/sci/ - Science & Math

I invoke betteridge’s law of headlines
https://youtu.be/GEuMFJSZmpc

Hello /sfg/, I've been wanting to make my own N2O monopropellant thruster. Not for flight, just something to learn the basics of making and testing engines (and bragging rights with friends), and I have two questions about it.

1. What makes N2O decompose? The sources I've read were inconsistent. Some said that contact with platinum or silver will do, others say an electrically charged element, and other still say that just heat will do.

2. I'm worried that the propellant will not only decompose in the combustion chamber, but will continue to decompose up the feed lines and into the tank. What can be done to avoid this problem? Is it even a problem?

Thank you guys in advance.

>>10678152
Acetelyne has that problem, H2C2 will spontaneously polymerize if you look at it wrong
There exists valves that prevent flashback along the line for welding/cutting torch applications

>>10678152
>>10678324
You will probably have to pay the big bucks https://www.wittgas.com/products/gas-safety-equipment/flashback-arrestors-flame-arrestors.html

How much longer will the line of satellites stay a line? I’ve been trying to see them but it’s been cloudy for this week

>>10678324
>>10678329
I found one's that are $45, kinda expensive since I was aiming for a very cheap thruster, but's better than nothing I guess. Thank you very much though!

>>10678341
Make sure it's rated to the pressures you're fucking with
If you feel yolo you can stretch it quite a bit but be prepared to break shit
Be safe

>>10678346
>Make sure it's rated to the pressures you're fucking with
Thanks for bringing that up. It seems like the arrestors might not handle the pressures straight from the tank, so I may have to find a way to step down the pressures.

>Be safe
Safety is one of the main things on my mind for this. But thank you for being concerned.

>>10678362
The issue is that if you step it down you're restricting chamber pressure and therefore thrust

>>10678381
True, but this isn't a flight engine so the thrust isn't that important. The goal of this engine is to just inexpensively make and test a rocket engine. Plus an N2O engine doesn't produce much thrust anyways due to the propellant.

If spacex wins the mass satelite wars, I think the military will likely want that sort of capacity to rapidly deploy satelites, or toss up small sats with small magnetic fields to fry opfor sats.
pretty neat, either way especially since spacex are the first on to a really rich market. Meaning they might be able to expand rapidly once this is set up.

I have a question for engineer tards. I hate the aesthetic idea of living in balls on the moon. Is there anyway to build space structures from moon soil.

I know regolith sucks dick to work with. But can't you use a strong enough binding agent and rebar, with enough insulation panelling or paste won't something like that work?
I hate the idea of the first moon base just a bunch of shitty snowglobe looking plastics.

>>10678669
Balls on the moon is retarded
The balls will be restricted to the same function that the ISS cupola module has, the real money is digging tunnels in the granite
So mole people, not spaceballs
Early things will be tubes on the moon, and then you literally shovel moon rocks on top to provide radiation protection

>>10678696
gotta say that sounds pretty gay, mole people is mediocre where are the moon super structures with thick walls, like the castles of old

>>10678669
i think those are what darpa's xs-1 spaceplane and blackjack projects are supposed to be

>>10678774
Of course, digging habitation tunnels and caverns is going to produce a very large quantity of rubble
So you convert it into iron aluminum, titanium and oxygen, then build shit out of it, then use the tailings to make castles

>>10678696
>mole people
You misspelled dwarves

>>10678832
We don't know what effects low gravity has

Why is it that we haven't been able to utilize nuclear thermal propulsion for spaceflight yet?

>>10678921
Dumb normies, basically. They're like trained seals that go BORK BORK BORK MUH CHERNOBYL MUH THREE MILE ISLAND BORK BORK BORK whenever someone mentions the word "nuclear."

>>10678925
Sure but apparently Russia has been working on their own and i'm sure they don't give a fuck about what leftist and environmental activist groups say. There must be some other difficulties in implementing the technology for it to not have totally replaced chemical rockets yet.

>>10678669
About the military aspect - I wonder how good of a spy satellite the NRO could make that would fit into the flatpack form factor Starlink is using. Having some spy sats that other countries think is an ordinary Starlink stat would have its advantages. Granted the smaller size will limit the sort of optics you can fit on it.

>>10678934
besides Russia being a broke ass third world country?

>>10677998
>Sir, after months of deliberations we have decided to go with SpaceX as the launch provider for our multi-million dollar satellite due to cost savings and their rapid launch cadence.

>What? No no no! Are you crazy? People are saying bad stuff about SpaceX on TWITTER

>>10679054
The industry of Woke thinks this is a legitimate way to conduct business.

>>10678954

It just occurred to me how much of a nightmare Starlink is going to make COINTEL shit. Imagine having to figure out which of the 12,000 strong constellation is secretly a spy sat and which one isn't.

>>10678340
They are mostly still grouped together but are much much fainter than in the OP video, you will have to have a clear sky and minimal light pollution to see one or two points from the group.
Use PreviSat and 2019-029A, B and C from tle-new.txt for tracking

>>10678669
Moon concrete
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunarcrete

HOP WHEN

>>10679245
less than two weeks

>>10678669
Moonbase will most likely be underground, and it will be a highly hazardous workplace, like Antarctica/Death Valley/active warzone kind of mixed hazards. You will need reliable protection from asteroid bombardment, meaning underground structures with expandable surface base for LZ. Not the kind of place you see in sci-fi movies or read about in books. Working there will be literally death sentence, more so than on Mars.

>>10678086
>one company rides 88 satellites into the orbit
>barely a blip in the newsfeed
>another one rides 60 satellites visible to the naked eye into the orbit
>the world flips over
The sputnik moment never gets old, we definitely need more of that

>>10679306
It's not the world flipping over, it's a few morons who get their dumb shit amplified by the FUD crowd who are undergoing a concerted effort to discredit anything to do with Elon Musk to get rich by shorting their Tesla stocks.

What do I have to study to get to work with space launches and rocket development? Studying physics now and only thing that gets close is space physics and even that is basically satellites and sun

>>10679718
Are you sure you want to be designing launch vehicles and not spacecraft?
Nevertheless, it depends on what you want to work with. Electronic engineering, thermodynamics, radio, chemistry, astrodynamics, aerodynamics, systems engineering, reliability engineering, mechanical engineering, quality assurance, take your pick.

