/sci/ - Science & Math

JWST and WFIRST will never fly

is it just me or does the top fit on better now

>>10735734
What was the point of the probes on the landing gear anyway?

>>10735798
>is it just me or does the top fit on better now
Its just you. Bocachicagal tends to take photos that make the misplaced nosecone less obvious.

>>10735804
proximity sensor

>>10735804

To let the astronauts know that they're RIGHT THERE, and that they can take appropriate action (kill the DPS engine). Seconds counted and descent-fuel was used almost to its last drop, and so if you can gently let the thing plop straight down a few feet if you know your attitude is good, then that's the thing to do.

The sensing probes were on all four legs for Apollo 9's Spider (pic related), which was only a test of the complete spacecraft in low Earth orbit. For lunar landings, the sensing probe was omitted from the ladder-leg - to avoid a possible suit-puncturing safety hazard.

the apollo missions were fake. prove me wrong.

>>10735779
imagine stating a fact this obvious

>>10735825
no

FH center core is slated to land like 1000km+ downrange now. Total cost according to AF is 750mil

Oh shit nigga, apollo17.org has a brother now https://apolloinrealtime.org/11/

MODS = GODS

>>10735855
DOGS = DOMS

>>10735855
ameriburger cope

loooooooong
https://twitter.com/IanPineapple/status/1141097712705769472

>>10735734
>he believes landing gears are real

looooooooooooooooooooooooooong

oooooh pretty

>>10735850
The TV channel A&E on the 25th anniversary played the Apollo news broadcasts with the same timing as the original broadcasts. So you had to watch for a week. Wonder if they'll do that this year.

>>10736011
LONG
LONG
MAAAAAaaAAaaAAN

suppose we had a lunar rotovator to help mined rare metal payloads to escape the moon and inject to earth

What would we use for the first stage of the flight to the bottom of the rotovator?

>>10736123
a big hook

>>10735850

Where in the Apollo 17 website can I find confirmation of LM landing gear extension/deployment? (I'll have to answer my own question again but still).

>>10735734

Are those sphericals on the joints?

>>10735734
Op you stupid faggot.
Put /sfg/ in title next time

>>10735849
>1000km downrange
will that be the hottest reentry ever for Falcon core?

>>10735734
old thread here for posterity

>>10729526

>>10736270
It’s 1245km exactly, which is nearly 300km further than the previous furthest downrange landing- Arabsat at 967km.

>>10735456
>>10735460

>3D printed aluminum

Tell me more about this, fren.

>>10736489
Aren't the draco's printed?

>>10736533
Yes, but not in aluminum, right?

>>10735764
>you shouldn't need the DD license if it's 12.7, right?
I'm not sure, I've heard of cases where the firearm was below 12.7 yet it was still classified as DD.

>>10736489
The 3D printing? I'm not sure what else to say, I'm not super knowledgeable about it. I'd figured that it would be the strongest and cheapest way to make it. Maybe making the nose and the inner half of the wall via lathe, then the end plate and outer half of the wall (again via lathe), sliding the nose assembly into the end plate assembly, and brazing/welding them together could be a possibility. But that could be costly both in time and money.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/18/government-watchdog-says-cost-nasa-rocket-continues-rise-threat-trumps-moon-mission/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f0dd686dbaa6

Government watchdog says cost of NASA rocket continues to rise, a threat to Trump’s moon mission

oh no no no

>>10736645
the law states that it's only a DD if it's greater than half an inch
if you're only making one, I recommend just doing a form 1
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/form-1-application-make-and-register-firearm-atf-form-53201/download
if you're making a bunch, I recommend setting up your workshop in international waters or Pakistan

What is the point of Starlink?
What problem does it solve?

>>10736792
It would create low latency internet for stock market,etc...
And reach remote places.
But the biggest reason is musk needs the money.

>>10736792
They think it can beat out terrestrial internet services in rural areas and (with laser links) for low latency long distance connections
Doing this is directly convertible into billions of dollars a year

>>10736792
Imagine 24/7 realize info on anywhere on earth. Autonomous drones/ship tracking/thousands of sensors across the ocean monitoring the area for movements of enemy subs/ships/etc.

The use of starling is endless because it's a wholly new way of global access to internet. Military definitely would seek some use like this.

>>10735816
You can hear, during Apollo 11's landing, just after the call for 30 seconds of fuel remaining, Aldrin (I think) announce "Contact light!" The probes have touched the surface, and this is immediately followed by Armstrong announcing engine shutdown.

At 4:39 in
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EixzcOdp1uo&list=WL

>>10737051
anon, you linked to a video titled, "Lunar eclipse on flat Earth" and it is one minute long
also you linked to your watch later playlist

>>10735734
Why is it so VEINY?

>>10737111
wrapped in tin foil

>>10737094
kek

>>10737111
posts like these is why your dad cries at night.

static fire soon for FH

>>10737158
when is the launch date?

>>10737166
5 days

>>10737171
noice

Live Starship and StarHopper cams here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqgSVV36wNI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3CVqbH7aME

>>10737173
they're lifting something?

Asteroid Bennu, more detailed photo than in last thread

black section?

>>10737271
Well, Musk is from South Africa during apartheid, so it would make sense that he'd make them sit in a separate section.

>>10737271
Looks like it's reinforced and made with higher quality welds. I'm guessing tank dome interface.

>>10737306
I think they're beginning work on the tankage itself, all previous work so far has just been for the hat

>>10737306
seems to be a covering to protect the shininess. Like shown here. Just regular SS underneath

>>10737310
They've been building tank sections for a little while. The hat has been at full size for a long time now.

>>10737313
Those bits have received more TLC than previous sections. I think that's indicative of its importance.

*flies up to the stratosphere without your dumb rockets*

>>10737158
Have they any plans for Falcon Heavies beyond this point?

>>10737331
there are a handful of missions planned, eight or so?
Elon says this upcoming one will be challenging. Must be due to all of the S2 maneuvers.

higher res

>>10737340

also jej, they installed the panels upside down, according to how they drew on the numbers

are these dudes using a tape measure

>spacememe lobbyists attacking the SLS once again through bullshit financial reports

When will this shit end? You do realize the ONLY chance for humans beyond low earth orbit is the SLS? And if newspace capsules keep blowing up as they do it might be the only way to get americans to the space station too.

>>10737376
I, too, like ferrying people twice a year to space for about a billion dollars a pop.

>>10737376
>You do realize the ONLY chance for humans beyond low earth orbit is the SLS?
What? How so? And while the SLS is definitely necessary for BEO missions as a whole (its better to have it and not need it than to not have it and need it), there are other rockets both present and future that can fit the bill that SLS is filling.

>>10737350
poorly, by the looks of it

>>10736011

>>10736241
he also started on page 9

>>10737439
I'm a thread baker rookie and even I do a better job than that shit.

>>10737383

>>10737321
Seriously, why HALE UAVs aren't the alternative to some satellites yet? At least where it makes sense.

>>10737634
Probably not enough useful load to justify the cost. Also I think the record is only two weeks for a high altitude psuedo satellite, which is a lot for a plane but not a lot for a satellite.

>>10735816
>>10737051
Cool. They haven't explained that on the current Apollo docuseries airing.

>>10737344
It's wider than the bottom part, kek
It really is meme ship

>>10737158
>sooty side boosters
>static fire with payload
I'm excited

>>10736241
>>10737439
>>10737444

>implying anyone who matters gives a shit about such meaningless niceties
You've all posted in my thread. I win.

