/sci/ - Science & Math

First for tensile airlocks

SpaceX Hopper Side Thruster Tests!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95S6eTEyBfQ

hop tomorrow

>>10831113
I just can't believe this shit is still on, it's been 3 weeks or so.

>>10831130
tensile airlocks will always be on. it's the logical choice.

prefering water airlocks is like prefering square wheels to round ones, objectively inferior

>>10830870
>how long before they start scaling it down.
this is the scaled down version; the original concept had 42 engines and was 12m in diameter

>>10831151
can they even build a rocketpad that wont melt away for a monster like that?

>>10831151
i think there will be a goverment funded version of the big starship, aka ITS

that can get 500 tons to mars.

it just makes too much sense

once bfr is proven

for an investment much much smaller than previous "big" rockets you could get an almost magical tech that gets you 500 tons to mars for less than 10 million

>>10831187
Why bother building anything else when you can just use Starship?

>>10831191
i think it will make sense for other countries not for america.

spacex is investing 5 billion to make a vehicle that takes the cost per kg to leo from around 10.000$ (current cost) to around 200$

but say you could invest another 7 billion to take that down from 200 to 100, or maybe even 50, would you do it?

well, if it were other countries, between investing 5 billion or 7 billions it makes little difference, they have the main advantage of 100% knowing the ocncept is possible.

something similar happened with the soveit shuttle, they had the advantage of having all core concept previously tested

>>10831197
I see what you mean. Will be interesting to see how others respond. I'm not sure other nations will be able to match what SpaceX is able to pull off though. The only thing they'd be used for is for military purposes, as anything commercial would surely just use SpaceX or someone equally cheap instead.

It's certainly an exciting time to be alive with regards to spaceflight.

>>10831211
>It's certainly an exciting time to be alive with regards to spaceflight.
Hopefully that and that it doesn't end up like X-33 part 2, or worse Post-Apollo part 2.

>>10831187
>>10831197
if starlink turns out as profitable as they think it will then spaceX can tell the USgov to fuck off in the future.

And spaceX will probably finetune the BFR for the foreseeable future instead of creating a even bigger one once they have a proven design.

>>10831211
i read somewhere that ESA is seriously looking in to creating their own version of the falcon 9.
And roscosmos is probably doing the same, but they are still too proud to admit that.

>>10831113
Can someone fill me in? This makes zero sense to me

Launch thread anon here. Combine CRS F9 and hop launch threads into one, or separate?

>>10831224
a couple of weeks ago some brainlet brought up the idea of creating living spaces in caves on the moon, and using waterlocks keep these caves pressurized.
we had some fun with that.

>>10830282
>had the crew compartment been fitted with an airframe parachute, and even better had been jettisonable, the entire crew could have potentially survived.

>>10831238
so its basically beaver-dam tech?

>>10831261
>beaver-dam tech
don't fuel the shitposting with new ideas.

>>10831238
>arrive on Mars, start digging
>find water-locks already there

>>10831221
>i read somewhere that ESA is seriously looking in to creating their own version of the falcon 9.
That's right. They even released some concept video showing what basically looks like a falcon 9.

Pretty based imo. ESA will never be doing better than SpaceX, but at least euros will have cheap access to space for government missions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0ERXwhn-5w
Nice summary of the more political side of Apollo for you /sfg/

>>10831346
Saw that. Very interesting. Never knew Kennedy tried to cancel the Apollo program. Very interesting take on how Kennedy's assassination changed how the country saw Apollo.

Makes it seem all the more amazing it happened when it did.

hop when?

>>10831368
POP WHEN?

>>10831368
TOMORROW

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

If you guys missed it, I have some...

GATEWAY NEWS:

https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plans-for-lunar-lander-development-through-commercial-partnerships/

On Monday NASA released their solicitation for crewed lunar landers, to ferry astronauts from the gateway to the surface. The contracts will be awarded in November, three out of eleven companies will be selected.

Also...

https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1153675406240821251

NASA awarded the contract for the Gateway’s habitation module to Northrop Grumman without an open competition, their proposed module is basically a pimped out Cygnus on steroids. NG were selected because they were the only competitor able to make the 2024 deadline, likely due to the Cygnus being proven tech.