>>10679740
So basically no careers for physicists?
I guess I could sell myself as radio or electrical engineer

>>10679785
>thermodynamics
>astrodynamics
>aerodynamics
>not physics

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/study-input-informs-nasa-course-for-a-vibrant-future-commercial-space-economy

NASA study for LEO commercialization is released. Featuring concepts from Axiom, Blue Origin, Boeing, Deloitte, KBRwyle, Lockheed Martin, McKinsey, NANORACKS, Northrop Grumman, Sierra Nevada Corp, Space Adventures, Space Systems Loral = Maxar

pic related, BO concept space station

>>10679969
>Axiom
>Deloitte
>McKinsey
>KBRwyle
literally who

>Space Adventures
irrelevant

>>10679969
So a converted New Glenn upper stage?

>>10679969
I like how they excluded Bigelow

Starship render with new engine configuration per Musk tweets

>>10679985
Yeah, the only company with a practical and flight-proven private space station prototype.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/spacex-ramps-up-hopper-tests-loom/

SpaceX ramps up operations in South Texas as Hopper tests loom

>>10679993
What happened to their Genesis I/II btw? They stopped updating the status years ago IIRC.

>>10679817
Sure they use physics but I was asking what I should study. All of those boil down to an engineering degree

>>10679999
A flying trashcan from 50s takes the cake as the fugliest rocket ever. The previous winner was the New Shepard prototype aka the flying rectifying column

>>10680015
Ares-X was pretty fugly as well.

>>10679969

>BO concept space station
>not expandable

Into the trash..

I want something like this up there.

Or at least this.

>>10680015
forgot the pic

>>10680019
Yeah, and Vega as well, but they are nowhere near that Botswana metalworking tier

>>10679969
Skylab's back.

Looks like a Hab module on top of a New Glenn S2.

>>10680015
it is not ugly, it is rugged, there is a difference

>>10680024
Nobody has any experience. The only other company that was seriously considering expandable habitats is Energia (as in making and ground testing), so it's either Bigelow or no expandables at all.

>>10680015
How about atlas-starliner?

>>10679985
>>10679993

https://twitter.com/jeff_foust/status/1133419903267086338

Smith discusses testing of habitat prototypes under NextSTEP. Notable that there were no images of Bigelow’s prototype, which will be tested at its own facility. Prototypes from Boeing, Lockheed, Northrop and SNC all being, or have been, tested at KSC or JSC.

>>10680024
>>10680025
>>10680026
Bigelow are dead, anons
They have no engineering talent left

>>10680059
So Bigelow, in their paranoia, have excluded their only customer NASA?

>>10680061

eh? Do you have insider info?

>>10680061
>>10680064
wat

>>10680056
>The only other company that was seriously considering expandable habitats is Energia (as in making and ground testing)
speaking of which

>>10680077

>>10680082
too bad Energia is dead, just like the rest of the russian industry

>>10679969
>no Bigelow mention
Hmmm.....

>>10680013
at the least you could learn programming, e.g. matlab if you wanted to do gnc or something like that

>>10680013
computational fluid dynamics

>>10680134
Gonna learn some real programming instead : ^)

>>10680190
Still nothing on the actual cause yet?

Starship/Super Heavy made it onto the Artemis plans for the first time

>>10680223
finally, source pls

>>10680235
L2

>>10680242
>>10680235
>muh L2
https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1133414922770157570

>>10679969
Am I reading the PDF right that Airbus worked with Boeing on their study? the fuck?

>>10679990
What's going on with the engines? 3 raptor, 3 merlin? And the boxes?

>>10680303
SL & vac raptors. boxes are for storage

>>10680242
Shut the fuck up nigger, it's public

>>10680303
The big ones are vacuum raptors
Apparently engine testing went so well that they're confident they can get vacuum raptors ready soon enough for initial deployment (mostly this is a function of the engine reductions from 7 to 6)

This image never fails to make me laugh https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/1133455073311436806?s=19

>>10679969

Cut off the pricey expendable upper stage and launch it on Starship.

>>10680104
this makes my habitat the big habitat

>>10680303
3 sea level raptors that have max 15° gimballing, 3 big vacuum raptors without gimballing.

>>10679969

Jesus Christ Orbital/NG, pitch some wider hab modules. No one likes or will ever pick your 2m ones.

>>10680421
MOL 2.0

>>10680421

>>10680444
Anyone has that webm where these guys run like in a hamster wheel?

>india wants to set up its own space force
who's next? france? japan? uk?

>>10680807
North Korea?

>>10680807
Trump and Abe said at a press conference a couple days ago that Japan will be joining the US on the moon and Mars.

>>10680807
>france, uk
lol, they have other things to worry/consider

Love this janky as fuck garbage can, can't wait to see it fly.

>oldspace btfo by literal flying tin cans welded up by some bogan cunts in the middle of a field

Beautiful

>>10681047
It's so Mad Max I really want to see it fly! Take that NASA!

>>10680242
What the FUCK is up with so many companies putting money into launch vehicles that are just paper rockets and not flight proven?

SLS, New Glenn, and Starship aren't even real yet, they haven't launched or even been built, yet everyone is jumping on the bandwagon for hardware that may never exist.

I get it that SpaceX has proven the Falcon rockets and BO has their Dildo (New Shep), but seriously, who in the right mind throws down serious cash on ANYTHING that hasn't even shown so much as a functional prototype?

Maybe its just me, but if I invested in anything, I would need to see some kind of working model that is full scale.

>>10680242
Neat reusable solar-electric command/service module on the far left. Otherwise known as LOP-G.

>>10681090
SLS is mostly done and has tons of government work behind it to prove it's validity. While Blue Origin has been very private to the public, they not private to government agencies or companies that are interested. Plus, unlike other companies, Blue Origin has guaranteed income (from Jeff Bezos) so they're not at risk of going bankrupt like other companies. SpaceX like you said has shown to be very capable in developing new hardware at amazing speeds, and while they don't guaranteed income they are still a very profitable company.

While I understand that you are uneasy about this excitement towards new launchers, and it is completely justified by the shaky post-Apollo era, times do seem to be changing for the better. And while one launcher may fail, there are others that can pick up the slack. Have hope.

>>10681090
I don't believe that the Falcon 9 even existed in prototype form before NASA kicked in funds to develop it for domestic CRS capabilities. They had only flown the Falcon 1, and were only in the design process for F9, but mission plans were already being made for the bigger rocket.

With how long things take to develop in the space industry- both payloads and launch vehicles- it doesn't make sense to only plan missions for the launch hardware you already have. If you're not building for the future, you're behind the curve.

>>10680190
Seems half those bullet points are just stating the obvious:

>Test site was fully cleared and all safety protocol was followed
>SpaceX immediately informed NASA management of the anomaly
>immediately executed mishap plans per guidelines
>SpaceX has continued to communicate with NASA on daily basis

I mean, well duh.