Soyuz MS-11 scheduled to come back down any day now (204 days after Dec 3, which is June 25 or thereabouts)
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/soyuz-ms-11.html

>>10737350
this is the most ghetto thing to ever be part of spaceflight and I absolutely adore it

>>10737947
Imagine if it actually does the hop and doesnt blow up on the ground.
That would open up a whole new world, company's all over the world would actually consider gaving a go at it too.
>if they can jerryrig a silo to fly then this space stuff probably isnt as hard as it used to be.

>>10737974
>if they can jerryrig a silo to fly then this space stuff probably isnt as hard as it used to be.
This is the future I want. Spaceflight shouldn't be an exclusive club.

>>10735816
>For lunar landings, the sensing probe was omitted from the ladder-leg - to avoid a possible suit-puncturing safety hazard.
I didn't know about that, neat detail.

>>10736123
>>rare metal payloads
as far as we can tell the moon has no such rare metals in concentrations that are worth extracting. If your payload is just metal then it can be shot out of a mass driver. In fact it can be shot directly from a mass driver to earth
>>10736645
what the fuck are you doing? Why on earth are you printing aluminum for a bullet? 3d printing aluminum is not cheap. At the very fucking minimum it will probably cost $50 a bullet. Unless the bullet can fucking seek out targets on its own, there's absolutely no reason to print it.
>>strongest
oh fuck no. There's a good chance the properties will be worse than cast. If you're making a bunch really the only practical means of making them is sheet metal forming.

>>10737094
Well fuck.

I guess you can google a vid of the Eagle landing, since i am too stupid to post a link.

>>10738204
I am too stupid to google
we appear to be at an impasse

let's watch some asshole repeat the same boring far-future fantasy talking points for the umpteenth time, /sci/
https://youtu.be/bG0kT78SDn0
live in like 7 minutes

>>10738215
fuck this guy, build your rocket already

>>10737690
The Zephyr in the picture did 29 days on its maiden flight

>>10738163
>there's absolutely no reason to print it.
I just figured that it would be easier to print than to make it another way.

>There's a good chance the properties will be worse than cast. If you're making a bunch really the only practical means of making them is sheet metal forming.
Unfortunately, I don't know enough about manufacturing techniques overall to make that design change, but maybe I can look into it for the next iteration (or someone else can, if they want).

Thank you for your input though.

>>10738230
Well if you're only making one it should be fine. Assume that the tensile strength is worse than cast, otherwise it could explode into a cloud of shrapnel.

>>10738163
>Mining the Moon
Wouldn't mining operations on the Moon net us a shit ton of Titanium and other more expensive metals? Would that even be economically worth it? I always figured that the real advantage to having a large presence on the Moon would be to facilitate the construction of much larger, more powerful spacecraft for interplanetary usage due to only having 1/6 Earth's gravity and no worries for aerodynamics.

>>10738243
That would definitely require a redesign. Would a factor of safety of 4 (I originally used 1.5) using cast properties be good enough?

>>10737766
its not wider you dingus, its just not centered over the other part kek

>>10738253
Most of the cost of titanium is reducing titanium dioxide to titanium. It's not worth the cost to extract it from the moon. You've got the right idea. The moon has most of the same stuff we have on earth, only the cost of getting it into orbit is much lower in terms of delta V. Building really big structures in space is much cheaper if you can obtain material from the moon. There's a pretty good case for doing the reduction of lunar regolith in orbit/ a lagrange point. For one you get more constant solar power, second it's easier to get regolith up than it is to move a large completed structure. Regolith can be shot out of a mass driver. It would be difficult to do this with a spacecraft.

how realistic is it that Elon goes to mars in 2024?

>>10738285
small but higher than nasa, I'd wager

>>10738285
Bout as realistic as a two term Donald trump or the USA lasting 50 more years

>>10738285
>>10738313
fuck I read that as the moon. I say there's no chance elon goes to mars by then.

>>10738285
I think it's unrealistic. However, Elon and SpaceX have set some pretty high goals before, failed to meet them, but still made some amazing progress. I'd say let him and the company try to get to Mars by 2024 and see where they end up.

>>10738285
2042 for sure

>>10738285
none.

Convince me Mars isn't easier than people think

It's not actually significantly harder than Antarctica, the only big differences are the lack of air and abundance of radiation. Both are super easy to deal with; build underground and bring air compressors. Mars' atmosphere is breathable if you strip out the CO2 and compress it a few hundred fold. You'll use a lot of electricity, but if there's one thing we're fucking good at it's generating electricity.

How practical is it to make a N2O monoprop thruster as a first liquid propellant engine? Also, why is thruster not a word?

>>10738415
it isnt, america is just bankrupt and no one else cares about the vanity points that going to mars provides.

>>10738415
there's an issue though
That electricity would have to come from nuclear, and to normies, green rock bad

>>10738285
I think they're currently aiming for cargo only to Mars in 2024

>>10737350
OK, I'm calling it. This is bullshit, this is a distraction they are fucking around with in front of everybody while the real rocket is being built somewhere else.

>>10738276
One side is aligned. The other overhangs.

>>10738565
That just makes it more fun.

>>10735779
Of course they won't, gotta keep an excuse to keep sending money to Northrop Grumman

>>10738646
it looks like this shit will just peel apart midflight

Is it within the realm of possibility to create a spacecraft that can perform constant acceleration for an Earth to Mars mission in around 2-4 days at 9.81m/s? Or are we technologically far far away from something like that ever existing?

>>10738657
>Is it within the realm of possibility to create a spacecraft that can perform constant acceleration for an Earth to Mars mission in around 2-4 days at 9.81m/s?
The average distance between Earth and Mars is about 0.523 AU.
With an acceleration of 1 Gee, and (assuming that the first half of the journey is spent accelerating to the destination and the other half is spent decelerating) the maximum speed can be found via Kinematics.

V_max = sqrt(a*d) = 875960.9156 m/s
a = 9.81 m/s2, d = 78240800000 m
(NOTE: this is ignoring Earth's and Mars' speeds relative to each other, but we'll assume that they move so slowly that they can be counted as stationary)

Since the journey consists of reaching that V_max staring from zero velocity and then going back to zero velocity, the DeltaV can be found.

DeltaV = 2*V_max = 1751921.831 m/s

Knowing the rocket equation...
DeltaV = Isp*g0*ln(R)
Isp = specific impulse (seconds)
g0 = 9.807s
R = wet mass over dry mass ratio (or just mass ratio)

A maximum practical mass ratio is about 10, using this the Isp comes out to 77582.33751 seconds. This puts the required engine in the realm of fusion engines.
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/realdesignsfusion.php#hopemtf

Which is possible, but unfortunately fusion technology seems to be very far off into the future.

>>10738657
Even in The Expanse, which has basically magic-tier engines, they cruise at 1/3rd G (roughly 3.3m/s) to save fuel

BE-7 tested
https://twitter.com/JeffBezos/status/1141520394022576128

>>10738707
When is Bezos going to launch anything

>>10738740
Never

>>10738707
Most engines run fuel rich
Some engines have oxygen rich preburners
This engine is running combustion chamber rich

>>10738750
I had assumed that was just the ignition fluid, or does BE-7 not use those?

give me 1 (one) reason america, a nation known for its erroneous and horribly obvious propaganda, has ever gotten to space, let alone the moon.

>>10738798
>>>/reddit/

>>10738801
>no argument
yikes

>>10738798
You can literally buy a $5 pair of binoculars and see the ISS

>>10738750
what exactly do you mean by this? to my uneducated mind, I figured it looked that way because there's no nozzle extension. what else is peculiar about it?

>>10738798
That guy's an idiot and doesn't deserve a response, but..