>>10831390
early next week, got it

>>10831397
Can't believe they are still going with that gateway pile of shit. Going to thoroughly enjoy watching Starship cruise past that half assembled embezzlement tin can before landing on the moon.

>>10831407
actually, starship is seemingly going to be the tin can, which will make it entirely more hilarious

>>10831407
God that would be really funny.

Let's be real, I don't think people are going to land on Mars until 2026 or 2028. Even those dates might be a little bit early. That is some challenging shit.

>>10831407
well, right now nasa is making gateway in such a way that after the next election when the next president pulls the plug in his predecessor's nasa plans (like they always do) they can easily reuse/rename it for the next big prestige project from the next potus.

>>10831414
imagine just buying a crew starship and leaving it attached to the Gateway
go have some private contractors pull the engines off and return them to Earth or something

>>10831439
Nah just park a Starship next to gateway and charge 1$ less than gateway for every commercial use, flex on oldspace hard.

>>10831439
Imagine buying a payload starship and gobbling up the gateway. Is that even possible?

>>10831445
SPACE PIRATES.

>>10831221

>And roscosmos is probably doing the same, but they are still too proud to admit that.

Well they have the Baikal rocket boosters.

>>10831445
I want to see a size comparison between these two, all I can picture is a bad dragon docking with a miniature fleshlight.

>gateway

>>10831466
I hope somebody gets a winged flyback booster working, just because I think they look cooler

>>10831469
I miss my first PC, even though it was trash.

>>10831467
>The Virgin Gateway VS The Chad Starship.

This seems the most related thread for this question.

What happened to NASA's XCOM test? I can only find about Nasa announcing it and other newspaper talking about NASA announcing it.

>>10831467

>>10831480
which one was that

>>10831484
for communication, instead of using RADIO they would use X-ray, which would be faster and would not be interrupted on re-entry.

The test was supposed to run this spring, and spring is over and I havent heard anything new from NASA.

>>10831211
>I'm not sure other nations will be able to match what SpaceX is able to pull off though.

Why not, spacex is accomplishing it using peanuts of profits next to a goverment/military budget.

Say a big country, like russia. Say they have some sort of technological disadvantage that would make it harder for them. Ok then, double the cost. 10 billion dollars.

That's about a couple big train stations, that's peanut for a state and it ensures them strategic access to space and potentially big profit if applied comercially.

its a no brainer, if russia doesnt do it, then at least the EU or china will. but probably all of them.

The only reason this isnt being done by every space fairing nation at once is that they are waiting for spacex to thoroughly demonstrate the concept, so that they don't have to carry that cost themselves.

>>10831481
Wouldn't docking one Starship to another used as a permanent station be better? Imagine passengers trying to squeeze through Gateway so they can enter the lander, after flying to the Moon in a craft bigger than the station itself.
Talk about gatekeeping.

>>10831113
Post this along with it, otherwise the water airlock drawing is misrepresentative. Key points to consider; you can't actually use water because it would boil off, the displacement height needs to be over 100 feet if you use an ultra-low-volatility oil, most oils with low enough volatility would also become very stiff or even freeze at ambient conditions on Mars, whatever liquid you choose will end up coating everything you send through the airlock and by extension everything inside your habitat, and you need to make a U shape that is significantly taller than the minimum in order to safeguard against unexpected or unwanted changes in pressure inside or outside the airlock.

>>10831498
Gateway is being build with the idea that they never actualy have to put it up there.
next election they will pull the plug anyway.
And many in oldspace think bfr will never work anyway.

>>10831512
>Revolving door space programs
I hate that NASA has to operate it that way. Is it even possible for a president to lock down a mission for NASA cross-administrations? Or even just have NASA come up with it's own mission so that it doesn't have an association with a previous administration?

>>10831183
Like the current design or like the ITS? Either way the answer is yes, it's just more expensive and requires more work. All you really need to do is excavate a larger pit and flame trench, such that the exhaust gasses can be dispersed enough to not damage the pad by the time they contact it. Dumping lots of water into the trench and pit as the launch takes place also helps.