>>10681310
Juuuuust in case you missed it.
>An anomaly occurred on the test side

>>10680432
sMOL 2.0

>>10680455
You can tell which of the three astronauts had gymnastics training.

>>10678954
The Starlink form factor is going to be useless as anything but a sigint satellite, and even then it will only work as a constellation of small receivers instead of one giant antenna like the NRO currently uses.

>Bieńkowska said in January that the European Union needed to discuss a “European Space Force,” given the proliferation of similar concepts among its member states at national levels.
poland is the best country in europe

>>10681362
>Poland into space force
>Establishes Baza księżycowa
>Baza księżycowa gets taken by German and Russian space forces

>>10681090
>yet everyone is jumping on the bandwagon for hardware that may never exist.
SLS exists, they just need to stack all the parts. New Glenn probably also has a few proper pieces in existence. Starship/Superheavy at least already have engines that are going into mass production now.

>>10681047
Reminder they‘ll start on their super heavy trashcan soon and once that flies it‘ll be among the, if not the most powerful rocket ever flown.
A fucking trashcan.

>>10678086
insomnia finally has a bonus feature. I was awake to see the train go by at 3 am just now! choo choo!

>>10670897
I went to Yellowstone a couple years ago and watched a late night talk in a small outdoor theater given by some of the park staff. They were in the middle of the Indian guilt spiel (white man bad) and I looked up and the ISS was passing overhead. It was like God himself was telling me not to listen to them.

So assuming bandwidth is oversubscribed by 100x, starlink(12,000 says) can support ~100 million customers!

>>10678959
>third world.
Anon...I

>>10680070
Check out Bigelow's Glassdoor. It's a dumpster fire.

>>10678921
The main problem with NTP is getting the thing up in orbit in the first place. If your booster blows up, you're spreading the contents of a nuclear reactor over a large portion of a continent. This could be mitigated by sending it up piecemeal and assembling it in orbit, this is more realistic with the advent of reusable boosters

>>10680030
T H I C C

Spacewalk is about to start
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-television-to-air-russian-spacewalk-at-international-space-station-0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21X5lGlDOfg

>>10681368
Poland will never into moon, I'm sorry anon

>>10681988
Is this real life?
https://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Reviews/Employee-Review-Bigelow-Aerospace-RVW21402245.htm

>>10682205
>implying moon base will not need good and cheap plumbers

>>10681362
>>Bieńkowska said
Lost all hope there

>>10682182
Neato, what are they doing this time?

>>10678669
You'll probably start out with inflatable/expandable habitats which are set up already halfway buried in trenches and then covered over and surrounded by concrete made from lunar material. Once your base is large enough you'd start digging with the goal of creating a network of pressurized tunnels at least several meters bellow the surface. You probably wouldn't actually be living in bare tunnels though, since there is to our knowledge no lunar vulcanism it's likely that bellow the sunlit surface which is oven hot the rest of the moon will be freezing cold so your tunnels will also be covered in insulation so you don't freezer-burn yourself if you accidentally brush up against one.

>>10682205
Yes, good shit

>>10682285
>regacrete
Dumb meme, just dump raw moon rocks or the silica tailings left after burning the iron out on top

dont mind me, just being a fucking 2 kW/kg energy source

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/05/seaborg-molten-salt-reactor-will-fit-on-a-truck-and-cost-less-than-coal-power.html

single Starship could land two of these babies on Mars for a whopping 100MW of electric power...

https://www.seaborgtech.com/

>>10682209
Yes, good shit
>>10682213
True

A pic of orbital Starship prototype. A pic of a new structure within the control center area. They loaded the container labeled "Structures Parts" onto the flatbed and trucked it over where the other containers are stacked. -NSF

>>10682610
You don't need to put some sort of retarded signature in your posts now that Marie has started putting one in her images

A pic taken tonight of StarHopper at the launch site. -NSF

https://twitter.com/RGVReagan/status/1133488254890778631?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

mark your calendars, we are hopping June 3-5th 2-8 pm

>>10682600
my dick

>>10679134
That's what computers are for.

>>10682600
something something dont forget mass for the big ass RADIATORS

>>10682209
Holy fuck
>Engineers treated like janitors
>Fired for making suggestions
>Boss is a two-bit former hotel manager pretending to be an engineer

I thought my last job was shit, you couldn't create a worse aerospace company if you tried.

How many nukes could we build on the Moon? Could lunar bases be filled with vast nuclear arsenals?

>>10682734
Probably zero since pretty much every spaceflight capable nation has signed treaties to not put nukes in space. And the one's who didn't sign can be bullied by the others.

>>10682827
why doesn't the us put up small war heads on the moon or in luna orbit. Tiny ones with a heatshield and a small engine. Then they blast off and can be cordinated to pop on hitting target at high velocities.

>>10682850
As mentioned above, the US signed the Outer Space Treaty of 1967, which forbids nuclear weapons in space. Granted, that treaty is going to need some major revisions once humanity starts actually colonizing space.

>>10682850
You mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment

Probably because the amount of damage they can cause is very small compared to the cost of setting them up. They're really only useful for busting really tough bunkers deep in enemy territory. But those instances are rare today, and the US has other ways to penetrate deep within enemy territory to strike high value targets.

Plus, there's that whole phobia that the US has over making space the next battlefield which I'm sure other nations share.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIQ2byD6b6o
based

>>10682864
wait since when an asteroid is a planet ???

>>10682870
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_planet

>>10682726
Radiators and nukeplants are a necessary evil for going out past Mars. Solar panels (and certain other dark surfaced solar interfaces from Africa) can't function more than 1.6AU out.

>>10682968
>Solar panels can't function more than 1.6AU out.
Got a source on that? I wasn't aware that there was an established furthest distance from the Sun for solar panels.

>>10682971
I don't think he meant that literally. Past a certain point your solar panels need to be fuckhuge to get appreciable power due to the inverse square law. Nuclear power on a kg/W basis is going to be better.

18 months to starship flight, according to Shotwell

>>10682993
Yeah, out past Mars orbit they're not worth the mass penalty for the power they provide.

>>10683024
Jupiter is about as far out as it's even semi-feasibly possible to run solar, and certainly not for any electric propulsion. Juno is out there right now with solar (albeit fuckhuge solar panels), and Europa Clipper is also supposed to be solar.

>>10683014
Since Musk is going bankrupt in less than 10, oh well.

>>10683060
I would like to ask you to remember this post in 11 month's time, and review your prediction. Could you set a reminder?

