantage to parallel-staged rockets with sustainer cores over traditional serially-staged rockets? The proliferation of the former suggests there is SOME sort of advantage to the design.

It eliminates post-staging ignition, which means you escape at least one in-flight engine ignition event where things might go sideways and you'll have to abort the mission. Engine ignitions being as reliable as they are these days, I'm not really sure why they keep it up.

>>10655800
I wish booster/sustainer would fucking die like the shit forced meme it is

>>10655832
>I wish booster/sustainer would fucking die like the shit forced meme it is
I mean, it does serve a purpose like in >>10655830 and >>10655829.

>>10655838
the only purpose it serves is to continue doing things the way we've always done them, which is not a reason at all

>>10655842
It's also easy to make from preexisting hardware. Got a core stage that can't lift the payloads that you want? Slap some boosters on it, turning it into a booster-sustainer, and now it can. Examples like the Falcon Heavy and Atlas V are some good ones.

Sure, if one has a clean sheet design, then it's better that booster-sustainer should be avoided . But they do serve a purpose and their existence isn't pointless nor impeding.

wonder how SpaceX is dealing with doling out the limited raptor supply to the two teams. once both have a ship ready for engine install how will they fight over who gets how many?

>>10655956
>wonder how SpaceX is dealing with doling out the limited raptor supply to the two teams.

By rushing to build a crapton of them, apparently. They expect to hit serial number 100 by early next year.

>>10655808
>>10655829
>>10655830
>>10655856
It might also be an economic decision. Think about it a bit. Most of these sustainer-booster rockets utilize SRBs strapped around a liquid core stage. There's the Atlas V, Ariane V, and Delta IV Medium, for example. The Ariane V in particular has an SRB configuration that highly resembles that of the SLS and shuttle.
As far as expendable, high-thrust, low-cost, strap-on boosters go, it's hard to beat SRBs. They're cheap, effective, and (fairly) reliable. So, if you want to minimize cost, it might make more sense economically to build a liquid sustainer with strap-on SRBs, even if it's less efficient in absolute terms than a comparable serially-staged rocket design.

>>10655956
there's going to be a shitload of raptors by the time they finish them

>>10655985
I wish them luck, but "expecting to hit" and "actually hitting" are two very different things.
Really though, I just hope they don't catch Tesla-itis.

>whether the technology exists yet is a design constraint

discuss.

>>10656022
SRB's are not cheap. They are common because they have good synergy with military applications and share manufacturing thus political entities prefer to tie them up to other things as a way to indirectly subsidize them.

>>10656102
Absolutely true statement. Though I have no idea what you're referencing with it.

>>10656120
Sorry Anon, but that's wrong. Sure, the political connections were part of it, but compared to LRBs, SRBs are much cheaper for their designed application.

>>10656121
>Absolutely true statement. Though I have no idea what you're referencing with it.

The Apollo Program and Shuttle Program demanded capabilities that physically did not exist when they were baselined.

>>10655830
>eliminates post-staging ignition
And replaces it with side booster separation... While not removing the second stage with its own post staging ignitions.

>>10656125
>much cheaper for their designed application
Which isn't spaceflight.

>>10656128
Yes. It doesn't make much sense outside of applications like the Shuttle (where it was meant to increase the reliability of the orbiter) unless you're upgrading an existing capability or looking for an excuse for big solids, which are essentially chosen to keep the solid fuel propellant makers in business.

>>10656127
Right, and that introduces risk. Apollo powered through it with lots and lots and lots of taxpayer dollars. Shuttle meandered through it with merely piles of taxpayer dollars, and the result suffered as a result of the tech not really being ready.

So it's definitely a design constraint insofar as you're opening yourself to lots of risk by trying to push the tech forward. Again, not impossible. Just risky.

>>10656130
You really are so stubborn about being wrong about this, huh Anon?
SRBs are cheap cans of boom with really simple designs and just enough thrust customization ability to be useful for first stages where the engine needs to be running 100% of the time. They are dirt cheap compared to LRBs designed to do the same thing on the first stage ascent.
Now there's a legitimate debate whether SRBs have a place in HUMAN spaceflight, but they're definitely useful for spaceflight in-general.

>>10656134
Now this I can agree with. Mostly. The choice of SRBs with shuttle was more of a perceived cost/reusability advantage that never really panned out, but the choice of the specific SRB manufacturer had "political interference" written all over it.

>>10656147
I'm arguing against the idea if they are cheap, anon. That they are useful, and good, and preferable, because they are cheap. Atlas has noticeable variation in price between the variations offered, and interestingly, the variations involve mostly the strap-on solids. And those are tiny, not big. Big ones are even worse because transportation and associated pad crawlers capable of moving their simple but titanic weight start growing noticeably.

Military wants them for their own reasons, and politicians like to support them for their own reasons. But those reasons are most certainly not related in any way to cheapness or their incredible capability in sending objects to orbit. Sub-orbit, maybe.

At a time where we are seeing clear examples of incredibly cheap and more capable liquid rockets these last few years, I think it's time to consider sending the srb meme next to the space plane one.

>>10656176
Solids aren't cheap to operate; they're cheap to develop.

>>10656176
Let me clarify, anon. If you're clean-sheeting the design for a single variant launch vehicle, then yes, you don't want or need SRBs. However, if you have multiple variants and/or need to add some extra payload capacity, it's really really, hard to beat the cost of just strapping some SRBs to the side and lighting them up on launch. You just can't get the same cost performance out of LRBs in that scenario.
Basically what >>10656181 said.

>>10655797
>dc to ac converter
It's called an oscillator.

>>10656022
>So, if you want to minimize cost, it might make more sense economically to build a liquid sustainer with strap-on SRBs
Just don't use SRBs with a human crew unless you want them and their parachutes to fall through a cloud of flaming bits of SRB fuel after an abort. Or anywhere you need active throttle control.

So how fucked is Ariane 6? It seems dead on arrival.

>>10656380
It's gonna launch gobernment payloads, but that's not gonna be much.
Maybe Stéphane Israël should beg harder.
His interview last year was pretty pathetic, complaining/threatening about muh jobs being at risk.
That's not gonna cut it though. He needs to get out there and start sucking potential client's cocks.

>>10656380
>muh heavy GEO sat market
It's such a big market that they needed to be able to launch two at once! Now all they have do to is sit back and wait for all those phat orders roll in to launch two monster geosats at the same time while they sit back and sip on their absinthe.
Laissez les bon temps rouler!

>>10656368
>Just don't use SRBs with a human crew unless you want them and their parachutes to fall through a cloud of flaming bits of SRB fuel after an abort.
IIRC the SLS solves the problem by having a more powerful abort system than typical.

>>10656102
Absolutely. There's a reason why Cost-Plus contracts are so common with NASA. Developing new technology is risky and can easily get expensive. The only reason why Apollo and the Shuttle (>>10656127) made it through is because they were backed by large amounts of money to cover any new expenses. The issue gets worse if a private company tries to develop new technology on it's own as it doesn't have the industry nor the money like NASA. That's why SpaceX went with making the Falcon 9 flyable before iterating on the design to make it reusable, it was an easier and cheaper way of doing it than just making the Falcon 9 reusable from the start.