It'd also be possible to go the Soyuz pad route and forego the flame trench altogether and just suspend the launch pad over a huge pit that the exhaust blows into. If built in Florida such a pit would quickly turn into a small brackish lake without active draining, but that's effectively free sound-suppression as there's no ill effect to blasting your exhaust directly into a body of water. How to excavate such a pit? Dig it with machinery, or blast it with explosives, or in a perfect world just blast it with a single buried ~10 kT nuclear warhead.

>>10831495
government programs are inherently inefficient, so double it twice more
Russia is corrupt, so double it again

>>10831498
Anything that involves using a starship with retarded old space tier technology makes no sense and is 10000% for political reasons.

Imagine this. You get tasked with making an expedition to antarctica, so you build an Artika-class nuclear powered ice breaker, with room for 500 people and provitions to stay for up to a year in there if everything goes wrong plus lifeboats for everyone.

BUT , on the other hand you find out the governor has a lot of friends who like to build wooden rafts. Eventually you find out these friends have such a huge influence on him that if they can't sell him wooden rafts then the governor will ban sea fairing.

But the thing is your nuclear powered ice breaker is so superior that its kinda hard to hide.

so you end up reaching a compromise.

half of the expeditions are done on the luxury ice breaker and the other half are done on wooden rafts that cost almost as much as the icebreaker because of the exotic technologies that must be used to make them able to survive that trip.

That's the situation we find ourselves in today.

>>10831512
Oldspace opinions=Junk

>>10831522
I keep hearing about how corrupt Roscosmos is (or what corrupt situations its in), but I've never heard of a specific example of it. Does anyone have one? Do the Russians have an SLS (CЛC?) or something?

>>10831531
oh no, it's just that the money that should go to rockets goes into Putin's friend's pockets

>>10831183
>ing build with the
it wont be much worse than the saturn V, that shit was a beast, the emergency plan on what to do if one blew up was terryifing, basically it would have been the biggest non nuclear explosion ever.

>>10831191
If 500 ton to LEO Starship costs less than 5x current Starship (all costs considered including making back the initial investment costs of R&D etc), then it makes sense as a means to at least launch propellant into orbit to refuel the smaller Starships that are going to the Moon/Mars/wherever. It'd also make sense as a means to launch any other ultraheavy payloads (like bulk steel plate metal) to LEO.

>>10831541
Yeah if Starship works rockets are only going to get bigger and bigger since the mass fraction scales better as you go bigger. Imagine a 20m diameter rocket with 250 raptors on it.

>>10831522
nah bro.

All research programs are by definition uncertain on the budget. You start at some point but you never know where it will end, that's why there are projects that must be done on blank checks, otherwise the risk is too high.
Of course most people like you who have no idea on how basic research works cry retarded neolberal bullshit about the state being corrupt.


And if we must talk about corrupt states then America is 1890812903801239 times more corrupt than russia, by a longshot.

Russia in 1920 was a feudal state, basically no industries, in 1960 it assfucked the usa into oblivion in the space race, like it was not a big deal, they won every major landmark except the moon.

They did this with around 1/1000000 the budget, while they were bein threateaned militarilty by every other major power in the world.

Also, they didnt need nazi scientists to do so (americans tried without nazi they failed, american science doesnt exist, is only nazi).

America after desperately getting humillated to hell and back by some country men on whom they had a 100 year head start on industry tried to win at any cost. Becuase their science and ideas were vastly inferior they had to invest a gargantuan amount of money to win the consolation prize of the manned moon race after having lost the space race, the manned space race, the unmanned moon race, the venus race and most importantly, the having people in your country have access to food shelter and educationrace.

Because america likes to criticize the soviets but they have EVERYTHING BAD ABOUT THEM

america is not a democracy and its not capitalistic

the economy is controlled directly by the states, the notion of free market is 100% false.

this is how nasa even attempted to compete with russians: with 1000000000000% more budget, with nazi help and with centralized sovietical, communistical, against all waht they calimed to stand for ical, style of goverment management

>>10831561
This resulted in america creating THE WORST CORRUPTION EVER SEEN EVER

which is old space.

What they do is not research, its blatant corruption, thats what was uncovered by the musky musk.