>>10683083
This remembers me that there was an anon making a collage of SpaceX contrarians. Does anyone have the pics?

>>10682600
Have they solved the problem of the horribly radioactive salts filled with all sorts of corrosive isotopes shreking the pipes?

Pressing X to doubt on this one.

>>10683092
It's a dude who is saving of all the people shitting on BFR. He has literally thousands of pics (90% probably from that one fucktard but still). He is assembling them into a beautiful collage for when the stack launches.

>>10683098
>thousands
No, but a lot. You probably mistook my naming scheme as a simple counter

>>10683098
>>10683101
Oh, I see. The tears of oldspace shills at launch will be glorious.

>>10683092
At the risk of starting a flame war, I don't even get why some people shit on SpaceX so much. I understand disliking some of their practices (such as how SpaceX handled is downsizing last year) and methods (which can make them seem unreliable), but I don't understand hating SpaceX so much that one hopes that they go bankrupt or believe that BFR is a hoax (or even believe that the Falcon 9 flybacks are hoaxes). Is it just typical "us vs them" internet think?

>>10683101
Yeah I did kek. Good luck anyway m8.

>>10683112
There's this one subhuman by the name of Thunderf00t, who has for some reason or another dedicated his existence to huffing his own farts and hating elon musk
it does not matter what elon does, he will hate it with all his fucking being

thankfully, he'll likely kill himself when BFR flies, so no longer will humanity be blighted with his existence soon

>>10683112
I believe it has to do with the persona behind the company. It is much easier to hate a person than a faceless element like a corporation.

>>10683118
>Thunderf00t
Some of his videos are just awful. His rant about the Space Force was full of stupid, he spent most of it ranting about how hard it is to get stuff into space instead of discussing about the USSF. I'm amazed that he hasn't made a video about Starlink yet.

>>10683143
>>10683118
I always get recommended this fat autists videos. I go in to downvote every time and leave a comment telling him to kill himself kek.

>>10683083
>>10683092
>>10683098
>>10683101
>>10683107
>>10683112
etc etc
I was actually making a reference to https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/17/18629166/elon-musk-tesla-money-changes-cfo-employee-expenses
As a point of note, Musk is the largest shareholder having a little south of 40M shares in TSLA, so not long ago that was about $15B of his net worth (vast majority of it). Those recently halved in value. If they go under he's going to be on rocky ground financially unfortunately, and it's not easy for him to sell them for obvious reasons.

That's not the same as SpaceX being over though, it would just be someone else in the cockpit.

>>10683118
I swear to god thundercunt is one of the most insufferable faggots on youtube. His claim to fame is shitting on braindead creationists, for fuck's sake. Which is funny because his hatred of Musk is practically religious. He's just a third rate academic with no engineering knowledge who embarrasses himself every time he speaks. Can't wait for BFR.

>>10683143
ORANGE
MAN
BAD

>>10683170
>His claim to fame is shitting on braindead creationists
CoolHardLogic is better.

>>10683178
yeah, his videos are actually entertaining, instead of thundercuck's reddit atheism and bashing Christianity disguised as something educational.

>>10683118
>Athletesf00t
lol

>>10682870
Anything that has enough mass to collapse into a sphere is a minor planet or planetoid
There are more than a few in the belt and a bunch that are trans-neptunian, including the Pluto/Charon twin planetoids

>>10683172
Asshurt leftists ruin everything in spaceflight.

>>10683404
Greedy cunts on the right aren't better imo
Fuck Nixon

>>10682864
We should send a probe there to place a little model of a kerbonaut on it.

>>10682968
Juno orbits Jupiter at 5 AU from the Sun
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft)

>>10683163
>tesla dying means SpaceX goes under
I know you're retarded, but could you at least try

>>10683499
Its like that one guy who argued that since Tesla used inappropriate touch-screens for their cars, then SpaceX must be using inappropriate materials for their rockets.

Something interesting I found.
(1/4)

>>10683588
(2/4)
Yes, I know it's not a true SSTO. shhhhh Sorry for the tiny image, it was the largest I could find.

>>10683590
(3/4)

>>10683596
(4/4)
What's old is new again, hey ULA?

Anyways, what are your guys thoughts on Stage-and-a-Half rockets? (SAAH?) A viable alternative to SSTOs? A curious configuration? A meme?

>>10683420
Thats why we go the third way. They were the only guys that got us into spacefligh

>>10683610
Yeah but they fucking lost

>>10683683
Sometimes thats how it be

>>10683150
god's work

>>10683420
Nixon wanted the full STS system iirc. Blame the Air Force for fucking up the design phase.

so spacex has pushed back the first mars launch to at least 2024? how long are they going to keep delaying it? its going to end up being 2030 at this rate before they actually launch anything.

>>10683942
That's fairly realistic for a cargo-only mission. I don't think there's ever been much question about the cargo vehicle (aside from Musk being too optimistic about the 2022 flight date). The crew vehicle and the fuel plant are the big questions.

>>10683942
Where do you see that?

>>10684055
Gwynne gave a new talk, the biggest news was cargo Starship will hit orbit in about 18 months, and the first cargo trip to Mars will be in about five years (2024 window).

>>10682864
>Hullotopia is a real place
HULLO!

>>10683588
>single stage to orbit
>clearly drops a stage in that image

>>10683602
>reusable F-1 engines

>>10684058
https://twitter.com/RocketJoy/status/1133818584482947072?s=19

>100+ tons to Mars mission
>manned moon landing
>in the same year
I know all of it is gonna be delayed or cancelled by trivial bullshit, but I wanna believe, guys. I wanna believe.

>>10684253
The moon landing may happen, but if it does that year it will almost definitely not use SLS-reliant hardware.

>>10684237
>5 years until CARGO on mars
so cargo run moved from 2022 to 2024, and manned to 2026?

>>10678086
Earth is flat

Not to be a conspiritard but the moon landing will almost certainly result in dead astronauts. They have to normalise mission failure before they can attempt a mars mission.

>>10684264
and to humour your shitpost, why in the bloody fuck do they need to do that
be specific

>>10684262
I would argue 2028. 2024 will be a bulk delivery, minimal automation. 2026, some more hardware and automated equipment to look at the 2024 vehicles and their contents, maybe even do some initial staging.

>>10684270
hopefully asteroid mining and orbital assembly get going before that, having a station in orbit around mars with humans in it would make colony setup so much easier, since they could real time remote control shit

>>10684270
Nah its around the corner literally next year

>>10680369
>"permanent habitat"
>starship will be cheaper!
How do you people get through the day without killing yourselves with your own stupidity? Serious question..