>>10738813
You don't even need binoculars. It's not a subtle object in the sky. It's about as bright as Jupiter (which rises in the SE at sunset right now if you need the example). You just need to know when to look. try heavens-above.com

>>10738775
It probably was TEATEB, but it took quite a while for the green to go away, so some of that green may have been the copper liner inside the engine burning a little on start up.

>>10738819
Engine combustion chamber is usually lined with copper, to facilitate very fast thermal transfer from the liner to the coolant flowing though it, with the outer layer being a thick steel jacket for strength. If your engine burps a little too much oxidizer on start up and runs oxygen rich at high temperature for a second, the copper can catch fire, and copper burns green. One of the Raptor engine tests a while back had a green flash on start up after they already removed the TEATEB ignition system for that reason.

>>10738798
You said it yourself, america's propaganda is utterly transparent, and yet the entire history of american space flight remains rock steady even under intense scrutiny, unless you're a retarded faggot who doesn't understand how things behave in space/micro-gravity.

>>10738835
interesting, now that you mention it I remember that test firing and the green as well. thanks for answering

>>10738838
politeness? here?

>>10738689
Thanks for the response
>>10738750
So this is what humor looks like on /sci/

>>10738572
It is clearly offset toward the camera which would make it bigger than the other part from our perspective.
They just lowered it into that spot, they haven't even started to line it up yet...

>>10738824
You don't need binoculars to see it as a point object, but with them you could resolve basic shape.

These guys just got 40 million to build a space catapult. Looks like bullshit to me but idk.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20190619005661/en/SpinLaunch-Secures-Contract-Revolutionary-New-Space-Launch

>>10738689
How did you get the Isp?

>>10738918
Solve for Isp with the given values of delta V being 1751922 m/s and the wet-dry mass ratio being 10.

He found the delta V needed by doing the brachistochronic transfer calculation from Earth to Mars at 1 G constant acceleration. Wet-dry mass ratio is an eyeball figure based on what is physically achievable from a real world engineering scenario (in theory any Isp can give you any delta V so long as your wet-dry mass ratio is high enough, but in reality trying to make a rocket that weighs a million tons when full and one gram when empty for example is quite difficult).

when do we think the first element (the PPE) for the gateway will launch? realistically.

>>10738837
>the entire history of american space flight remains rock steady even under intense scrutiny
every single major space participant has called NASA into question at some point, and most importantly, china has found no evidence of moon landings from their myriad of satellites and rovers.

>>10738937
2035+

>>10738285
Entirely possible if there are no people onboard.

>>10738944
things arent that bad

>>10738937
literally never. america is 25 TRILLION dollars in debt. they cant fund a new fighter jet, what makes you think this is anything more than an opiate dream?

>>10738946
If you say so, I'd say a moon landing will occur around 2040

>>10738943
>retard article comes out about how China's rovers couldn't see the Apollo landing sites because they were literally thousands of km away
>'china has found no evidence of moon landings from their myriad of satellites and rovers'

Back here in reality multiple countries have taken pictures of the Apollo landing sites using their own Moon probes and have found the descent stages still there along with the footprint trails and equipment the astronauts left behind.

>>10738885
there are rumors going around in the aerospace community of some company offering really cheap water. Now normally you wouldn't bat an eye at cheap water, but they're offering it in LEO, at something like $500/kg. Rumor is they want to do it with a space gun. This might be them. The DoD is also quite interested in very long range artillery, as it's the perfect counter to china's unsinkable battleships(island fortresses) in the south china sea.

>>10738946
if only you knew how bad things really are

>>10738966
proof? surely you can find evidence of these totally not pro-american propaganda facts? no? then shut the fuck and sit down, bitchfaggot.

FH static fire has statically fired

>>10738978
excellent
an infrared image would have been nicer tho

>>10738976

The Kaguya aka Selene probe took photos you dipshit. The rover is nowhere near where the Apollo missions happened. It'd be like saying we have no evidence of Baltimore existing while trying to see it from Miami.

>>10739013
>no source
thanks for proving me right, i will now accept your concession and apology.

>>10739023
He gave you a source, the Japanese government's own Moon probe. If anyone were to blow the lid off of the Apollo landings you don't think it'd be the country that literally got nuked twice by america?

>>10739034
funny, your source seemed to be your post. try giving an actual link or citation, next time. now, concession and apology please. dont waste my time next time.

>>10737974
>>10738038
that is the only way we will ever become a spacefaring species

>>10739009
infrared telescopes don't work in atmosphere silly goose

what do you guys think about the dual expander cycle engine?

Do we know the BE-7 performance stats yet and how it compares to the original moon lander?

>>10739055
this. If space flight remains as complex and difficult as it has been for the past decades, then we can just write off ever colonizing space entirely, because it's just impossible for society to sustain that level of complex technology to that extent for every person alive. Same goes for fusion btw, if fusion power is gonna require hundred billion dollar ultraprecise magnets and shiet run by giant supercomputers it's just not going to be worth it to actually use and implement in daily life.

>>10739061
we’re at a point in spaceflight where engine performance comes second to reusability / cost & refurb schedules imo. Until BE-7 is shown to be highly re flyable, it’s “cool, I guess”

>>10739061
I wrote the section in wikipedia about the BE-7 on the blue origin article, it should tell you pretty much everything we know/have been told

>>10739061
Slightly less powerful, way more efficient (something like 450 Isp compared to the Lunar Descent Stage engine at 311 Isp using aerozine and N2O4). Less power doesn't matter because the landings are happening on the Moon where there's only 1/6th G to worry about. Isp is far more important because it increases the fraction of the vehicle's total mass that can be payload instead of tanks and engine and propellant.

>>10739061
Are those stepper motors on the valves?

Question. Lets say I have a fusion rocket that is a pure fusion rocket. It gets only around 10 Newtons of thrust but an impressive exhaust velocity of 100,000 m/s. Now lets say I wan't to put a turbo on it in the form of making it an after-burner fusion rocket. Using remass like Hydrogen or something. Now lets say I wan't to jack the thrust up to like 2,000 Kilonewtons of thrust from its original 10 newtons. Obviously the flow rate will go up thanks to the introduction of reaction mass in the form of Hydrogen. My question however is. What the fuck would the exhaust velocity be? I know it would probably go down but here's the thing. I'm not uping the flow rate of the fusion fuel, I'm just adding reaction mass propellant. So because of that, the exhaust velocity wouldn't change on account of the flow rate going up, cause it's not for the fuel. But it would still go down due to cooling the plasma with the "cold" remass. I just don't know how to figure that shit out at all though.

>>10739042
Do you actually have fun being this miserable of a little shit? Your inability to use basic search tools is not an argument in your favour.

>>10736792
Why SpaceX is Making Starlink
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giQ8xEWjnBs

fucking Berger at it yet again

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/06/new-report-finds-nasa-awarded-boeing-large-fees-despite-sls-launch-slips/

>>10735779
The James Webb will fly!

>>10738798
The Soviets verified the existence of the Apollo landings. The one country that had the motivation and ability to figure out if Apollo was faked, and yet they didn't find anything about that. Instead they have found that the landings were real and backed up the Americans.

This site as some general debunking of moon landing hoax conspiracy theories. http://www.clavius.org/

>>10737111
Post thigh highs

>>10739505
Well ofc the Soviets were in on it, as they are all part of the globalist(?) cabal to trick us for reasons yet unclear

>>10739471
>Instead of launching in 2020, the Artemis-1 mission that will see a Space Launch System rocket boost an uncrewed Orion spacecraft around the Moon will instead launch as late as June 2021, the GAO report finds.
>as late as June 2021
>June 2021
OH NO NO NO
>Time keeps on slippin' slippin' slippin'... into the fuuuuuuuuture...