They are literally a corrupt ruling class with more power than XVI century french kings and you retards have the balls to claim that america is not the worst dictatorial shithole ever fuck you

>>10831245
>LH2 boosters

Other than that it'd be a significantly decent Shuttle upgrade, at least in terms of safety which was easily the Shuttle's worst metric.

>>10831351
You know some time traveler definitely went back to two months after Kennedy started trying to cancel Apollo and arranged for him to be assassinated.

>>10831407
SHITBOX
TO
THE STARS

>>10831536
sure, but only a deflagration, as there's no way the fuel and oxygen could mix thoroughly enough to detonate any significant amount of it, which would mean that although the pad would be ruined nothing else nearby would be very much affected. From the spots where people watched the Apollo mission lift off for example no one would be hurt.

>>10831552
>Imagine a 20m diameter rocket with 250 raptors on it

>>10831552
>>10831598
I'm tempted to make this, but I'm still burnt out from 4th of July...

>>10831629
Third segment up from the bottom, whats with all the holes?

I remember reading that that is welding marks from the inside

>>10831639
So it's not the sweat holes? Will the orbital hopper even have that feature?

>>10831640
that stuff goes on top, afterwards

>>10831629
>>10831639
>2024: Starship prototypes continue adding rings, now over 400 meters tall. Hop is scheduled for next wednesday, indefinitely. Elon still hasn't explained the design change, but we presume he's simply building a tower to Mars.

>>10831643
What do you mean by "on top"? Like in the nose cone? Or do you mean that it'll be added later?

>>10831647
it goes on the outside of the airframe after the rest of it is finished

Potentially big day for spacex tomorrow

>>10831618
>>10831623
>>10831629
>>10831639
>>10831644
I understand that this is the BFR booster, not the Spaceship, right?

>>10831661
Yes

>>10831646

Based Elon builing a space elevator.

>>10831646
>but we presume he's simply building a tower to Mars.
So a water airlock?

>>10831661
We have no idea, I think it's the tanks for the spaceship

>>10831661
I'm pretty sure it's an orbital/suborbital boilerplate starship / prototype starship

>>10831516
It would need a president that either don't care about taking credit, since he won't be around when the project concludes, or a president that can just accept whatever NASA sets by itself, so it can do as it pleases

>>10831660
thread up in a min

>>10831677
thing is if they funded starship they could realistically get results in their term AND also leave a glorious legacy even bigger than kennedys

>>10831561
>>10831567
t. russian shill

>>10831634
Could those be the holes the vehicle 'sweats' methane through? Maybe the whole 'the holes will be too small to see' thing was just a meme

>>10831718
no, I don't think they're holes

>>10831718
>>10831634
They're speed holes

>>10831634
>>10831718
>>10831726
You're looking at spot welds guys....

I'm sorry everybody who said that the big bell at the hyperloop thing wasn't a raptor, it was apparently a raptor bell

>>10831763

some fag from facebook made this apparently

>>10831767
even the pallet has the spacex logo. Based and redpilled

some fag from facebook made this apparently

>Chris Pratt is in trouble due to wearing a don't tread on me shirt
>meanwhile, super heavy lift, deliver-us-from-earth spaceships are built by people who have punisher skull sticker'd welding masks and Gadsden flag stickers on their trucks

wew

>>10831782
The absolute state that people are getting slammed by the media for being a fucking libertarian.

>>10831782
At risk of making this political, people hate that flag now? I mean, I kinda look down on people flying it because in my area it's usually the "I don't like the government unless it directly benefits me" types that fly it, but at worst I would just judge silently. Most of the time though I'm like "oh, that's a neat flag".

I even saw one that had the colors reversed (yellow snake on black flag), I would've stopped by and asked about it if I wasn't busy at the time.

>>10831796
Welcome to 2019, if you aren't a raging leftist you are a nazi.

>>10831782
People angry at meaningless shit should never be indulged, blame the media for becoming clickbait.

>>10831106
SLS is a piece of shit and so is the gateway, how do we kill them? What can we do to kill them?

>>10831466
man that looks so phallic.