>>10682600
>NuMale LWR

Elon with the hot takes once again
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1134019585638785025?s=19
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1134023034908446723?s=19

Starship PTP without super heavy is doable, but needs more engines
This is a really dank thing, because 8 raptors can be much closer to cities than 32 raptors or whatever the number is
Also they changed the design of the legs and flaps, again
When are they going to quit fiddling with the design and fucking get on with it

>>10682864
If we eventually colonize it, will the people living there be called Manlets?

10684300
ask yourself m80, you're clearly the expert on such matters

>>10684329
Lurk more and learn how to reply properly before posting here again.

it gets him mad every single time
I don't understand why, it's clear as day what I'm doing

>>10684329
>>10684347
Heh and remember that we all share oxygen with beings like him
Stop the starlink train I want to get off of this ride...

>>10684347
Lurk more and learn how to reply properly before posting here again.

>>10682610
>The chad immaculate space-worthy Florida prototype

>The virgin shitty rustbucket Africa-tier Texas prototype

>>10683163
>That's not the same as SpaceX being over though, it would just be someone else in the cockpit.
>>10683499
>>tesla dying means SpaceX goes under
lrn2read lil buddy. Tesla dying is exactly the same as Musk going bankrupt atm, so that would mean selling off his spaceX shares.

He's not all that likely to get that much for them either, although I guess it depends on his relationship with the other top guys at SpaceX, that at least appears to be good. Unlikely to stay in control.

>>10684364

>>10684264
Speaking of conspiritards and shitposting, wonder how all the MoonHoax-people will react when we return. You could beat them to death with the combined pictures of LRO and Apollo without getting through, so id imagine they will just keep reeeing

>>10684487
Most will probably just say that the Apollo missions were faked, but the new missions are real. No amount of evidence will convince them otherwise because they've already made up their mind that the Apollo landings are fake.

>>10684429
Pure cringe

>>10684496
I do enjoy all the different variations that these theories contain though.
Like a rainbow, where each colour is a different flavor of crazy

>>10684428
>so that would mean selling off his spaceX shares
SpaceX shares? What?
You do realize SpaceX isn't public like Tesla...

>>10684605
you know that private companies use shares too...

>>10684622
Critical thinking about public and private equity? On MY 4chan?

NASA briefly updates status of Crew Dragon anomaly, SpaceX test schedule

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-briefly-crew-dragon-anomaly-spacex-schedule/

In Flight Abort - July 2019

Demo-2 Crew test flight - end of year 2019

>>10684697
So what is Boeing's schedule like at this point?

>Some pics of the steel beams going up at the control center area.

starship changing yet again, SpaceX really loves to iterate

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/with_replies

>>10682729
>Boss is a two-bit former hotel manager pretending to be an engineer

worse than that, he LITERALLY believes in space aliens

One Starlink item from Gwynne's talk: 56 of the payloads are working well. 4 of them are misbehaving in some way but are nevertheless in communication.

https://twitter.com/planet4589/status/1133911648006283265

>>10684758
I expect a change to fixed wings, the hinges were always really dodgy.

>>10684946
also solar panels stored in wings instead of body

>>10684429
Nice, i like it

Proton launch in a few minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLoTNwg18H8

Surprisingly, it is the first Proton of the year. Russia's launch rate has really dropped.

>>10685052
>Few minutes
>T-1hr 6min to launch

>>10685052
>Russia's launch rate has really dropped
SpaceX ate their market.

>>10684322
>Inb4 this trend of iterations and making starship cheaper arrives at its logical conclusion and they decide that shitty starhopper-like design is good enough

>>10685052
Is that the official channel or a shitty re-stream?

>>10685082
Appears to be the official channel, or if it is a restream its synced to the actual launch time according to spaceflight insider.

>>10685052
petepa raketa!

>>10685123
What does the moon runes say?

>>10685052
>see "GAZPROM" logo on rocket
>wonder if they made it from pipeline parts

>>10684758
>design changed again
>"doesn't affect schedule much"
Either he's lying through his teeth or they're even earlier in the design process than I thought.

>>10685156
Almost everything outside of the hull shape has been in a fair amount of flux for a while. SpaceX' iterative design process has never believed in commitment.

>>10685125
>moon runes
glorious Cyrillic, you capitalist running dog!

>flew rocket.
>fell into a swamp.
>wih this salary --
>you get this work!

>Highly Scientific Starlink Observations

There were 3 primary Groups, with each getting a Leader section, the Main, and a Trailing section. Except for Group 2 which had the most regular spacing. Just eyes + some clouds. By barely visible I mean you would not be able see unless very focused. Visible means if you knew were to look generally you would see. Noticeably bright means if you were looking up at all you would see it. Very bright is highbeams.
Leader 1 was visible in A and B. Main 1 is the largest group around 20 satellites, one was visible and three were barely so in A and B.
I could not see any in Group 2, which was a directly overhead path.
Group 3 Main could be seen in B and C. The first was noticeably bright, and the pair was very bright. The pair were the brightest satellites I’ve ever seen, brighter than the split second peak of an iridium flare and way larger for the entire time.

>Highly Scientific Starlink Observations

There were 3 primary Groups, with each getting a Leader section, the Main, and a Trailing section. Except for Group 2 which had the most regular spacing. Just eyes + some clouds. By barely visible I mean you would not be able see unless very focused. Visible means if you knew were to look generally you would see. Noticeably bright means if you were looking up at all you would see it. Very bright is highbeams.
Leader 1 was visible in A and B. Main 1 is the largest group around 20 satellites, one was visible and three were barely so in A and B.
I could not see any in Group 2, which was a directly overhead path.
Group 3 Main could be seen in B and C. The first was noticeably bright, and the pair was very bright. The pair were the brightest satellites I’ve ever seen, brighter than the split second peak of an iridium flare and way larger for the entire time.

>>10685125
Moon runes are Japan.
I guess these could be bear runes.

>>10685052
T-4 minutes for proton launch!

>>10685052
We have lift off!

The SLS Core Stage LH2 and LOX tanks have been joined together. It's a big'un, folks.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/multimedia/progress-made-assembling-massive-sls-rocket-stage.html

The ruskies have probably the best CGI visualization.

>>10685235
>FH - Side Booster Stage 1 landing burn has started
kek

>>10685235
and now for 9 hours of orbit raising on Briz-M

>>10685242
Well, you have to show something if you can't show live feed from onboard cameras.
It weird, because they clearly have onboard cameras, but for some reason they never show their footage on launch streams.