>>10739630
I thought the SLS first launch date was June 2021? Or was it 2020 and it just got pushed back again?

To be fair to me, the SLS has been delayed so much that I've stopped keeping track of its progress. As far as I'm concerned, it doesn't exist until it launches. Hell, my whole rule of "spaceflight hardware shouldn't be taken seriously until its actually built and used" is because of SLS.

>>10739649
There are some great comments in there...
>Who is running this show? How can they not get this completed? Space X and others have almost mastered recoverable rockets in the time it has taken to not get SLS.
>It's getting closer. In only five years, they've managed to bring the launch date from N+4 to N+2. With any luck and five more years of funding they can get the launch date to N+1.
>Sounds about right. Then it would be "this year" for five more years before being finally cancelled.
>Clearly, I'm in the wrong business. If any of my projects slipped even 1% as badly as SLS has, I'd be out of a job and in the soup line. Do they still have soup lines?
>Sorry, the soup line had to be cut after funding was diverted to SLS.
>SLS is not a crash program. It is currently 6 years late on a 5 year project.
>No no no, NASA building rockets is a *science* program. And for our $20B so far, we have gotten significant advances in friction stir welding hydrogen tanks! No one could have known that every rocket is going to switch to methane and the most advanced of them would be hand-welded in a field by plumbers.

>>10739679
I'd be one of the people defending the SLS when there's calls for its cancellation, and argue that spaceflight needs to have it, but some of the stuff I hear about how poorly managed SLS is makes me wonder if NASA will be in the future of spaceflight.

>>10739575
Paging Dr. Occam! Dr. William of Occam!

>>10739698
NASA will certainly exist but its role will be reduced to developing specialized science payloads and then buying flights from private companies

>>10739698
NASA will be the future of spaceflight because they are given the purse by Congress, and as long as that continues they'll still be the best bet for science.
If they want to be efficient with those purse strings they'll abandon attempting to design their own rockets

so that green flame during the BE-7 firing was the ignition system, apparently
https://www.instagram.com/p/By6czd0nQCZ/
Blue Origin's instagram account

>>10739835
>mission control winnebago

further stacking imminent

hmmmmm delicious GAO true facts
https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-504

>>10739471
It's like throwing more children at a pitbull.

>>10739849
Why it not shineee but black me qurious

>>10739916
it's a plastic cover

>>10739918
And why are they attatching it?

>>10739924
they just didn't bother taking it off, it came from the factory like that

>>10739929
I love you

it looks like Dream Chaser is actually going to be happening soon

>>10735779
unlike the SLS those missions have an actual defined purpose. Telescopes have always been at the cutting edge and always will be. Space telescopes are only going to get more complicated.

>>10738950
you have absolutely no comprehension of what national debt is
it doesn't function the same as personal debt

>>10739679
serious bants lol

>>10738870
And if your timing is really good.

Commercial crew or SLS, which one's going to kill more people? We have skip the safety test SLS, it's not going boeing, and capsule explosion spacex.

>>10740017
I would probably trust a Dragon 2 right now, but last time I said that one exploded

>>10738943
>every single major space participant has called NASA into question at some point

Citation absent.

> china has found no evidence of moon landings from their myriad of satellites and rovers.

How many Chinese rovers have explored the Apollo landing sites? (Hint: 0)

Also, "myriad" does not mean what you think it does.

China has completed four unmanned missions to the moon, including two landers.

In addition to neither lander exploring any of the Apollo landing sites, the resolution of images for the first orbiter, Chang'e 1, was not sufficient to image anything left on the surface by the Apollo missions.

Chang'e 2 is another matter. It's most detailed images could possibly detect something the size of the landing stage of the Apollo LMs. It might even detect the rovers from later missions, though at the resolution China claims the rover would maybe be a single pixel, the LM descent stages only maybe four pixels, maybe more if the angle of the sun was such to create long shadows. They would thus be unlikely to show enough detail to recognize what you were looking at, but images of the landing sites would be interesting to see anyway.

You seem to claim that China's imagery from these missions shows nothing where the landers would be. If you can link to any Chang'e 2 imagery of the landing sites, it would be interesting to see them.

>>10740017
>Commercial crew or SLS, which one's going to kill more people?
Commercial crew most likely. Not because its less safe than SLS, but because it'll fly more often. Unless there's a freak accident with the SLS and it ends up kills 7 or more astronauts.

>>10738945
>ELON IS NOT A PERSON!!!!!

>>10740033
I'm not in the mood to comb through your argument in detail. However, what evidence China as found or not is irrelevant because there's other evidence that shows that the Apollo landings happened. The Soviets not finding any evidence of fakery is the strongest, and the one that's conveniently ignored by moon hoaxers.

This website goes the evidence for the Apollo landings into more detail.
http://www.clavius.org/index.html

>>10740034
how many can you fit in an Orion? Starliner, Dragon 2, and Dreamchaser all seat 7

>>10739034
>>10739042

Here's an interesting piece of evidence from the Kaguya mission - on the left is a 3D image of the lunar surface, on the right a photograph of the same area taken during Apollo 17. The resolving power of the instruments on Kaguya used for making the image on the left is about 10 meters, so individual rocks and such in the Apollo 17 photo that are smaller than 10 meters across do not show up in the Kaguya map. Neither does the lunar rover on the left, if it was still in that position it is only about 3 meters long.

Technology capable of such imagery from orbit did not exist in the 60s. The only way to get an accurate image of that area from ground level would have been to go there and take a picture.

>>10740061
>how many can you fit in an Orion?
Wikipedia says 6.

>>10740034
>SLS loses an SRB during flight
>SRB refuses to detonate on command, flies straight into mission control building, killing hundreds

>>10739042
You wouldn't like the images he is referring to. Kaguya had a resolving power of about ten meters, nothing Apollo left on the moon as that big. So you don't see much.

What you see is an irregular bright patch, right where the landing occurred, consistent with the lunar surface having been churned up there by the rover rolling around and the astronauts walking all over the place.

Given that you reject much more compelling evidence, I can't see you being convinced by this -- though the coincidence of the bright patch being right where it would be expected might strike you, I am sure you'' hand wave it away, and ignore the matching images of topography.

Link is here if you are interested: https://www.universetoday.com/15579/japanese-selene-kaguya-lunar-mission-spots-apollo-15-landing-site-images/

>>10740063
Neat!

The flat earther is going to deny it anyways but I thought it was pretty nifty

>>10740075
nice

>>10740075
>I can't see you being convinced by this
He won't. If he's the anon I'm thinking of, then on a different thread he linked to a parody news site as his source for China not finding evidence of Apollo on the moon, so his standards of evidence are totally fair.

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/06/station-planning-new-crew-launch-dates/

Dragon crewed flight November 15

>>10740056
I agree. I was merely refuting the implication that the Chinese looked where the Apollo landings happened and did not see expected evidence of Apollo landings. If the Chinese (or anybody) imaged the sites in sufficient detail to show the landers or other traces, and they were not there, that would be strong evidence for the foil hat crowd.

Which is why they lie and say that is what has happened.

It has not. China's four lunar missions include no landers that were anywhere near n Apollo site, and their two orbiters included one that could not see anything as small as the landers, and the other would possibly see them as a dot 2-3 pixels across. Even there, conspiracy fans making the claim about Chinese imagery do not include samples of or links to Chinese imagery of the sites to back up their implied claim.

>>10740086
only losing four months because your capsule detonated is pretty remarkable

>>10740090
Sorry, I thought I was replying to the moon hoaxer anon. I need more sleep.