>>10831796
the most ironic are the no steppy on snek flag stickers with blue lives matter stickers right next to them. Absolutely bootlicking.

>>10831824
Launch a grain silo to the moon.

>>10831824
We don't need to do anything, wait for SpaceX and Blue Origin to make rockets at a better cost than SLS and see old space melt in despair

>>10831221
>And roscosmos is probably doing the same, but they are still too proud to admit that.

What're the odds that it's why there's been radio silence on Angara over the past couple of years.

>>10831579

>>10831796
Commies are mentally ill
more news at 11

>>10831481
Oldspace fucking around with 1990s tech while Musk goes and builds a fucking IRL Thunderbird 3.

This is going to be hilarious to watch unfold.

>>10831674
The use of boilerplate here is rubbing me the wrong way. I understand they're using identical curved plates of metal, which is exactly what a boilerplate is, but they're using them to build a prototype, which is exactly the opposite of what a boilerplate is. Maybe that's what he meant by delightfully counterintuitive.

double header launch thread up
>>10831857

I can't believe the mods banned launch thread-anon

>>10831874
Well that was quick.

>>10831874
Lel did the fucking jannies nuke your thread in like two minutes?

>>10831892
if a thread got deleted, it was either the work of OP, because he fucked up the dates, or a moderator
janitors don't have authority to delete threads

>>10831892
>>10831891
I messed up the date in the info section. Had it the 14th rather than 24th. That's unacceptable, so I re-posted. I strive for perfection.

>>10831894 new launch thread

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuck jannies.

>>10831898
>That's unacceptable, so I re-posted. I strive for perfection
Honorabu

>>10831824
You can't, the trick is to make money off of them

look for SpaceX and Blue Origin both trying to grab pieces of the Artemis mission. Lander, station resupply, LOPG modules, whatever

The real punchline will be when SpaceX is selling lunar surface cargo services. 100 tons of surface equipment on Starship, then astronauts landing to meet it on some dinky Lockheed Martin disposable lander

>>10831896
Regardless, fuck jannies.

>>10831908
>please sign here to confirm cargo delivery

>>10831908
I wonder if the ULA we'll-pay-you-for-water-in-orbit deal is still valid

>>10831914
>Here's 150 tonnes of water bro
>That will be 99999 billion dollars thanks

>>10831908
another punchline upcoming: watching NASA insist that the only way to get astronauts to Gateway is Orion on SLS

then they contract out resupply missions and it's done by Dragon 2 (Cargo version) on Falcon Heavy

>>10831776

Didn't elon say there were six under the legs?

>>10831827
I see that all the time in Florida, absolutely bonkers pairing.

>>10831924
yes, count them
that's a 31

>>10831918
The actual ULA price is $3000/kg water. Starship can hold 1,000 m3, so it's weight limited in that regard. ~150,000kg water per launch then. ULA would have to pay up $450,000,000.

>>10831928

I'm not seeing them. I see an outer ring with 11.

>>10831936
there are 31 engines in that image
six are missing

>>10831937

Right, six are missing but Elon said that there was a total of 41 engines three days ago. So something is wrong. Either the first stage has a different engine configuration or the second stage magically only has one engine now.

>>10831941
>here's your stage mass ratio bro

>>10831941
bruh
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1153419738527125504?s=20

>>10831942
>>10831941
35 raptor Super Heavy, although I'm not sure how you only take two down out of six, with a six engine Starship, for a total stack of 41

>>10831950
the presentation can't come soon enough

>>10831512
>Gateway is being build with the idea that they never actualy have to put it up there.
The "NewSpace" fanbois can be distinguished from regular NewSpace fans by one way: they are fucking idiots that THINK they know more than they actually DO.

The Gateway PPE is literally a modified SSL satellite bus, and the MHM is literally a modified Cygnus. This is explicitly because they both can be made ready in a short timespan.

>>10831945
>>10831950

Okay, so Elon is changing the number. Six in the second stage, with 37 in the first stage obv. makes 43.

six legs or three legs with two engines each? hmmm

>>10831964
Six legs obviously. Each leg can be smaller and there's redundancy if one fails.