By all means, look into new technologies in aerospace projects, but don't fall into the trap of relying on it. "If only we invented this new hyper-lightweight alloy then the rocket can be made juuuuuust light enough to maybe fly."

ENHANCE

What will be the next big SpaceX fuckup?

PULL OUT, TRACK RIGHT, STOP. CENTER IN, PULL BACK. STOP. TRACK 45 RIGHT

>>10656824
BFR explosion on the pad

I THINK IT WAS MANUFACTURED. LOOK. FINEST QUALITY. SUPERIOR WORKMANSHIP.

>>10656824
Trying to compete against SLS.

also check out the new lift points

>>10656573
This is true. It adds a lot of extra mass to the LES, however.

>>10656984
Well, on a ultra heavy launch vehicle one can afford extra mass on crucial parts. Then again, that sort of brings up the question as to why NASA is combining cargo and crew again.

>>10656824
Your house.

>>10656147
>SRBs are cheap cans of boom with really simple designs
That's deceptive though, 99% of SRB production cost is fuel, and it's NOT cheap

>>10656573
Which is also a huge solid motor.

is starlink still set for this Wednesday? after the last scrub?

>>10656380
As a commercial vehicle, yes. As well as Angara and many others. They are for the independent access to space

>>10656826
>>10656831
Looks cheap redneck tier and fake.

>>10656380
Trade war will guarantee it has clients. SpaceX' unfair monopoly will be hit the hardest.

>>10656826
Why are they doing this, having two teams doing the same.
Should focus on one doing it right

>>10657243
encourages innovation. Pushes the teams to do better. A/B development works

>>10657248
Hope it pays off

>>10657243
they want to have many ships built anyway, I would say the number of teams will further grow in time

>>10656176
Space plane is a meme that can work, anon
It has real and tangible benefits for low earth orbit

I do love all those idiots who got their degrees in rocket science from Kerbal university confidently boasting that Starship will fly as a fully functional rocket before SLS. Most of them shut up when I show them this pic, but a few are so stubborn that not even the existence of final flight hardware is enough to sway them.

They're gonna eat their fucking words in a year or two and I'm looking forward to it.

>>10657362
yeah bruh SLS will never fly, those things are going in museums

>>10657362
B-but muh 304 stainless steel rocket

>>10657362
I don't like your attitude, but I completely agree with you. The SLS is much closer to completion than BFR. The SLS has most of it's hardware done and ready to assemble, it's just the poor management on both NASA and Boeing that's making things slow. Meanwhile, BFR is progressing along very quickly compared to SLS, it still has plenty to get done before even the first full test flight. And while I'll complain about how bad the project has been, SLS definitely serves a purpose (beyond pleasing contractors).

But accepting that SLS will fly before BFR shouldn't be considered a slight against SpaceX. They're doing great work and should get the support they deserve. I wish both SLS and BFR good luck.

>>10657391
Yeah sorry, just was a bit irritated after making the mistake of reading the comment section on one of Scott Manley's videos and it got me pissed off.

You're right, it's not a slight against SpaceX and it shouldn't be taken as one. It's just a fact that I wish people would acknowledge.

>blogposting

I don't think these silly soda can rockets are going to be rigid enough to survive liftoff

>>10657404
>Yeah sorry, just was a bit irritated after making the mistake of reading the comment section on one of Scott Manley's videos and it got me pissed off.
There are only three things in this world that can be taken for certain; death, taxes, and shitty comments on YouTube. Don't stress over them too much.

>It's just a fact that I wish people would acknowledge.
I agree with your sentiment. Some people hate on SLS a little too much, like wishing that it blows up on EM-1. But some of the hate is well deserved. I mean, when Boeing was late on various milestones, NASA just pays Boeing the milestone reward money. Seriously, how do you expect anyone to complete their work on time if you reward them for being late?

>>10657421
The shiny part is just a covering, the structural parts below it are thicker and more sound

>>10657404
Haha fucking retard, those SLS components have been ready and sitting around for years now while ULA embezzles taxpayer funds to do fuck all. Meanwhile multiple starship prototypes are under construction right now.

>>10657483
>prototypes

>>10656824
Starship hopper will go up, and will land in pieces.
But they will learn from it.

>>10657537
I haven't seen a prototype of SLS fly yet.

>>10657590
This. Failure is acceptable. Don't start witch hunts.

>>10657602
That's because NASA uses a different development process. They're going straight to all-up testing.

>>10657616
I'm sure it'll fly in 5 years time my dude :^) They just need a few more private yachts first.

>>10657602
I haven't seen a prototype SLS do a test fire while Starhopper already did that.

all-up testing is good under one condition: you're under a heavy time constraint and need to be daring

>>10657643
Aft join happened wednesday, the core stage tankage is now officially done (though I haven't been able to get pics unfortunately). Now we're just waiting on the engine boattail, and the whole think will get shipped over to Stennis for the Green run, after which itll get taken apart again, shipped over to KSC, put back together, have more tests run on it, and THEN will be launched.

So we're in the home stretch, yet there's still a year+ of work to do.

>>10657058
On top of that, solid rocket fuel pollution is real bad for pregnant mothers
http://www.space4peace.org/articles/pollution/perchlorates_report.htm

>>10657823
Hypergolics aren't exactly nice either, though the only people crazy enough to still try and use those on launch stages are the Russians.

>>10655769
so is starlink launching tonight?

>>10655769
is their any hope for me to enter the aerospace industry with a sub 3.0 gpa? Can i enter the workforce a few years after i graduate to.

>>10657989
nah
wednesday or something

>>10655797
>its all fake. just like the dc to ac converter circuits

what?

>>10657993
You can be a janny at SpaceX

>>10657362
SLS will fly before Starship. Once. Then it will stagnate for further 2 years while Starship ramps up with regular flights.

Now fuck off, old space shill.

>>10658262
>anyone who likes the SLS is an old space shill
you're pathetic

>>10657362
>a vehicle with8 years of development launches before one with maybe 3 years at most
Noooooo! How can this be happening to us!?!?!?!?!?!?

>>10657604
I mean most of SpaceX seems to follow a "fail fast" approach. Test hardware as soon as possibly and then quickly iterate on it and fix everything that went wrong.
Seems like a much saner approach than doing endless simulations and component tests.

>>10658265
What is there to like about a decade+ old shitpile of a project that has tossed billions of dollars down the can and they STILL haven't built a single fucking rocket.

>>10658340
SpaceX's approach is better for them because their hardware is cheaper, so it's not so much a loss if it blows up during a test.
NASA's approach is better for them because their hardware is crazy expensive, so it's a huge loss if it is destroyed or found unsuitable after it's built.
They're just two different approaches that are superior in different configurations.

>>10657616
Nasa double and tripple and quadruple checks every inch of every part before they integrate it. The launch itself should therefore really just be a formality, rather than an essential part of testing.

>>10658341
The fact that it'll be the biggest most powerful rocket built since the Saturn V?
The fact that it'll return America to the moon?
The fact that it'll mark the first manned missions out of LEO since the shuttle?
The fact that Congress loves it enough they'll rubber-stamp just about any program using it?