>>10740101
a reminder: moan hoaxers are trolling you

>>10740090
And, just to be mean, https://web.archive.org/web/20130527201104/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/sci/2012-02/06/c_131393210.htm

The "full coverage" map the Chinese made from Chang'e 2 data has a resolution down to 7 meters -- not enough to show hardware.

But even there, Chinese press reports they detected "traces of the Apollo landings," although I cannot find any imagery released by China of the Apollo sites.

China reporting to its own citizens and the world that they found traces of the Apollo missions seems a long way from the foilhat crowd's claims that China found no traces of the Apollo landings."

>>10740101
>I need more sleep.

OR YOU ARE IN ON IT, YOU REPTILIAN MONSTER!!!

>>10740110
GASP! Then that means that the Chinese must be in on it too! NASA must've hacked the Chinese government.

>>10739096
Exhaust velocity does absolutely drop if you add reaction mass with an 'afterburner' (though really you should be calling it a geared propulsion system, since you aren't reacting or burning that additional mass). You're effectively spreading the energy from a small bit of fusion fuel across a large amount of reaction mass, which means that mass is going to be moving more slowly.

>>10739771
It looks like they dumped a few dozen liters of TEATEB into that thing if that's the case, because that green flame stayed for a loooong time compared to pretty much any other rocket engine that uses those chemicals to ignite.

>>10739924
It's a plastic film stuck to the surface of the steel to protect it from damage during shipping, it only looks black from a distance, up close it's actually blue with black lettering.

>>10740127
yeah, that was weird
there was an SLS sub-scale test earlier that I saw video of that was green the whole time due to TEATEB residue, maybe it's much more visible due to the pale blue hydrogen flame not drowning it out

>>10739987
>how to spend 30 years and 200 billion dollars building a space telescope

>>10739989
You're right, it's more insidious than that.

>>10740017
>>10740031
Rember that Dragon 2 had a flawless shakedown mission to the station already, and the explosion occurred during a test of that capsule after it had already been dumped into the ocean. The plan for Crew Dragon has always been to only launch people on fresh capsules anyway. Obviously they need to figure out exactly why the thing went kaboom but it's not like they accidentally AMOS-6'd the thing during a static fire on the pad.

>born too late to explore the sea
>born to early to explore the stars
>born at the right time to go free climbing in the mariner valley

>>10740034
>a freak accident
there are NO accidents, only negligence

>>10740134
30 years!? 200B!? What is this, amateur hour? That's nowhere near enough to make the next generation of telescopes! We need at least 50 years and 500B. Our design and manufacturing locations are spread across all fifty states and will guarantee a lifetime of jobs.

>>10740144
negligence was cheaper, even after it blew up
as long as you figure out why it blew up you're still golden

>>10740145
>only 200B
we need at least 1.3 trillion dollars for this one

>>10740061
Also note that Orion weighs twice as much as Dragon 2 yet ostensibly is no more capable as a deep space vehicle beyond communications and life support tech, which lets face it, does not justify being literally 10,000 kilograms heavier than Dragon 2.

>>10740074
and nothing of value is lost

>>10740154
Trillion? Come on. Its not a real space project if you don't bankrupt at least 3 countries. 1 quadrillion will do.

>>10740132
Actually if I remember correctly that SLS model didn't just have TEA-TEB residue, it was the fuel used for the test. I'm assuming this is because TEA-TEB is really really easy to ignite yet isn't nearly as toxic and dangerous as hypergolics like hydrazine, which is good if you're just testing a model and want very reliable ignition and the ability to get close right before/after a test with a wrench.

>>10740166
oh was it? lame
I'm still willing to believe that there was just a bunch of residue from ignition in that BE-7 test, although running combustion chamber rich during startup transients wouldn't surprise me either

>>10740141
>born a little early for that too
>born at exactly the right time to witness the entire space launch industry do a 180 from dinosaur companies with overpriced expendable rockets to new start ups competing to develop the most flexible, high performance, reusable, cheap launch vehicles and start the real exploration and colonization of space

>>10740149
Well, you're golden so long as you actually change the design to eliminate that failure mode. Everyone knew a foam strike leading to a Shuttle that couldn't reenter was inevitable, but nobody did anything about it and just kept sweeping the problem under the rug until oops, need another seven astronauts.

>>10739987

While on the subject of space telescopes, Spektr-RG is finaly launching tomorrow at 12:17 GMT.

It was rolled out and placed on the launchpad at Baikonur just under a week ago:

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

>>10740175
I don't think a rocket actually meant to run on TEA-TEB is lame, I think it'd be kino as fuck to see a big ass launch vehicle light off and blast green fire out of it's ass for ten minutes straight. Anyone know what the performance of a TEA-TEB rocket would be? Actually what about just a rocket running on borane? Diborane? And while we're at it run the numbers for a borane/diborane rocket with fluorine oxidizer as well.

>>10740179
>born at exactly the right time to witness the entire space launch industry do a 180 from dinosaur companies with overpriced expendable rockets to new start ups competing to develop the most flexible, high performance, reusable, cheap launch vehicles and start the real exploration and colonization of space
Growing up and hearing about all the cool stuff during the Apollo era and all of the slow progress since, I'd figured that I would be dead before anything big happens in spaceflight. I really glad that I'm wrong.

>>10740195
sorry mate I have a strict "no solids in the exhaust" policy so I can't run the numbers on borane

>>10740195
at least the Methane engines will be a really dank purple color

>>10740091
What is the current """official""" schedule for Starliner first crew? There's not a lot said about their "anomaly" which would have given the crew a nice refreshing hydrazine mist. At least SX was already making 3 more capsules, that's why it only cost them 4 months.

>>10740194
Sweet, isn't our other X-ray satellite being shut down soon? Nice to see we probably wont have a huge gap in observation.

What does /sci/ think about launching fleets of satellites instead of just one of each design? I mean, we put all this design and development effort into shit like the JWST but we only launch a single one, why not pump out a dozen or so after development and launch them all? That way you pay less per telescope, you get way more observation done, people buying telescope time don't have to wait for three years in line and aren't limited to only a few days or weeks of constant observing, etc. It's also way less of a big deal if you have a few telescopes fail, like JWST will inevitably fail to deploy. If we launched ten JWST telescope clones I'm sure at least one could beat the odds and function for a while.

>>10740194
It looks so little, was this really considered a heavy lift vehicle as recently as a few years back?
Also I'm liking those shots up the engine bells, you can see the aluminum diaphragms meant to keep debris out of the engine until it lights, at which point hot gasses jet out of the small center hole and burn/blow the thing away.

>>10740197
Is it because you can't use any combustion cycle where the fuel is partially burned and passed over a turbine? In that case you can either do diborane-oxygen-hydrogen, where a fuel rich hydrolox preburner drives the pumps and the diborane is pumped in through the center of the injector plate, surrounded by a mantle of burning hydrogen-oxygen gasses/water vapor, so it doesn't abrade the engine bell.

Alternatively simply use fluorine as the oxidizer, because when fluorine burns with borane or diborane it makes boron trifluoride and hydrogen fluoride, both of which are gasses. No solids in the exhaust, and you can even do fuel rich staged combustion (maybe even full flow, if you can find alloys that can handle 800 degree C fluorine gas at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure).

>>10740179
I hope before i die spaceflight gets cheap enough that i can go up there for a few thousand eurodollars.
Doesnt have to be long, just long enough to take it all in and enjoy it.

>>10740209

The thing about multiple copies is that while the price per unit would go down a lot, the total price would still be much larger and budgets are a thing. It would be neat to have a small fleet of telescopes in space but the total cost of launching such a fleet would be astronomical.