>>10684605
>You do realize SpaceX isn't public like Tesla...
That's why I mentioned the effect of Musk's relationships with other shareholders, they usually get first dibs. Now if you're offered to buy someone's shares in a private company in a bankruptcy deal you can generally get them for a song, it's also possible he'd sell them cheap to avoid bankruptcy if that were possible.

>>10684428
>so that would mean selling off his spaceX shares.
Pretty sure Elon would move to some wood shack and drive 20 year old Fiat Panda before abandoning SpaceX.
I mean he literally gambled his belongings on SpaceX before.

>>10685354
SpaceX and Tesla are independent companies, and SpaceX is the one Musk cares about the most. Tesla may or may not go bankrupt, SpaceX will not be affected.

>>10684854
That's nothing to be concerned about unless he thinks they actually visited us at any point.
I know that's exactly what this is, but still.

>solids

>>10685205
More like alien squiggles.

>>10685439
Wtf happened? Did the nozzle fail?

>>10685445
That appears to be the case.

>>10685445
Looks like it

>>10685439
>Why don't they shut that shit dow-
>omega
>solids
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

>>10685439
Saw the video posted by Hullo, man was he quick.

>>10685445
Catastrophic nozzle failure, if crewed this would be an immediate computer initiated abort and potenatially a high g ballistic reentry for the crew. Could be very deadly if the debris from the nozze strikes the main tank.

>>10685490
wait wait wait wait, they intend to human rate the OmegA?

>>10685493
Dunno lol, this is true for all solids, everywhere.

Look at this shit they tried to sell.

>>10685498
Ah yes, the flying corndog.

>>10685449
oy ve- I mean OOF

>>10685125
Ork speak, not moon runes

>successfully

>>10685314
Maybe plausible deniability for when the first stage takes out a Mongol village somewhere downrange

>>10685498
To be honest I kinda like how the Ares I looks in an "it's so ugly it's cool looking" sort of way.

>>10685520
About as nominal as the Dragon test a few weeks back

>>10685523
>plausible deniability

"Глyпocть! The burning rocket wreckage spewing toxic hypergols could have been from any other space agency!"

>>10685534
all the boom came out the correct end though, very nominal

In terms of space, how wide would the transceiver(s) have to be? or has elon hurtled the issue by virtue of number of links in the chain here

>>10685535
"We're not going to SAY it was China, but..."

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-to-announce-selection-of-science-commercial-moon-landing-services-hold-media/

NASA to Announce Selection of Science Commercial Moon Landing Services, Hold Media Teleconference

>>10685538
9/10 nominality

>>10685432
aliens definitely do exist SOMEWHERE
if they've visited though, we'd know, cause ain't nobody gonna slowboat to another star and just fucking leave because a bunch of primitives happened to be there
those primitives will either get gassed, or uplifted into the space empire

>>10685426
>SpaceX and Tesla are independent companies
Nobody is arguing otherwise.
>and SpaceX is the one Musk cares about the most.
Doesn't matter if most of his money is in Tesla and he has to dump other assets to make ends meet. At best he gets to hang around SpaceX in a similar role to now but without anywhere near the same stock options/incentive. He seems to have a real hard on for stock stuff though so I don't know how long that would last.

To be frank, I wouldn't rule out Tesla continuing but I'd guess it'd go the same way as Delorean, with someone buying the machines and selling to a niche market. They could do with a back to the future type placement for that tho.

Since you're being pretty weasley about this for whatever reason, I'm going to be diplomatic and put it this way: this year has already been and is going to be extremely important to Musk's future, and at the moment that's looking bleak.

>>10685409
>I mean he literally gambled his belongings on SpaceX before.
The problem there is he's already gambling everything on Tesla. He might be alright if he wasn't trying to min-max so hard, as it is he's got very few other assets than his shares. I imagine he's in some level of non-insignificant debt with some of his legal troubles and things too.

>>10684188
To be fair towards NASA, this was during Apollo so the term SSTO probably wasn't in the form that we recognize today. They probably saw the dropping of engines as not significant enough to call a stage.

OH GOD WHEN IS THE HOP THE WAITING IS KILLING ME

THEY BETTER LIVESTREAM THAT SHIT

FLYING TRASHCAN FUCKING WHEN

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>10685557
Only slightly explodey™

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6JKg1IQ5D0

>>10685966
The cope kek

>"We observed the exit cone doing something a little strange"
>Nothing to see here guys we are #1 launch provider, SpaceX equipment is dangerous and unsafe
>pls buy launches

>>10685966
>>10686017
>"Our engines are so well designed, they can be disassembled in under half a microsecond."

>>10686037

>>10685966
That's not a failure, it's an automatically adjustable cone, see how it elegantly switched to the vacuum configuration!

>>10685439
>>10685449
>>10685520
>>10685966
>omegAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Is there any evidence or studies about the long-term health effects of sustained non-zero low gravities? Like, 0.37g for example? Or do we just assume it's bad because we know 0g is bad?

My gut says no data exists because testing would require us to build a space station with spin gravity, and I know we don't have one of those.

>>10686234
No data exists

Honestly you've got to feel a bit of pity for NGIS/Orbital. They're like the retarded stepchild of launch providers. They have an unhealthy obsession with solids so their rockets have always been basically nigger rigged ICBMs or the like. Cygnus is basically an orbital trashcan. Antares was an attempt at a liquid 1st stage but used bootleg engines literally dragged out of a warehouse in Ukraine, and it failed spectacularly. Now, Omega is basically Ares-I, take two, which itself is just stacking shit on top of a shuttle side booster. And even that fucking failed.

>>10686430
>Now, Omega is basically Ares-I, take two, which itself is just stacking shit on top of a shuttle side booster. And even that fucking failed.
To be fair of the Aries-1. It's major problems were related to human rating it, technically it's still a perfectly serviceable rocket. Or are you referring to the recent testfire mishap?

hey nerds have there been any cool discoveries about stars and dark matter and wormholes and astronomy stuff recently?

>>10686456
yes I am referring to the mishap. Ares flew but these bumblers messed up their static fire. Well honestly messing up in testing is fine but their response is the funny/retarded part.

>>10686464
Probably just an assembly error. Good thing it was found during the testfire. Hopefully Orbital will get it sorted out.

>>10686467
indeed, I like having lots of rockets around

>>10685552
>Inb4 blue balls

>>10685520
>successfully completing the test
>not completing a successful test

Up until a few weeks ago I was one of those people who, when thinking of spaceflight, thought "yeah even if we get ships to fly very fast, things are so fucking far and many light years away, whats the point?". Then during work, I was reading up on time dilation and how relativity is affected when you are in a ship constantly accelerating. I was reading this when I realized that to the observer standing on the ship, he can potentially cross the fucking universe in his lifetime due to time dilation. I kept trying to argue myself that even if traveling near speed of light, the distance doesn't chance. But the passage of time for the observer on the ship does, so what feels like a few seconds can be thousands of light years? Do I understand that correctly?