>>10658345
it is inferior to Saturn V in every way - cost per kg to orbit, flight rate, payload mass to orbit, using meme hydrogen and solids for first stage..

and Saturn V is a 60 year old design

building such abomination in the age of reusable rocketry is inexcusable

>>10658334
8 years? It has to be more than that by now

>>10658548
>inferior to Saturn V
>in cost per kg
>ACTUALLY IMPLYING THE FUCKING SATURN V WAS *CHEAPER* THAN THE SLS
Holy fuck, THIS is the most galaxybrain take on the SLS yet.

>>10658577
It literally was you fucking mongoloid

>>10658577
If SLS only launches once it‘ll have cost 30 billion dollars :)

>>10658577
>ACTUALLY IMPLYING THE FUCKING SATURN V WAS *CHEAPER* THAN THE SLS

It was cheaper both per launch and per kg to orbit, courtesy of it flying several times per year

>>10658577
Cost per launch in 2018 USD
>Saturn V: $1.16B
>SLS: $1.5B to $2.5B
You can look these up.

how many of these rockets they confirm they are gonna make for testing?

>>10658586
>>10658633
>>10658637
>>10658742
All of you idiots are literally fucking wrong:
>Estimates of future launch costs of $700 million to $1 billion in FY 2017 dollars per launch are somewhat lower than launch costs of Saturn V, estimated at $1.25 billion in FY 2017 dollars (calculated from Williams 2016) or the Space Shuttle, estimated at $1.4 billion
in FY 2017 dollars (calculated from Pielke and Byerly 2011).
Source: "Evaluation of a Human Mission to Mars by 2033", page 64
And before you mongloids go
>"hurr durr you're taking your figures from a Mars mission study retard"
This was an analysis that literally said there was NO way NASA would be able to do a Mars mission by 2023. It's hardly a cheerleader paper.
Also, fucking lol at the dude trying to act like $2.5B per launch is a realistic figure. Please explain your fucked-up methodology. I'm sure I'll have a laugh about it.

>>10658586
>>10658633
>>10658637
>>10658742
All of you idiots are literally fucking wrong:
>Estimates of future launch costs of $700 million to $1 billion in FY 2017 dollars per launch are somewhat lower than launch costs of Saturn V, estimated at $1.25 billion in FY 2017 dollars (calculated from Williams 2016) or the Space Shuttle, estimated at $1.4 billion in FY 2017 dollars (calculated from Pielke and Byerly 2011).
Source: "Evaluation of a Human Mission to Mars by 2033", page 64
And before you mongloids go
>"hurr durr you're taking your figures from a Mars mission study retard"
This was an analysis that literally said there was NO way NASA would be able to do a Mars mission by 2023. It's hardly a cheerleader paper.

>>10658934
Sorry, meant 2033 not 2023.

>>10658934
Wrong.

That study you linked did not estimate SLS cost of $0.7-1 billion per launch. They take this estimate as a given, from NASA.

>Once SLS is operational, NASA estimates that the cost of each SLS launch will be on the order of $0.7 billion to $1 billion in FY 2017 dollars.

>We use the estimated cost of an SLS flight ($0.7 billion to $1 billion in FY 2017 dollars) for the cost of each of the remaining SLS flights

Yet they are comparing apples and oranges, because this well known NASA estimate refers to marginal cost, not actual cost per launch. Whereas those figures refer to total, not marginal cost per launch.

We can in fact calculate actual SLS cost per launch from your source, which includes total program cost, and number of launches. Here is the calculation

>For our analysis, we assume that NASA will launch 18 SLS flights in support of human exploration through 2040
>Adding these figures to funds already spent yields total program lifetime costs for SLS related to the mission to Mars of $33.7 billion to $36.1 billion in FY 2017 dollars.

$34 billion program cost / 18 launches = $1.9 billion per SLS launch

>>10659014
>$34 billion program cost / 18 launches = $1.9 billion per SLS launch

And this is an optimistic estimate, because it uses their $0.7-$1 billion figure for extrapolation, and assumes 18 SLS flights to 2040. A more realistic scenario would include some additional fixed costs and also less SLS flights since the launch rate is so low, significantly lower than Saturn V. Then we should also take into account that SLS has lower payload capacity than Saturn V.

Long story short, SLS will cost 2-3 times per kg to orbit than Saturn V.

>>10659014
Oh fucking boy, and you think that dividing the Apollo program's costs across the Saturn V launches is going to turn out CHEAPER? The fucking same Apollo program that cost ~$110B in today's dollars?

Even counting the Saturn IB launches to bring the average cost down, that gives you $6.5B per Saturn launch. That's way more expensive than even the highest estimates of the SLS.

Face it, there is literally no metric where the SLS is more expensive than the Saturn V.

>>10659026
>including non LV costs
wew

>>10659029
You literally did the same thing in your analysis.

>>10659026
>The fucking same Apollo program that cost ~$110B in today's dollars?

most of which had nothing to do with launch costs

>>10659031
no, that 34 billion estimate is specifically for SLS costs through 2040

>>10659033
The other Anon lumped the costs of Orion and other non-SLS costs into his SLS estimate, so it's fair game to do the same for Apollo

>>10659026
>The fucking same Apollo program that cost ~$110B in today's dollars?

From 1964 until 1973, $6.417 billion (equivalent to $34.4 billion in 2018)[59] in total was appropriated for the R&D and flights of the Saturn V

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_V#Cost

Okay, Anon, let's just look at the Saturn V then. ~$42B in 2018 dollars over 13 launches is $3.2B per launch. Still more expensive than the SLS.

>>10657362
Starship will fly before SLS. This is a 90% guarantee at this point.

>>10659048
If you actually believe this at this point there's no hope for you anyway.

>>10659041
>>10659042
>From 1964 until 1973, $6.417 billion (equivalent to $34.4 billion in 2018)
>Saturn V then. ~$42B in 2018 dollars over 13 launches

We have two conflicting Saturn V cost estimates in the thread, and checking wiki it seems they are both stated there, with difference being due to inflation, as cost in 60s dollars is the same.

So Saturn V cost per launch is either $3.23 billion or $2.65 billion.

>>10659051
Why not? Its already stated to suborbital this year, if something extremely negative happens, next year. SLS flight in 2020 is pushed to late 2020 and possibly maybe even a year later. Depending on how much more billion dollars they can get from federal government.

There's 1 starship prototype built for suborbital testing and 2 that's being built for orbital testing right now. They have ~4 raptor engines done already and working on more. They plan on ~100 engines by early next year. In a matter of months Starship went from paper rocket that's being dismissed to 3 actual rockets being built and tested.

>>10659068
And both measures are higher than Anon's figure of $1.9B per SLS launch.

The Saturn V was an amazing rocket, and I have no doubts that it's cost could've been brought down if it stayed in production. But that's not what happened.

Really, all this shows is what a tremendous waste the shuttle was. Cost more than a Saturn V or SLS but had nowhere near the capabilities of either.