>>10740213

Proton-M(+) is still ranked among the top 5 of heavy lift vehicles, its just that is being overshadowed by newer designs like the Falcon Heavy and Angara-A5.

Its not bad considering how old the basic Proton rocket design really is.

>>10740209
>What does /sci/ think about launching fleets of satellites instead of just one of each design?

should have been done long ago

>>10740074
I can do one better, it ends up crashing in disney world. The entire US space program gets cancelled and spacex now can't fly at all because two telephone books worth of regulations are put on them
>>10740157
spacex launches from the cape too. Losing infrastructure like that would be pretty disasterous.

>>10740233
>total price would still be much larger and budgets are a thing
Sure, but also the fact that the engineers don't have all their eggs in one basket would mean they don't have to be as anal about making sure every single part is 125% reliable under any possible circumstance etc etc. It'd be sort of like Starlink satellites, where they need to be decently reliable but you're just throwing enough up there that even at a 1% failure rate it wouldn't really matter.

>>10740233
Don't forget that Proton M only has a payload capacity a few percent higher than Falcon 9, and the latter isn't usually considered a heavy lift vehicle by most people even though it definitely is.

>>10740257
can't F9 hurk almost 20 tons to orbit?

>>10740250
They launch from the cape but they use their own mission control, no?

>>10740260
22.8T if flown expendable.

>>10740265
I meant reusable

>>10740260
Almost 23 tons, 22,800 kg to be exact. Proton M can do 23,000 kg. However Falcon 9 can do ~1300 kg more to GTO than Proton M, in expendable mode. Reusable mode it can do ~1300 kg less.

>>10740268
18.5 reuseable according to wikipedia. Really depends on the payload, destination orbit, and how tight SpaceX wants to play chicken with the fuel margins.

>>10740268
Reusable mode they can do at least 15 tons, because that's how much the Starlink cluster weighed (roughly) and they recovered the booster from that launch. They can't do 22,800 kg to LEO in reusable mode but they aren't cutting their payload capacity in half either.

Just a reminder that JWST could detect the presence of intelligent life through the presence of CFCs:
arxiv.org/pdf/1812.08681.pdf
In my book, detecting intelligent alien life is a heckuva lot better way to use funds than making a really big rocket.
>>10740134
>>10740145
Surface imaging of exoplanets. Plus the tech used to build these fucking large telescopes could be used to make other really large space structures and enable us to conquer the solar system.

>>10740233
Proton uses a denser fuel, same reason Falcon Heavy is so small compared to Delta IV despite being more capable

>>10740283
what do they use?

>>10740284
UDMH/N204

>>10740286
gross

>>10740264
you'd take out more than mission control. You may even take out a bunch of hardware and even people who are in charge of letting spacex launch in the first place.

>>10740287
yeah

>tfw you will never convert a two seater pleasure yacht into a tramp freighter running between mars and ceres
>tfw you will never fight space pirates

>>10740292
>you will never be a space pirate

So is it just me, or does that stainless steel rocket look like the jankiest looking thing ever? It just looks like they’re just slapping on plates of stainless steel and are just eyeballing the measurements. It can’t be that easy to assemble and build a fucking rocket.

>>10740317
>eyeballing it
they've got some laser 3d measurement equipment out there for when they need to be precise

>>10740275
It's also not something worth thinking about until we have real access to space and a real industry already in space, either on a low gravity world like Mars or the Moon or on an asteroid. Until then we'd be better off launching large constellations of decently sized telescopes into wide orbits and using interferometry to effectively get a telescope hundreds of thousands of kilometers across. Not only would that be far more feasible and easier to do with today's technology, it'd even get you better data. At the very least we'd be able to construct decently high res images of nearby stars, brown dwarfs, and potentially even planets, not to mention protoplanetary disks.

>>10740250
>The entire US space program gets cancelled
U wot m8 y'all?

>>10740317
>rockets are too expensive
>>what if we just didn't give a shit
>rocket is cheap

>The STP-2 mission will be among the most challenging launches in SpaceX history with four separate upper-stage engine burns, three separate deployment orbits, a finalpropulsive passivation maneuver and a total mission duration of over six hours. In addition, the U.S. Air Force plans to reuse side boosters from the Arabsat-6A Falcon Heavy launch, recovered after a return to launch site landing, making it the first reused Falcon Heavy ever flown for the U.S. Air Force.

>>10740317
I want rockets to be that easy. Once I get some free time I'm gonna try to make a liquid propellant rocket engine mostly using parts from hardware stores. Either my rocket flies or I end up on an FBI watchlist.

>>10740358
it works for the Russians

>>10740369
those aren't mutually exclusive, anon

How many Starship prototypes are there now? They're building two at Boca Chica, plus Starhopper, plus one in Florida, right?

>>10740369
you go on 4chan, you're already on a watchlist

>>10740386
One at Boca Chica, Starhopper, and Florida as far as we know
I think the two separate cylinders in Boca Chica are two halves, the hat and the propellant tanks

>>10740185
Was that an "Ask Mr. Lizard" reference?

>>10740233
>It would be neat to have a small fleet of telescopes in space but the total cost of launching such a fleet would be astronomical.

>>10740283
>>10740286
Those propellants aren't vastly more dense than kerolox though, only slightly more. The difference in volumes between FH and Delta IV Heavy is because while Falcon uses kerolox, Delta IV uses hydrolox, and hydrogen only has a density of 70 kg per cubic meter, compared to ~800 kg/m^3 for kerosene.

The densest somewhat practical propellant combination is Fluorine-hydrazine, because liquid fluorine's density of 1505 kg/m^3 is 1.32 times higher than liquid oxygen and hydrazine has a density of 1020 kg/m^3. The densest mostly impractical propellant combination is probably chlorine trifluoride (1770 kg/m^3) and hydrazine. The densest completely impractical propellant combination is probably chlorine pentafluoride (yes it's a thing, yes it's even worse than ClF3, and it's significantly more dense than ClF3, though I can't find the exact figure) and dimethylmercury (horrifically potent toxin that also has a high density at 2961 kg/m^3). The problem with the more dense propellants is that they are also less efficient, due to their inclusion of heavier elements that result in a lower average exhaust velocity. Realistically, when considering rocket design, you only have to consider the density of your propellants if you are trying to pick between a hydrolox stage and something else. If maximum Isp is your biggest concern, then hydrogen is probably what you'll pick despite the density, but if you need a stage delta V of somewhere around 6 to 8 km/s then methalox is actually superior, because despite the lower Isp the much higher density can make for a much better wet dry mass ratio and thus a more capable and robust vehicle for much less effort.

>>10740275
>In my book, detecting intelligent alien life is a heckuva lot better way to use funds than making a really big rocket.

Let's do both.

>>10740414
bruh

>>10740292
AT least you won't have to cope with the fucking flat-cats.

>>10740369
>Either my rocket flies or I end up on an FBI watchlist.

Why not both?

>>10740417
>methalox
have you considered subcooled propane and liquid oxygen?
reduce tank mass by keeping your propane in a tension anchored flexible bag inside your LOx tank, which also doubles as slosh baffles and tank stiffeners

note that this configuration also works for RP1 and peroxide

>>10740422
>>10740275
Dudes, the problem is not that we're spending shitloads of money building a giant rocket instead of on setting up the observation technology needed to discover life elsewhere, the problem is that the programs for giant rocket that they're building is such a clusterfuck that they're eating the entire budget.
NASA can easily afford to produce a super heavy lift vehicle as powerful as SLS block 1 for $1 billion total. Falcon Heavy is a perfect example, a super heavy lift capable rocket that was built for significantly less than a billion dollars by a private company, which has significantly more than 70% the capability of the SLS block 1 design. Not only that, FH costs less than $150 million to launch, and 3 out of 4 of the stages are fully reusable.
The problem is not that 'rockets R hard' or even that rocket parts aren't lego and you can't just stick them together in a new way like in Ksp. The problem is fundamentally one of mismanagement and bad workplace culture, where cost overruns and delays don't matter and there's no real drive towards any actual use for the hardware being developed.