I know its a brainlet concept in the grand scheme of things but it fucking blew my mind and gets me amped up... I wish we had more answers

>>10683118

>>10683093
If you keep the salt stream mixed with bismuth the environment stays reducing rather than oxidating, and even without that trick iconel is actually fully capable of withstanding contact with molten nuclear salts.

>>10683402
Uh huh, and the thin named ater Scott is waaay smaller than the minimum mass required to collapse into hydrostatic equilibrium.

>>10684237
She looks like a mature woman who would benefit from having someone worship her feet and suck her toes under her desk all day

>>10684300
Starship will literally be cheaper as a single use surface habitat module than any of the single use surface modules NASA has ever considered building.

>>10686535
>But the passage of time for the observer on the ship does, so what feels like a few seconds can be thousands of light years? Do I understand that correctly?

Yes, the closer you travel to the speed of light, the more extreme the dilation, trending towards zero. By that same notion, photons do not experience the passage of time, from the "perspective" of lightspeed, they represent an instantaneous transfer of energy between two points. Also, because of spatial contraction, photons don't actually "experience" distance traveled through space- those points they travel between actually occupy the same space from the lightspeed perspective. It's mathematically a bit more complicated, but that's the gist.

>>10686504
>Successfully completed
>With an error code of 1

>>10686709
tfw CLion literally crashes on me

>>10686725
install Spacemacs

>>10685237
in awe of the size of this lad

>>10678696
>SPACEBALLS

>>10686744

>>10686757
>SPACEBALLS THE GREENTEXT

j e l l o b a b i e s

>>10682600
The problem with a 250MWth reactor on Mars isn't the energy density. It's the amount of cooling needed. Submarine reactors are compact precisely because they have an infinite amount of free coolant available around them.

Another option which needs neither cooling nor reaction at all would be a nuclear-optical converter
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.334468 (or look at the sci-hub for doi:10.1117/12.334468)
It has hydrocarbon-like power density and doesn't require cooling. The only downside is that it needs high pressure tanks with a very dirty gas, once activated; so it's better suited for the Moon.

>>10678954
>I wonder how good of a spy satellite the NRO could make that would fit into the flatpack form factor Starlink is using.
No optical or radio system useful for spying can fit into that size. Unless you're going Planet Labs route, aka packing cheap Nikon cameras inside a gazillion of Rubiks cubes.

There are experimental lensless systems, but they are wildly impractical to put on a spacecraft.

>>10678921
NERVA was quite dirty, especially if fired in Van Allen belts. With its prolonged use, you'd basically contaminate the entire planet and near earth space with the eroded reactor core particles. The latest attempt was the Russian RD-0410 which was a lot cleaner due to using uranium cardibes, and experienced a lot less core erosion (it was also a suggestion for improving NERVAS back at the time), but it's still really dirty.

>>10678934
I'd take modern Russian DoD claims with an Everest of salt.
>i'm sure they don't give a fuck about what leftist and environmental activist groups say
they do have plenty of their own ones after Chernobyl

>>10683602
>>10683602
>what are your guys thoughts on Stage-and-a-Half rockets? (SAAH?) A viable alternative to SSTOs? A curious configuration? A meme?
They are usually worse than true multistage designs. You want to drop most of the mass early, not to haul almost everything to the orbit.

>>10678114
Putting so many small satellites into orbit without a plan for de-orbiting items once they're dead seems like a bad practice.

>>10686898
They do have a plan though, as nearly everyone does recently

>>10686808
True, but correct me if I'm wrong here.
Using some liquid to transport the heat outside of the reactor, you could use some radiator system that is a fraction of the size of one needed on earth simply because its so cold in space?
The surface of mars (according to the location of InSight) has been an average of around -6 degrees Fahrenheit, with lows hitting -150.
I think it would be feasible to dissipate a good bit of heat in that environment.

>>10686234
All we have are theories for long-term exposure to low G.
The longest exposure has been missions to the moon, and the time on the surface is under 24 hours per person.

>>10687233
In space the only way to reject heat is radiatively, and Mars' atmosphere is so thin you'd need a turbocompressor to get it up to a point where it could be used as a heat-sinking medium for the core waste heat.

>>10687257
Good point, I'm still thinking with Earth variables.

>>10686234
No, and that is really stupid. We have decades of experience of zero-g, but no attempts to low-g experiments have been made.

>>10687257
In Mars you could dump the heat into soil, just have lots of pipes burried in soil and run liquid through that piping.

>>10687279
True, but you'd need a shitload of piping, and the melting of the martian permafrost below the surface would need to be taken into account, because we do know there's a shitload of ice underground.

>>10687267
But without those decades of microgravity research on the most expensive manmade object ever then we would never know these facts about microgravity.
>It's unhealthy for humans
>Beans don't grow well in it
>It's really unhealthy for humans
>Crystals can grow bigger in it
>Don't leave a human in it for long periods of time

Clearly it was all worth it.

>>10687286
>True, but you'd need a shitload of piping
I agree, but it would still be better than having to use radiators

>>10686535
Yeah but it's basically impossible to get moving fast enough
>>10686898
The deorbit plan is to let the atmosphere take care of the ones that didn't turn on over the next few months
Once their useful life is over at the higher altitudes they're going to propulsively lower their orbit, then let the atmosphere take care of it

>>10682272
"Two veteran Russian cosmonauts will venture outside the International Space Station for a spacewalk Wednesday, May 29, to retrieve science experiments and conduct maintenance on the orbiting laboratory. Live coverage of the activity will air on NASA Television and the agency’s website."

>>10684745
Green text not required or appropriate in this context. Niggger

>>10687290
honestly 1/3 gravity on mars has as likely being fine/mediocre as it does being as bad as micro grav

>>10682272 >>10687619
In particular, they are taking another batch of microbial samples from the outer station surface for the "Test" experiment. (yeah it's called like that). It's a long running experiment analyzing the chemicals and lifeforms accidentally brought to the outer surface by various means.
http://www.tsniimash.ru/science/scientific-experiments-onboard-the-is-rs/cnts/experiments/test/
The intermediate results are already surprising. They've found different planktonic species from all over the world, from Barentz Sea to Indian Ocean, many of them alive and capable to reproduce, and also some non-oceanic fungi spores. They're proposing the existence of some ionic mechanism lifting microscopic particles (including micro-organisms) to that height. Which means a previously unknown possibility for panspermia.

https://twitter.com/ESA_ExoMars/status/1134112343724572674

so many moving parts, looks pretty fucking unreliable

>>10687822
Would it fair any better than Spirit if one of the wheels dies, I wonder.