>>10655769
Earth is flat

>>10659080
>implying the feds will give SpaceX billions for starship
They actually bid it (or a derivative) to the Air Force and were promptly told to fuck off.

Also, okay, a Starship PROTOTYPE may fly next year, I can agree with that. But not the fully-functional thing.

>>10659085
Starlink is there to fund Starship. Its obvious there's hostility from traditional sectors as they still think Starship won't leave the paper. Its the same fucking thing SpaceX experienced with Falcon9 rockets and Falcon Heavy rockets. The politics is too strong and innovation/cost don't matter in some spheres. Even if Starship launches to the Mars with people, people will still say "well its only 1 time" and if SpaceX launches a million Starship to Mars, people will still complain "its for the rich people"

The goalpost will shift forever, its a waste to take these criticism seriously.

>>10659081
>And both measures are higher than Anon's figure of $1.9B per SLS launch.

$1.9 billion per SLS launch is an optimistic figure, reality may be higher, see here
>>10659024

Also, SLS has somewhat lower payload capacity and smaller payload bay.

I wouldnt be surprised if real cost per kg to orbit was roughly the same. Which is a real shame after 60 years..

>>10659089
If Starship achieves even half of what SpaceX promises, every space-related agency the Federal government will be lining up to buy it. The problem is that no-one outside of SpaceX is willing to bet on that scenario without proof, which is why SpaceX is trying to self-fund.

So I agree with your points, but not the conspiratorial reasoning you give. There's plenty of reasons to be skeptical until SpaceX provides more concrete proof.

>>10657993
You could get your airframe & powerplant license with two years of trade school or less. With that and only a high school degree you could wrench on airplanes or even build spacecraft. SpaceX always has technician openings you would qualify for with only the A&P and a high school degree, however the reason they always have openings is because they treat their employees like shit. There's also the Air Force.

>>10659096
Why would it be conspiracy to think traditional sectors will always be skeptical of innovation? Its the standard practice everywhere.

>>10659095
>I wouldnt be surprised if real cost per kg to orbit was roughly the same. Which is a real shame after 60 years..
I severely doubt it, but Block 1 is probably more expensive per kg than Block 1B, which is a real shame considering it's the only variant they'll be using for the next half-decade.
Regardless, I think this proves that the SLS is cheaper than the Saturn V, or at worst at least roughly the same price.

>>10659099
I'm mainly saying that it's entirely rational for them to be worried about whether those goals are achievable.

>>10659068
Saturn V was paid for 15 launches. The last 2 just never launched but were built anyway. So its actually ~$2.8 billion/launch.

>>10659105
That's like saying your mother was worried you'd shit your pants in school so they homeschooled you. Sorta rational if you think about it, but if you do think about, then its bit irrational.

>>10659106
I believe 90% of the parts were built for the last two, but only one of them was actually complete when production halted; the one currently at JSC. The other one, the one now at KSC, was missing a few stages.

>>10659096
It is one thing to bet the farm on Starship, however what is strange is that government does not seem even interested in funding any work for a Raptor powered HLV in general, while at the same time generously funding SLS..

Corruption or incompetence in the government is the likely answer here.

owo

uwu

>>10659114
I wish we had more info about what SpaceX's proposal to the USAF was. All we know is that it was Starship-based, that the USAF said, "lol fuck no," and that Elon thinks it was a badly put-together bid in retrospect.

For all we know it could've been a meme-tier sales pitch that got laughed out of the room, or it could've been an otherwise good pitch with a major glaring flaw. Unfortunately all this shit is classified, so we'll only know in 40 or so years.

>>10659121
HABBENING

>>10659124
Shotwell was quoted saying that they really fucked up the proposal; can't find the link but I'm pretty sure she said something like that

better view of the trenches(?)

>>10659131
So it might have actually been a meme-tier sales pitch, then.

Berger is at it again

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

>>10659145
Probably an old draft that got scaled down (note that the graphic calls Artemis 3 by it's old name: EM-3), but still interesting nonetheless.

>>10659145
So commercial rockets will do most of the launches.

>>10659121
I hate to judge anyone's work before they're finished, but I have to admit the other guys seem to be doing a much cleaner job.

>>10659160
for sure

feet

>>10659373
That's a big feet.

>>10659382
love the SpaceX name plate. Also, wonder if the QD stuff makes a nice ker-chunk sound when they attach

mr. steven is getting his arms back

>>10659454
they'd better FUCKING catch one

commercial crew update likely on 28th

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nac_heoc_public_agenda_may_28_and_may_29_final_5_15.pdf

>>10659461
it has been quiet on the DM-1 front....

>>10659463
I still think a fuel line got damaged by salt-water, and when they pressurized for the test, the compromised line couldnt handle it and popped. We already know the COPVs weren't the issue, hell, they survived the explosion.

>>10659468
they shouldn't have canned propulsive landing for real

>>10659486
To be fair though, allowing for it would require places in the heat shield that would have to extend outwards for the legs, and Nasa didn't want to mix an ablative heat shield and legs poking through it. Alls it would take to incinerate the capsule would be for one of the chunks of heatshield on the legs to rip free or ablate unevenly away and the plasma stream would vaporize the capsule through the resulting hole.

A heat-shield without the leg-holes doesn't have this issue. I mean, they COULD go with a shuttle-tile style TPS (which had gaps and doors for the tank and landing gear) as the trunk section would protect them all the way up to trunk jettison just before entry, but the issue then would be to figure out a way to make them load-bearing, or otherwise re-design the trunk and lower parts of C-Dragon to take the launch and orbital loads.

The only other option I see them trying for propulsive landing is with the current monolithic PICA-X shield, but after entry is complete they jettison the shield entirely to expose the legs. They'd have to time it though and aim the descent trajectory into the ocean like they do the rockets. Once within about 30s of touchdown, light the engines at low thrust and blow the shield free so it splashes down, then maneuver towards the landing pad.

>>10659513
what about legs that extend from capsule walls above the heat shield?

>>10659518
Probably not enough physical room left in the capsule structure for those and their extension mechanism. Keep in mind that motherfucker's packed tight as hell in there.

>>10659523
To extend on this a bit, looking at images online I think there's maybe a 1" gap at the most between the inner and outer hulls for most of the craft, and the lower part of the inner hull that pulls in for things like tankage and whatnot is packed quite densely.

>>10655771
But data mass

>>10659523
should be plenty of space if parachutes are removed, no?

>>10659563
gotta have redundancy. Original plan was to test fire the superdracos before the point of no return for parachute deploy

>>10659563
>should be plenty of space if parachutes are removed, no?

Parachutes wouldn't be going anywhere. They would have kept them.

What makes more sense, Mars or O'neil stations. Or does mars industry strip mining that world is useful for O'neil stations.

>>10659752

>>10659752
depends on how can colonists tolerate Martian gravity

>>10659790
Aww geez, if only NASA did subterran gravity research instead of relearning again and again that microgravity is bad for the human body for the last couple of decades.