>>10740447
and let's not forget that Falcon Heavy went significantly over budget and Elon is on record that it was a mistake, and it still came out under a billion

who here hype for BIG MEME
https://www.space.com/spinlaunch-first-launch-contract.html?fbclid=IwAR1hk_Hy7efrwqN9N7VDCbBcReyk_oCzg3Vq7TDq1vo1iXCrNNjkUP9SyU0

>>10740436
Probably not worth the complexity (the bag-in-a-tank specifically). That being said I seem to recall some eutectic mixtures of different short chain hydrocarbons can be made that remain liquid at sub 100 K temperatures, and at those temperatures offer both higher density and higher Isp than kerosene (though straight methalox is still the most efficient hydrocarbon propellant mixture). I could potentially see sub cooled eutectic methane+ being a choice first stage propellant, though for upper stages simple methalox is probably superior, and for super high energy third stages hydrolox is king.

>>10740471
https://orbex.space/
some crazy europoors are going for it

>>10740474
>Minimising the environmental impact of launches was a key consideration in the rocket’s design. Prime is a low-mass and low-carbon launcher, using a single renewable fuel, bio-propane, that cuts carbon emissions by 90% compared to old-fashioned hydrocarbon fuels.
eurocucks...

>>10740483
>less emissions is bad somehow
Glushko would have liked you

>>10740463
>can launch in any direction because the ballistic trajectory from launch is always over something you don't care about
>don't waste any time accelerating from zero-zero
mechanically assisted launch is the best meme

>an engineering general where everybody shits on actual science
>in a science board

>>10740503
>pointedly ignoring the point

>>10740520
>shits on actual science
right, all that pure research in friction stir welding hydrogen tanks that SLS is doing

>>10740454

>>10740531
rekt

>>10740531
I mean the thread is all about rockets and various sci-fi memes, not science

>>10740611
it's mostly just an excuse to have a consistent place to shitpost about Starship Super Heavy (being built in a field behind a shed-tent)

>>10740123
My question is how would you figure out how much the Exhaust velocity would change though? By adding more reaction mass.

>>10740520
I dont see any shitting on science here, however you need to realize that space science is seriously hampered by expensive rockets, so reducing launch costs ought to be priority

>>10740531
that's by definition applied research

>>10740669
it's pure research because SLS will never fly

>>10740611
>anything I don't like isn't science
dank shitpost
I sure love how you spam it every fucking thread

>>10740630
well, I figure twice the mass half the velocity with a given amount of energy. The problem is that you gave a difference in thrust, which is hard to relate directly to propellant mass used, because of having to juggle three different variables at the same time. Just from a gut feeling by the way I think your given thrust increase from 10 N to 2,000,000 N is too much, I'm pretty sure in order to get that amount of thrust increase you'd have to be using hundreds of tons of inert propellant per second and the effective efficiency would drop to well below that of a chemical rocket.

>>10740378
>>10740429
A n2o monoprop rocket engine should do then?

>>10740643
Nah, the launch cost isn't a significant factor at all. Scientific instruments will always cost crazy money even with free launches. And most serious spacecraft, especially interplanetary probes, are more complex and expensive than rockets. Getting to space is the least important part, staying there in an operable condition, landing on a planet, etc is much more difficult. Just try reading something like pic related to get a glimpse of how hard it is.

But I guess this general is inhabited by brainlets who are into everything loud and exciting, not into the less visible (but much more complex) parts of spaceflight, because they don't appear in their twitter feed. OP with his landing gears is a good example: landing on Moon was relatively easy; the ascent, LOR and docking was much more complex. But I never see anyone talking about that, because wannabe spaceflight enthusiasts aren't into engineering or science, they are into flag planting.

>>10740699
I mostly shitpost about rockets with others. I'm also stating the obvious. Even if you're into engineering, the thread is objectively shit quality. Right now one of the most complex spacecraft ever built goes through a critical phase of the mission, and the only response it's getting here is
>a fucking space rock

>>10740723
just figure out much heat you produce, transfer that to hydrogen to whatever temperature you want for the ISP you're looking for, then calculate thrust from that mass flow and temperature

>>10740739
there's not a whole lot of interesting details on hyabusa, it's just scoping out a hole in a rock right now
the precision necessary for orbit around a rock the size of a football field is kind of nuts tho

Ariane 5 launch within the hour. Stream going live now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KxBLKpPi-c

>>10740733
If you're going to do a monoprop that's essentially just a compressed gas, then why not use CO2 or even just compressed air? They're both far, far cheaper.

Really a thruster that just uses cold gas isn't a monoprop rocket. A monoprop rocket uses a chemical that can react with itself or otherwise decompose to generate heat, making them far more efficient as propellants compared to cold gas. Hydrogen peroxide is an often considered monopropellant, since it can be decomposed easily. High test hydrogen peroxide is hard to get though, and dangerous. Hydrazine, the other most commonly considered monopropellant, is more efficient but even more dangerous and not exactly available in large quantities for civilian use.

Rather than trying to make monopropellants work on a hobby scale (which is what everyone does, then they run into the same roadblocks professionals run into when trying to make monopropellant rockets), I'd suggest you do a simple bipropellant thruster using gaseous propellants. For example, compressed air and propane. Are you going to break thrust to weight ratio records? No. Are you going to make an actual vehicle? No, but you wouldn't be able to using a monopropellant anyway. What you WILL get is a neat, functioning, non-toxic rocket thruster that will produce visible shock diamonds and a very loud noise. Initially you will probably want to avoid putting a diverging nozzle section on your thruster, until you've played with mixture ratios and found what won't melt things while offering the best thrust/biggest flame. Then you can add the diverging section and try a bunch of designs till you find one with the correct expansion ratio for operation at your elevation.

>>10740826
I've got a bad feeling about this one

>>10740850
N2O can be decomposed to produce the combustion necessary. Also, my ultimate goal is to make a bipropellant rocket engine using methanol and n2o. I just figured that a simple n2o monoprop would be a better first engine. Plus I want to try to make what's essentially an n2o monoprop with a methanol afterburner so getting the mono part down first would seem to be better.

>>10740826
nice I always like the french negro launches

>>10740747
>heat you produce
~800 MJ/s from his given numbers earlier

The problem is he's trying to find the Isp he'd get if he added enough reaction mass to go from ten newtons of thrust to 2 million newtons of thrust. So he has the amount of heat generated, and he has the thrust he wants, but he wants to use those to find the Isp (actually the exhaust velocity but they're easily interchangeable and Isp is a better measurement anyway). There's gotta be a calculator for geared rockets online somewhere, I haven't found it yet though.

actual non shit Ariane livestream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLhOoTVfYBI

>>10740878
just make a bunch of ISP guesses and plot a graph of thrust vs ISP

>>10740870
>N2O can be decomposed to produce the combustion necessary
I think you mean the heat necessary, as decomposition is the reaction that releases energy, there's no combustion in N2O decomposition.

>>10740888
Well I ain't doing that, that other guy who actually asked the question can.

>>10740897
well if he uses the resulting O2 to burn methanol...

>>10740886
Good thing they hired someone who can actually speak English without that barely comprehensible frog accent like it was before

>>10740897
Yes. Sorry, I'm burnt out from work.