>>10686808
Coolant on Mars is in abundant supply, you have the entire mass of the atmosphere and surrounding land to dump heat into. The best option would probably be a simple thermal loop whereby hot fluid is pumped through a really long pipe covered in metal fins, thus rejecting waste heat. In fact this waste heat itself can actually be pretty useful for doing things like vaporizing the water ice out of dirt, driving endothermic reactions, and so forth. The big thing to consider is that manufacturing metal tubes for a bigger thermal rejection system is far easier than manufacturing solar panels, and maintaining a thermal loop is much easier than maintaining a large solar farm.

>>10687785
Wait, so theoretically the ISS can be a potential home for a bunch of alien microbes?

>>10687858
The air is really too thin for that though, and the ground doesn't have enough conductivity and capacity. Unless it's ice, of course, but even then you have a lot of unknowns and challenges to bury your pipe under the ice and keep the coolant circulating because the ice would just melt away

So we can all agree The Expanse has the best physics in sci fi, right?

>>10687913
>spinning Ceres for "gravity"
seems legit

>>10687822
And they using a fucking Proton to launch it to Mars and a russian-made landing platform.
Honestly, I don't know what ESA was thinking. It like they want it to fail.

10687918
No (You)s for no effort bait

>>10687858
Use the radiative potential of the the air pressure within the farming/habitable enclosure?

>>10687913
No, Expanse is actually pretty shit if you do even a surface level analysis. The most accurate thing they do is 'lol brachistochrone trajectory'. Meanwhile the engines are literal magic tech that could never exist IRL, the rotating asteroid stations are retarded, and don't even talk about the protomolecule thing.

>>10688089
Nah, just let the heat escape via passive air conduction/convection and thermal radiation from hot fluid pipes. Obviously if you do choose to route some waste heat into your habitats for keeping them nice and toasty they're gonna radiate that heat away on their own too of course.

Also ignore anyone who shitposts about Martian air needing to flow at supersonic speeds in order to cool a reactor, that flow rate is only needed if you are doing a directly air-cooled reactor core, in reality you'd actually be using a working fluid (super-critical high pressure CO2 would be convenient) to remove heat from the core, and after that heat is used to generate power the waste heat can be spread across as many football fields of radiator panels needed to get rid of it passively. Notionally the heat dump could look like hundreds of meters of aluminum pipe with aluminum fins welded on to increase surface area, zig-zagging back and forth, hot CO2 going in one side and cold CO2 coming back out the other side.

Also as I already said, waste heat has a lot of uses, like melting water. If you are taking permafrost-bearing dirt at -100 C and warming it to 50 C to sublimate out the water vapor, then pressurizing that vapor to form liquid water and storing it, you're going to need megawatts of heat to accomplish that and you're not going to need to radiate it away again either. The heat is used up breaking the bonds between the frozen water molecules. The water storage tanks themselves need to be heated to keep them from freezing, no matter how well you insulate them, and for our purposes actually having them un-insulated and therefore requiring more waste heat is beneficial.

On Mars there will probably be a needs for reactors rated at multiple megawatts of thermal power that won't even have any ability to generate electricity at all, they'd be used purely for their ability to generate heat and supply it to various industrial processes.

>>10687976
Spinning Ceres for artificial G doesn't work tho, even if Ceres was a monolithic chunk of diamond the centrifugal force from the spin rate would rip it apart. In fact even graphene wouldn't be strong enough.

Instead it'd make a lot more sense if the people in the Expanse just dug huge cylindrical pits in the ground and put spin habitats inside. Ceres has such low gravity naturally that there wouldn't be much difference inside a vertically mounted spin habitat compared to a free-floating spin habitat up in orbit. You'd also be able to build really big spin habitats with radii bigger than any free floating ones, because the underground ones could use the surrounding material as something to magnetically push against and buttress the walls of the cylinder, stopping them from ripping apart due to centrifugal force. Lastly you'd be able to build more habitable surface area as a whole at ~1 G (or whatever gravity they want) by making underground spin habitats than they could if they spun up Ceres as a whole, if that were possible.

Rather than waste the energy required to spin up Ceres on doing that, you could (for significantly less energy) disassemble Ceres into a cloud of chunks orbiting their collective center of mass, and construct the entire cloud into a giant network of spin habitats, which would have a combined total habitable surface area several dozen thousand times as large as Earth's, including Earth's oceans and deserts and ice caps, except it could all be shirtsleeve habitable like the sub tropics for example. Such a construct could house hundreds of trillions of people, making Earth a literal drop in the bucket in terms of societal relevance.

>>10688210
If you reduce the rate of spin, the centrifugal force goes down. Extrapolating, clearly all you need to get centripetal force is to spin it backwards! Easy!

>>10688210
if you're so sure of the impossibility, give some numbers to back your shit up

>>10688216
ironic shitposting is still shitposting

>>10683093
Alloys like Hastelloy-X were made for systems exactly like that.

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/30/nasa-to-shut-down-spitzer-space-telescope-early-next-year/

Rip Spitzer.

>>10683118
Either that or he'll kill himself with garage cadmium fumes or some shit.

>>10688291
RIP, JWST NEVER, EVER.

>>10683118
sounds like a fun character, any more autism-stories about him?

>>10688141
I wasn't counting protomolecule tech because it's obvious fantasy-tier but there isn't a better way to represent a species more advanced than current human knowledge

>>10688220
No, he's right, and you can do a really basic thought experiment to prove it. If everything is accelerating at 3ish m/s^2 from the center of Ceres, how much load is the surface under to not fly off? Spinning up asteroids doesn't work because they'd just fall apart.

>>10688220
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gU9dCWY7G2M
fuck you too dude

https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/05/30/northrop-grumman-looking-into-dramatic-nozzle-anomaly-on-omega-rocket-motor/
>“It appears, everything worked very, very well on this test,” he told reporters. “And at the very end when the engine was tailing off, we observed the aft exit cone, maybe a portion of it, doing something a little strange that we need to go further look into.”

>>10688481
This is actually pretty good marketing right there, they admit the problem, give a good laugh for everyone and everyone is talking about them and their rockets.
It is a win-win

new
>>10688497

>>10688181
Iron pipe, locally sourced