All the people bashing starlink know this:
USA's internet accessibility statistics are heavily manipulated and are much worse than the numbers show
You only need to provide broadband to one house in a block for that entire block to count as having broadband, and the blocks all dip into cities and towns where they can

>>10659160
>>10659121

>>10659795
1/3 grav really that bad. I know we don't know but there must be some models we can reference for this...? Seriously 1/3g sounds just perfect. You get to feel like a superhero but it's not so autistic you float around like the moon and have no traction

>>10660013
We just don't know

>>10660100
I reiterate >>10659795.

>>10660108
Yeah it sucks

>>10660013
>>10660100
Yeah we just literally don't know. 33% g could be 90% as bad as zero-g, half as bad as zero-g, or not bad at-all. We have no way of knowing how bad the effects would be compared to zero-g with our current knowledge.

What happened to them?

>>10660130
lets buidl the gravotron that lets yhou test yggravity at any rate % arlready then and find out?

>>10660172
Nothing. That's the problem.

Can someone calculate the amount of fuel and thrust needed to launch a rocket to orbit from a horizontal position.

>>10660239
I doubt it's possible without the rocket either launching angled upwards from horizontal or it having wings, because if it were launched completely horizontal then it would hit the ground unless it had a very high thrust-to-weight ratio (greater than Sprint missile).

>>10660239
Probably.

>>10660239
about 350

>>10659379
For u

>>10659795
>>10660108
>subterran gravity research
WTF even is that? Are you saying go deep enough underground that gravity is lower? How deep do you think you have to go to have any noticeable effect on gravity?

>>10660277
>WTF even is that? Are you saying go deep enough underground that gravity is lower? How deep do you think you have to go to have any noticeable effect on gravity?
It was a very sloppy way of saying "gravity that's less than what is found on Earth's surface, but not microgravity" (example: Martian gravity). I didn't know the official term for that so I made one up.

>>10660277
>I have no reading comprehension

>>10660239
What direction is it in relation to Earth's rotation?

>>10660302
Yes that bugs me too. But there are really only two ways to get sustained partial gravity, either a centrifuge in space, or land on something smaller than Earth, which is basically only the moon and Mars. There's really no way to subtract from gravity, other than short-term stuff like the Vomit Comet.
That "iFly" thing with you flying in an air stream doesn't count, because the inside of your body is still in gravity.

>>10660317
>subterran
>I made one up
>reading comprehension
>of a made-up term
black-hole-brain.png

>>10660626
Yeah, reading comprehension is groking the meaning of words that you don't know
This includes words that are made up or outright new

What does /sfg/ think of Relativity Space?

They are betting heavily on 3D printing to produce the majority of the parts, and lauded its flexibility over specialized tooling. And while other companies uses additive manufacturing on the more complex components, Relativity apparently intends to apply it to the rocket fuel tanks as well. But I wonder if the benefits are still there once the design matures and the focus moves to manufacturing efficiency. Does anyone wish to chime in?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5mhUm6NzqE

>>10661038
Additive manufacturing is totally the future, dunno about the use in tanks though, seems dubious but cool if it works. The more shit you can 3d print the better, will be essential to off planet production.

https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-installs-starship-nosecone-east-coast-progress/

>>10661134
We already knew all of this

>>10660327
Let's say North/South or East.

>>10659513
Why would it need legs? Soyuz doesn’t have legs.

>I continue to be dazzled by the SpaceX team

DAZZLED.COM

>>10661299
Because it has crushable shock absorbers instead.

>>10661299
It does, they just don't literally look like legs. They also aren't reusable, and the stroke is really short. That's because they are supposed to be used after the retro motors; if they fail to fire, the landing on shock absorbers alone can be quite harsh for the crew. (but still won't result in LOC)

Foldable legs are better because they have longer travel and can absorb more shock. There's a catch, they require a better prepared landing spot. Which isn't much of a problem for a precisely controlled powered vertical landing.

Besides, Souyz already follows the scheme anon mentioned, it jettisons the shield before the landing, making it non reusable.

Several loads of gravel being delivered this morning. Another view of StarHopper's "shock absorber". A LN2 delivery which appeared to be going into the new tank.

>>10659513
>they COULD go with a shuttle-tile style TPS
Ceramic shielding is only good for winged gliders because they descend way slower than reentry capsules. Gliding capsules get too little lift and are too hot on reentry, so they really need ablative shielding.

Nevertheless, the soviets figured out how to make a hatch in the ablative heatshield in 70's (the TKS spacecraft), I wonder what's so special about Dragon.

>>10661406
Additionally, proper legs have larger contact area and can make the spacecraft less prone to toppling over. (which nearly killed one of the Soyuz crews after a landing on a frozen lake)

>starlink sabotaged again

Hop soon shinyboi

do you guys think NASA has complex stage circumferential bolt torquing sequences?

>>10661518
Probably... because a contractor would suggest it was important (and cost plus), so they would go along with it, because zomg safety.

>>10661518
>stage circumferential bolt torquing sequences
I don't even know what that is. What is it?

>>10661542
>Cost plus
I know that you're probably memeing, but Cost Plus contracts should be dropped as the standard for aerospace. They allow stuff like what you just said to be accepted for no real additional benefit.

is spaceX a good place to work? is elon a nic boss?

>>10661518
That shit's important but it's generally the kind of thing you leave to the workers because they've done it a million times
NASA probably has a checklist that needs to be filled out in triplicate and signed by twelve men after every step

>>10661560
>stage circumferential bolt torquing sequences
Tightening bolts gradually in a star pattern around a circumference to prevent it from clamping down unevenly

>>10661587
Ah, that makes more sense. I thought it meant some weird special type of bolt like a self-sealing stem bolt.

>>10661587
They almost certainly do.

>>10661575
No, he overworks his employees with unpaid overtime. The working conditions are appalling.

>>10661589
Oh, its probably that as well. Aerospace-grade, 10 000 dollar a piece.

>>10661697
Wasn't there a locker latch that NASA used and it was about $1000 a piece or something like that? Seriously, I hate the "it needs to be a special grade" mentality that aerospace has.

>>10661710
>I hate the "it needs to be a special grade" mentality that aerospace has
that's why you aren't designing spacecraft

>>10661710
>SpaceX even questioned the kinds of latches that were used in the lockers of the space station. Each locker required two latches, which each cost $1,500 and had twenty to twenty-five parts. At “SpaceX, we weren’t going to build that,” recalled John Couluris, of SpaceX mission operations. “One engineer was inspired—I think it was honestly in the men’s room—where he saw the latch on a stall, and we were able to make a locking mechanism out of that.”

>Instead of $1,500, it cost $30. “It’s more reliable, and it’s easier to replace if it ever goes bad,” Couluris said. “The astronauts, not only did they love it, but they loved the story behind it because that shows the ingenuity.”

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/how-spacexs-scrappy-ethos-flabbergasted-nasa-what-its-davenport

It turns out most aerospace-grade requirements are unnecessary and just a way to steal government funding, who would have thunk it..

>>10661717
I have designed spacecraft, I'm an aerospace engineer. I've seen projects grind to a halt because the super "advanced" material/technology/manufacturing process/etc that the project was designed around wasn't what was expected, and there would've been headaches if it were designed more pragmatically. I get why it happens though, space is an extreme environment (like out-gassing is a bigger issue than most people realize) and sometimes that requires advanced or unusual grades of stuff, but some designers take it too far.