>>10740826
>new camera angles
Learning from SpaceX I see

>>10740886
>8 or 9 km/s is roughly the speed of the turning Earth
wat

>>10740903
"Bonjour! Todei we have le rockei hon hon. And itz gon launch into spas hon hon."

>>10740908
very pretty replays. Dawn/dusk launches are the best.

>>10740826
Is that a simulation or live telemetry?

>>10740933
numbers at bottom and the graph are live, but animation is simulated (as we found on some of the off-nominal launches).

>>10739145
search what? propaganda articles that are very obviously disproven by even the most basic of astrologists?

>>10740083
>WAAAAH WHY DOESNT ANYONE BELIEVE MY COUNTRIES RANCID PROPAGANDA WAAAH
i would believe it if anyone other than america had gotten to the moon.

>>10740337
america is 22 TRILLION dollars in debt. funding for anything, much less NASA will dry up in a mere five years.

>>10741105
that's what they said last time, and the time before that
and the time before that
and the time before that too

http://www.clavius.org/

A neat website that covers common moon hoax arguments. An interesting article on the site called "The Problem of Scale" discusses the issues of faking a moon landing at the time and having to keep it a secret. The result was that, no matter the approach the number of people who needs to be in on the conspiracy will grow rapidly thus also rapidly increasing the chances of someone on the inside exposing the conspiracy. Since this hasn't happened, it's safe to say that the conspiracy doesn't exist, and that the Apollo landings did happen.

Another point that moon hoaxers avoid like a plague is that the Soviets would've known if the landings were faked and would've exposed it to the whole world to not only demoralize their enemy (the US) but also to use as a propaganda tool to rally it's people and communist supporters abroad. However, this didn't happen which strongly shows that the landings are legitimate. Moon hoaxers will never address this directly.

>>10741114
and you can see the effects of it. city dilapidation, industry leaving, low education standards, budget cuts across the board, complete loss of military and economic power, allies backing away from america. all of these are signs of imminent collapse. NASA will not survive, because no one will fund them. all those moon and mars missions are pipe dreams until china steals the tech and does it themselves.

>>10741105
see
>>10739989
Nobody has the balls to call in that debt, because globalism ensures that if one major economy collapses, everyone else will go down like fucking dominoes
additionally, we've learned that war is very very effective at reviving even the most fucked economies, so who ever fucks everything will have their asshole ripped out by absolutely everyone else in both revenge and to unfuck themselves at their expense

>>10741126
see>>10741119
no one needs to call in the debt since america has no money to begin with. you can even see this in NASA itself; 50 years ago the SLS would have been piss easy to make and produce, but now the US has no money to produce it and no engineers left to make it.

>>10741135
No chang, the issues with the US are not because of their debt, and no, the US is not on the brink of collapse like your propaganda ministers tell you it is
China is closer to death than the US is

>>10741143
>no rebuttal
i will now accept your concession and apology for this pathetic pants-shitting of an argument.

>>10741143
>the issues with the US are not because of their debt
not him, but debt or not braindrain and economic insatiability is a massive problem in the US that will lead to its collapse very soon. all of what he says is true.

>>10741155
Keep on telling yourself that Chang; the thing about economies is that the more government interference used to keep an economy artificially afloat the bigger the eventual crash will be, therefore the country with a state-run economy: China will have the biggest crash of all and the cracks are already showing due to the trade war. Furthermore, due to globalisation if the US crashes and burns, so will China due to the knock on effect of an economic collapse.

>>10741243
why are you so obsessed with china? your schizophrenic argument makes no sense. try again.

once more this fucking thread has been infected with polshit.

Go back to your containment board.

>>10741260
go back to plebbit instead, for your kind do not belong here and never have

>>10741257
>schizophrenic
oh look, it's this guy

>>10741270
there's a reason they call it a "containment board"
also it was a mistake because now this sort of shitposting has a home here

>>10740902
That's what I want to do. Or at least do something like a closed cycle staged 'combustion', there a part of the N2O propellant is pumped through a predecomposer (it's not really a burn as described by >>10740897) and then that exhaust is then ducted into the main combustion chamber. There, the predecomposer exhaust, the virgin N2O, and methanol are burned to produce the main power of the engine.

>>10741148
You type like a faggot and your shits all retarded.

>>10741293
no seriously, go the fuck back and fucking stay there

>>10741302
didn't I tell you to power a turbine or other pump with decomposing N2O at one point

>>10741302
Just for fun, the Nk33 which is a similar idea (in a very distanced way, really I just like the picture).

>>10741304
I've been here longer than you have, kid
I remember when /int/ used to be funny

>>10741308
fuck off faggot, /pol/ is 4chan and 4chan is /pol/ its site culture.

>>10741305
Sounds familiar. It seems like a cool idea, but the engine I have in mind (it has a throat diameter of 32mm to give an idea) is maybe too small to make that viable. Plus, I've tried designing pumps for rockets before, they're a nightmare.

>>10741312
>culture
SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP SHLOP

>>10741314
do this

>>10741358
Did you draw this? If so, then that is a very nice drawing! Thanks! That's what I had in mind minus the pumps (and maybe some N2O that's not taken through the catalyst to be used for cooling said catalyst chamber). A problem I keep running into is that I can't find a consistent description of what a catalyst for N2O is. Some sources say silver, other platinum, and some say that heat works and that the decomposition is self sustaining.

However, when I said that pumps are a nightmare to design, I meant the actual design work of the pumps. I've posted images of the book I used and it's the biggest book I've ever seen.

Also, what's the "regenloop" for?

>>10741369
silver wire should work, but it might all burn off and then the heat will result in your decomposition being self-sustaining
you might need to get your hands dirty to get a working design

>>10741369
regenloop is for cooling your nozzle so it doesn't ablate

>>10741371
>silver wire should work, but it might all burn off and then the heat will result in your decomposition being self-sustaining
Sounds simple enough. Hopefully silver for this isn't too expensive.

>you might need to get your hands dirty to get a working design
I've been thinking of making a super rough thruster from hardware store parts (such as using gas stove injectors for the injectors and steel pipes and adapters for the chamber and throat). It won't be good, but hopefully it'll prove some the basics of the concept and give me some experience with engines.

>>10741372
Thank you.

https://youtu.be/doR9fRKP8-8
the black stuff on the Starship panels

>>10739759
They will prove incompetent at that too

>>10741119
this. i dont know how burgers can be so ignorant of this stuff. then again, thats kind of how they got there.

>>10739759
>>10739763
america is going to collapse soon so NASA wont exist at all.

>>10741105
Hold my beer.

Guys, when are we (humans) gonna land on Ceres? It's the biggest object in the asteroid belt, it has plenty of water and other volatiles, plenty of salts and metals, and most importantly it has a fairly fast rotation rate and low gravity. This means Ceres is the best place for us to build a space elevator, it'd only need to be a thousand km long.

>>10741599
see>>10741555

>>10741606
are we overdue?

>>10741633
for the collapse of america? yes.

>>10741568
What are they celebrating?

>>10741633
France seems to be doing well.

>10741652
>for the collapse of america? yes.
Hiroshimoot cannot range ban China soon enough.

>>10741653
it's just a composite, didn't actually happen

>>10741657
more satellite launches this year than in america's history
stay mad ;)

>10741688
>more satellite launches this year than in america's history
lol, good luck with that.

>>10741652
America will never falter

>>10740739
>Scientific instruments will always cost crazy money even with free launches

No, because with cheap launches, you can afford to mass produce those instruments instead of building just single units, and thus the cost falls. Expensive launch is the root cause why we do not already have an orbiter and a rover on every body in the solar system.