Also I don't like this >>10661725. It's a latch, a couple of bolts and rubberbands would've done the job, but no it had to be advanced for some reason.

>>10661744
>there would've been headaches if it were designed more pragmatically
*there would've been LESS headaches.

>>10661038

If I we're someone in the defense industry I'd be paying top dollar to get this kind of tech for Missile production. Using AM to make missiles would mean you could churn em out like hotcakes and probably get Raytheon and L/M to shit themselves.

>>10661757
>Oh look at that person on the roof, looks like a sni

>>10661038

If I we're in the defense industry I'd pay top dollar to get this tech for missile production.

>>10661744
Nice larping, but there's no special mentality around grading, that's the entire reason for COTS. Aerospace grade is needed when you have complex failure modes with complex failure propagation networks, nothing more nothing less.

>Also I don't like this >>10661725. It's a latch, a couple of bolts and rubberbands would've done the job, but no it had to be advanced for some reason.
This reason is the real flight experience, not overengineering. This experience might or might not make sense in the current context, but "we can make it for a fraction of cost" attitude from a newcomer company known for designing inherently unsafe and overly complex spacecraft is another extreme which leads to things like broken tesla screens and over-relying on cold gas thrusters in the Falcon 9 booster.

>>10661792
>Nice larping
I'm not larping.

>This reason is the real flight experience, not overengineering.
I can't find any information about how the "overpriced" latch was designed much less was designed with experience in mind. Do you have any sources on that?

>This experience might or might not make sense in the current context, but "we can make it for a fraction of cost" attitude from a newcomer company known for designing inherently unsafe and overly complex spacecraft is another extreme
Are you referring to the Dragon 2 or the Falcon 9 (assuming that you're talking about SpaceX)? Because I recall that neither spacecraft is any more unsafe than anything currently flying. I understand that the other extreme shouldn't be embraced simply because the first extreme wasn't good, but I'm criticizing some of the practices in aerospace that embrace that first extreme (focusing on the advanced solution instead of a pragmatic solution).

>which leads to things like broken tesla screens and over-relying on cold gas thrusters in the Falcon 9 booster.
What does broken Tesla screen have to do with aerospace? What's wrong with the Falcon 9 relying on cold-gas thrusters as opposed to using what?

>>10661792
>inherently unsafe
wew

>>10661792
>defending a fucking locker latch this hard
Tard space seething

>>10661792
>known for designing inherently unsafe and overly complex spacecraft
no such thing is known about SpaceX

>>10661792
>inherently unsafe and overly complex spacecraft
you mean the Shuttle?

gravel

>>10661792
>walks into Apollo I
>dies
>Flies the shuttle
>dies
>SpaceX is known for its unsafe and overly complex vehicles

>>10661915
That's the orbital hopper, right? Any word on if it has the new "sweaty" thermal protection system?

>>10661922
no; could be that the big canard wing surface things introduce enough thermal sponginess that it isn't needed, who knows. Remember, Elon has also said that there will be hex thermal panels on it

>>10661836
>>10661862
>>10661913
Yeah, face it. Dragon 2 escape system is unsafe and overly complex by design, and they are developing it only because they don't want to start from scratch and can get away with it.
1. Hydrazine on a crewed capsule. All the competitors use less toxic components.
2. High chamber pressure liquid-fueled thrusters. Extreme turbomachinery on a crewed flight, what can go wrong?
3. Main thrusters inches apart from the crew - horrible layout.
3. Prone to spinning in case of engine desync. That's why they need 8 engines and not 4, to conform to the common (and NASA) standard of allowing 2 random failures.
Compare this to a highly conventional, expensive and boring spacecraft like Orion. A single small orbital engine, a traditional LES with a booster that can't go out of sync and is shielded from the crew. They also use hydrazine though (which isn't a problem with Soyuz, an even more boring spacecraft).

Now go and tell me it's safe and tested to 1/270 LOC probability just like Orion. The ground testing can only test for foreseen failure modes, it's not a hard guarantee that 1 of 270 flights on average will result in the loss of the crew. There are also unforeseen modes, these can only manifest themselves during flight. Dragon 2 escape system is inherently more complex than a classic escape tower. Starliner is also like that, although it doesn't use hydrazine in its escape thruster.

All this comes from a company which has zero real experience in crewed flights, vs engineers with decades of experience.
>hurr durr decades of killing astronauts
Decades of lessons not to be ignored. SpaceX design is flawed and WILL go wrong sooner or later.

>>10661868
>>10661913
Yes, Shuttle was also unsafe by design. As per infamous 2004 report, "a vehicle of experimental nature has been used on a regular basis". Apollo was an experimental spacecraft designed for much higher risks in mind. I'm not arguing with that. What's your point exactly?

>>10661929
Nasa doesn't have crewed flight capability

>>10661929
>1. Hydrazine on a crewed capsule. All the competitors use less toxic components.

stopped reading there. CST100 uses hydrazine, you fucktard. Go read a book before you try and shill here.

>>10661823
>I'm criticizing some of the practices in aerospace that embrace that first extreme (focusing on the advanced solution instead of a pragmatic solution)
And I assure you that seemingly more complex solution might be much more pragmatic in practice. SpaceX doesn't have the same experience, and just goes with its usual "move fast and break things". Which is fine for uncrewed flights but could mean loss of life with the crewed ones.

I don't trust SpaceX intuition until they make at least several dozens flights and kill someone.

The real innovation in crewed flights would be much higher reliability than any current spacecraft can offer, say 1/10000 LOC or even aircraft-like reliability. Combined with cheap space access that would mean much more astronauts in orbit or at the Moon/Mars. It's not necessary to design huge spaceships for that.

>What's wrong with the Falcon 9 relying on cold-gas thrusters as opposed to using what?
Nothing wrong with them, just an example of SpaceX being excessively self confident. In some talk at an aerospace conference Musk claimed they can control a descending stage using only CGT, and was nearly laughed out of the room. As it turned later, they couldn't do it indeed, and added the grid fins.

>What does broken Tesla screen have to do with aerospace?
Nothing, just an example of using the parts of an inappropriate grade (the screens werent automotive grade), which stems from a poor development culture and the ability to get away with a failing part. Multilayer devices such as screens are known to cause problems due to uneven thermal expansion, it takes really poor intuition to not see this from the start.

>>10661929
LES towers are obsolete as they cannot be reused

>>10661937
>CST100 uses hydrazine
On an escape system? Are you fucking nuts? It uses ethalox.

>>10661964
It's not an argument for trading money for lives

>>10661963
>and just goes with its usual "move fast and break things". Which is fine for uncrewed flights but could mean loss of life with the crewed ones.

Commercial aviation went through the same process. It turns out 'move fast and break things' is the correct paradigm to ensure safety. You need to fly early, often and a lot. Anything else is illusory safety.

>>10661972
non-reused parts are inherently less safe

>>10661929
>1. Hydrazine on a crewed capsule. All the competitors use less toxic components.
Boeing's Starliner uses the same exact propellant. While Soyuz uses solids for it's escape system, it also uses toxic peroxide for maneuvering which is stored in the capsule.

>2. High chamber pressure liquid-fueled thrusters. Extreme turbomachinery on a crewed flight, what can go wrong?
I recall that the SuperDraco is pressure fed so no turbo machinery. And all crewed rockets flying today use turbo machinery for various engines.

>3. Main thrusters inches apart from the crew - horrible layout.
The SuperDracos are in their own shielded compartments if I recall correctly. Also, it's pretty hard to have recoverable main engines and have them further away from the crewed parts of the capsule with a spacecraft that's only about four meters in diameter and about eight in length.

>3. Prone to spinning in case of engine desync. That's why they need 8 engines and not 4, to conform to the common (and NASA) standard of allowing 2 random failures.
And that's bad because? What? Redundancy is a nice feature to have, especially for an escape system. If anything, that makes the Dragon 2 more safe, not less. Also, I think spinning is the least of a crew's concern during a launch escape.

>Now go and tell me it's safe and tested to 1/270 LOC probability just like Orion
I can't guarantee that. But once Dragon starts flying, I'm confident that it'll be a very safe vehicle compared to others of the same type. SpaceX, while operating differently than most aerospace companies, takes spaceflight seriously.

(1/2)

>>10661976
That's why SpaceX had an anomaly recently, right?

Also I indicated some problems with their particular design, do you have a counter argument?

>>10661979
(2/2)

>Dragon 2 escape system is inherently more complex than a classic escape tower.
How so? An escape tower requires a separation event mid-flight, which is more complex than built in liquid propellant motors. Liquid propellant motors can also be used for a wider range of operations where solid ones can't. Plus solid escape systems (like a tower) can't be reused as well as liquid which is a goal of COTS.

>>10661968
where did I say on the LES? Stop moving the goalposts. It uses 12 MR-104J engines. It's a manned capsule. Your retarded wall of rest is invalid.

>>10661979
>it also uses toxic peroxide
How peroxide is toxic? They went with it because it's the least toxic option available, they have hydrazine-phobia.

>>10661983
>a separation event mid-flight, which is more complex than built in liquid propellant motors
Not in a million years.

>>10661979
>The SuperDracos are in their own shielded compartments
Yeah, they worked so well last time.

the best part about these arguments is all you gotta do is wait a couple years to see who's right :^)

btw, New Shepard has integrated LES... just saying

>>10661982
>That's why SpaceX had an anomaly recently, right?
single anomaly is statistically insignificant

>>10661989
>Not in a million years.
a fucking separation event, you dont know what you are talking about at all

>>10661999
especially considering that re-used 1st stages currently have a 100% success rate. Then again block 5 has been perfect so far so

>>10661963
This will be my last reply to you because I'm not in the mood to argue.

>And I assure you that seemingly more complex solution might be much more pragmatic in practice.
In some, but not all. The locker latches is a fine example of the pragmatic solution not being the complex one. Another would be SpaceX's approach to reusable spacecraft versus NASA's. NASA went with the complex solution by designing from the ground up a reusable vehicle even though they didn't have any experience in reusable spacecraft at the time. SpaceX's approach was more pragmatic, take a design that works and steadily modify it to be reusable.

>Nothing wrong with them, just an example of SpaceX being excessively self confident.
How so? If it works fine, then it isn't a problem (plus Falcon uses other means of control).

>Musk claimed they can control a descending stage using only CGT
Then don't trust Musk when he talks about details, listen to a SpaceX employee instead.

>Nothing, just an example of using the parts of an inappropriate grade (the screens werent automotive grade), which stems from a poor development culture and the ability to get away with a failing part.
But Tesla has nothing to do with aerospace NOR SpaceX. You're just slapping on an issue Tesla had onto SpaceX because both are Elon's companies. However, both companies have shown to be different. I can't speak for Tesla's reliability, but SpaceX has followed up on it's promises and has shown to be a dependable company.

You are demanding that a new company should have the same level of experience as an agency that has been around for decades, and that's ridiculous. Not only that, but you have shown to have incorrect information which I recommend that you read up some more before forming your opinion.

>>10661989
>Yeah, they worked so well last time.
Do you mean that Dragon 2 explosion on a test stand? Wasn't it determined that it wasn't due to a failure of the SuperDracos?

>>10662010
>You are demanding that a new company should have the same level of experience as an agency that has been around for decades
No, I'm doubting their intuition on a particular technical solution, which is a completely different thing

>>10662011
correct

>>10662010
>How so? If it works fine, then it isn't a problem
It didn't work, which was why they added grid fins for more control authority
>(plus Falcon uses other means of control)
Yeah, for example grid fins...

>>10662026
Okay, I'm going to reply one more time, because that post was very obtuse.

>>10661792 said that the Falcon 9 over-relied on cold gas thrusters was a problem. But now all of a sudden not relying on it is a problem?

Are you suggesting that the original F9 design relied too much on cold gas thrusters and that adding grid fins were required, yet adding grid fins is a bad thing too? It seems to me that it was a good thing. There was a design flaw in the Falcon 9 and SpaceX was able to swiftly fix that. How is that a bad thing? Because the design wasn't 1 out of 1000 chance of failure right out of the factory? That's a ludicrous expectation. Especially for a company with limited funds and needs to get their rocket flying sooner rather than later so they can generate revenue.

>>10662010
>You are demanding that a new company should have the same level of experience as an agency that has been around for decades, and that's ridiculous.
I'll remind that SpaceX made some really conservative choices initially when designing Merlins, various Falcon configurations, and uncrewed Dragons, precisely because they didn't have a lot of experience back then. No breakthroughs from the start, just trying to make an MVP to improve it later. And this worked perfectly. The reason they aren't doing this with manned flights isn't entirely clear to me.

>>10661674
fuck man, where should I work if I like SPACE

>>10662042
>Are you suggesting that the original F9 design relied too much on cold gas thrusters and that adding grid fins were required, yet adding grid fins is a bad thing too?
No, I'm suggesting they are known to make too self confident decisions that can result in falling back to a more complex solution that everyone was talking about from the start. Which isn't a bad thing per se, but don't expect them to make a proper estimate when they say "we can replace this latch with an order of magnitude simpler/cheaper one".

>>10662010
>You're just slapping on an issue Tesla had onto SpaceX because both are Elon's companies.
Everyone sees what they want to see. I see a valid example of not using a proper part, no matter what company it is.

There are three kinds of space two of which are valid and have their pros and cons.
Old space
New space
but this other one
Tard space. It's a problem

>>10662069
>Everyone sees what they want to see. I see a valid example of not using a proper part, no matter what company it is.
So if Burger King started selling chlorine as a drink, then it's McDonald's fault? The fault of one company isn't the fault of the other. Tesla and SpaceX are separate companies.

>>10662114
Have you even considered that nobody blamed either SpaceX or Tesla? Calm your tits, it's just an example for that anon not getting why every part should be properly assessed for its supposed working conditions, and derogating it as a mentality.

>>10662043
I feel like they're getting a bit too cocky with Starship and falling into the trap they avoided with Falcon 9.

I'm a different anon than the other SpaceX guy.

>>10662186
>I feel like they're getting a bit too cocky with Starship and falling into the trap they avoided with Falcon 9
What trap? Too advanced too soon?

I agree kinda. It seems like BFR is too much a leap from Falcon 9. But SpaceX has made promises only later scale down their ambitions before. However, they have delivered considerable hardware despite this. So if BFR right now is too much for SpaceX, then they'll just change it to something more feasible while still being a capable rocket.

>Hi Blue Virgins, if you don't reconsider the bolt torqueing sequences on your New Glenn 7 in the next 2 weeks I'm blowing the whistle to your customers xo

>>10662220
What? I didn't understand any of that.

>>10662235
the premise is messing with blue origin by telling them they're doing shit wrong

STARSHIP WILL LAUNCH FIRST

>>10662246
I doubt Blue Origin is getting tips from a Korean origami board.

>>10662214
BFR is going to be as hard to tame as the N1 with all of those main engines. Falcon Heavy is just three falcons lashed together, I can only imagine the harmonics and other interactions between the main engines that they'll have to tame.

>>10662214
raptor was a huge investment and it ended up working

I honestly don't know what percentage of R&D the rest of the rocket is, but they've got a pretty fucking good starting point even if it's just converting the F9 concepts to methalox

>>10662214
>What trap? Too advanced too soon?
The trap that most innovators fell into before them, like Beal Aerospace or Rotary Rocket. Not making a simpler working thing based on proven principles similar to an advanced thing you want to build later.

>>10661963
>The screens werent automotive grade

actually the problem here is that they're using cheap ass screens you would find on a Chinese tablet instead of a high end device like an iPad

>>10662253
The biggest issue with the N1 IIRC is that the Soviets couldn't test the N1 stack before launch, so they couldn't figure out these problems beforehand. If SpaceX avoids this issue by doing actually full tests of BFR before launch, then there shouldn't be nearly as many problems compared to the N1.

>>10662253
>Falcon Heavy is just three falcons lashed together
Which is harder to do than having all these engines on a single stage. No wonder they delayed it for so long.
>as hard to tame as the N1 with all of those main engines
N1 failures were caused solely by combining the testing with production due to the lack of money, not by the amount of engines themselves. With the proper amount of ground testing, it's not an issue in 2020s.

>>10662271
>>10662275

Remember that BFR is also a methalox 1st stage rather than something more proven.

I just don't get why SpaceX didn't go for a nice, conservative kerolox 1st stage for BFR rather than doing everything, all at once. It just seems so antithetical to all of the philosophies that underpinned the Falcon family.

>>10662287
>I just don't get why SpaceX didn't go for a nice, conservative kerolox 1st stage for BFR rather than doing everything, all at once. It just seems so antithetical to all of the philosophies that underpinned the Falcon family.
I think it's because SpaceX wanted to use the same engine for all stages like for the Falcon 9. That way they can make engines in bulk for cheaper. And besides, methalox (while new) isn't unprecedented so it shouldn't be difficult to do according to my knowledge. If there will be issues then the starhooper and orbitalhooper will reveal these to SpaceX.

>>10662264
>Rotary Rocket
A literal orbital helicopter, what the hell

>>10662301
What drug got popular in 1990? That might explain the Rotary Rocket.

>>10662287
Because they are hellbent on Mars ISRU methane memes, I think. Personally, I would have liked to see a raptorized falcon 9 upper stage. It would be a significant boon since the current upper is pretty mediocre.

>>10662312
Elon has said they're shitcanning F9 once SS is up and operational. 7 mil vs 60 mil a flight

>>10662312
Lol, save that ISRU shit for when you've already gotten to the moon. BFR 1.0 should have been a dirt cheap single-engine disposable hydrolox sustainer stage with flyback Falcon 9- based strap-on boosters, at least at first.

>>10662301
>>10662304
IIRC the Roton ATV prototype was one of the few aircraft that got rated 10/10 on a Cooper-Harper scale. AKA an unpredictable contraption that would kill the pilot on a slightest occasion.

>>10662317
>they're shitcanning F9 once SS is up and operational
I highly doubt that. F9 is SpaceX's breadwinner right now, ending it could mean a massive loss in profits for the company. The only way I can see SpaceX replacing F9 with BFR is slow and gradual.

>>10662335
The rotary rocket was probably the closest we'll ever come to real-life Kerbal Space Program, desu. I kind of miss 90s space.

>>10662346
There's no shortage of crazy ideas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JP_Aerospace
there's not a lot of people willing to fund them though

Stop replying to the FUDposter Jesus Christ.

hop in ~10 days https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1130963712674631681

>>10662405
HIPPITY HOPPETY
GIVE ME ROCKETRY

>>10662405
Finally! Hopefully SpaceX will release a video on this so I don't have to squint at some livestream that's miles away from the site.

>>10662355
Yeah, but JP's design is weird in that "hey, let's all point and laugh at them [as some shadowy DARPA proxy purchases the entire company outright and takes the entire thing black before pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into it]" sort of way, while the Roton was a fucking space helicopter.

>>10661744
>"Advanced"

>>10661929
1 The only competitor is starliner and they use a hydrazine and a nitrous
2 Super dracos are pressure fed
3 It's fine

23 hours to launch thread posting. 47 hours to stream start.

apparently the rumor is the recent intel microcode drama is the cause for the Starlink updates? idk

>>10656829
it will never be built

>>10662287
methalox is in fact easier than kerolox, just rather different

>>10659099
>Why would it be conspiracy to think traditional sectors will always be skeptical of innovation? Its the standard practice everywhere.
Tinfoil hat, innovation is copies by competitors in seconds in the real world. Fuckk off with your simplistic (le old guys hold us back) it's just not true.

>>10661964
reusability has only one potential benefit the economical and we have 0 evidence that SpaceX actually saves money by reusing F9
Stop repeating le reusability 24/7 it is not a silver bullet.
Reliability is way more important in spaceflight now fuck off you shill.

>>10661976
source? Because I am fucking sure reusability decreases reliability.

>>10662868
Except for the clathrates
Or if you use a non-cryogenic oxidizer for your kerosene, then it becomes a super amazing storable
But yeah it has a bunch of benefits

>>10662896
>reusability is a meme
So why are SpaceX still pursuing it?

>>10662899
Bathtub curve

>>10662899
It's a joke because every single major issue on a spacex launch was during the launch of a new booster
Used boosters don't break

>>10662896
>and we have 0 evidence that SpaceX actually saves money by reusing F9

we have their own statements, and not just from Musk, that it does save money, and we have them continue to fly most of their payloads on reused boosters, not sure what more would you expect at this stage


>>10662899

*flight-proven* boosters are more reliable, which is why nobody flies passengers on first flight of a new aeroplane

New thread:
>>10663235

>>10662336
>breadwinner
we don't know if they even make money with their F9 launches

>>10663077
>statements
>not sure what more would you expect at this stage
Evidence, Musk and his companies are well known for lying and overpromising 24/7 Musk and almost all of his companies have 0 trust by banks, experts and serious investors.

>>10663628
Which of course explains why they're still operating after so long and still receiving investments.