>>10831959
no, 37 slots, with 35 populated
>>10831964
landing slightly off-angle produces better results with fewer legs, I think

>>10831991
wonder if they've dropped the land-on-launch-mount idea entirely

>>10831995
I think they're focused on building it first

>>10831529
>food analogy

>>10832015
i liked the other thread before he showed up halfway through. we actually had a decent discussion going

>>10831995
Why would they have? It's pretty much key to the whole architecture.

>>10832042
>Why would they have? It's pretty much key to the whole architecture.

It's a bonus for maximizing launch rates, but isn't on the critical path. Orbital refueling is necessary for their BLEO objectives, but is not part of the minimum deliverable product for commercial launch services (what SpaceX is currently developing).

>>10832051
This, minimum viable product doesn't even include reentry, but they're going to want to start testing reentry with the very first launches while they're getting their MVP set up

>>10832051
They need to do like 9+ refuels to get a ship to Mars or the moon, if they have to land somewhere else, then truck it all the way to the launch mounts it's going to take a ridiculous amount of time and substantially more money.

>>10831954
yeah they're gonna build it

I mean I think it's dumb, but they'll do it, they have to. Orion/SLS can't go to low lunar orbit so they need a station

>>10831516
No. It shouldn't be the president anyways. It should be Congress, and the president should be tasked with executing whatever plan Congress has decided on. But we haven't had a Congress with a spine in at least 100 years.

>>10832055
This is true, but it's not necessary for version 1.0 of a commercial launch vehicle for satellites. They can add these features to subsequent iterations and retrofits of the vehicle (the benefits of steel in action).

>>10831507
Urine would make an appropriate buffer fluid if BRINED first.

>>10831512
Basically this. On the one hand I applaud Trump for being the first president since Kennedy to give s shit about space, sadly he was the one to do it, so the Artemis program is partisan and forever orange man tainted.

Similar to how conservatives hated Obamacare, but like the Affordable Care Act. When we undoubtedly get a new president in 2020 any NASA related activities that are not directly related to bolstering climate change research will go down the toilet.

>>10832082
It's all so tiresome. Hopefully the private market will be able to gas this tiresome cycle soon.

>>10832086
Politicians are knobheads.
Where's my Mars base?

>>10831106
Earth is flat

>>10832098
No it's diamond shaped with 8 flat faces. The earth is held up by Seven gleaming gold pillars.

hop tomorrow lads

>>10831229
Someone proposed using an S bend as an airlock for Mars. It kinda works, but apparently you need like a 50 meter deep pit on the exit side and you‘d need to fucking dive to enter your base.

>>10831220
SpaceX being private and Elon‘s autism give me hope. Unless the vehicle doesn‘t work out at all (in which case they‘d try something else), I don‘t see it amounting to nothing.
Let‘s just hope Elon doesn‘t drop dead.

>>10831221
>i read somewhere that ESA is seriously looking in to creating their own version of the falcon 9.
B-but reusability is a meme and SpaceX is only undercutting based ESA because of gobernmint contracts!!!!!!

>>10832118
it wouldn't work with water, on account of the whole boiling thing, so you'd need to use some sort of oil

>>10831507
What if you just used a very heavy gas? 2 mile access tunnel?

>>10832149
There are many options, none of which are entertained by the tensile lock gang, because apparently being at the mercy of a snackbar with a razorblade and getting lung cancer from martian fines is preferable.

>>10832149
If you built an infinitely long tunnel you could just fill it with air

>>10832163
Just rinse the whole surface of Mars down to deal with the fines dust and perchlorates gosh why is this so hard

>>10832167
nah bruh
pave it

>>10831495
Nasa just spent 50 billion to figure out how to stitch shuttle components back together. I don‘t think doubling the cost is even remotely sufficient.

>>10831668
The cheapest swim to mars ever.

>>10831908

>>10832214
Eeh

>>10832229
imagine being this buttmad over a competing lunar architecture

>>10831908
>Yeah we'll take your lander to the moon i guess
>Stick it in the corner of the hold
>Ejects it when in orbit
>50 dudes with a cocktail bar and private cabins drop down to the surface and bounce around for 3 weeks before heading back
>Passes by NASA fagstronauts who look like mfw

>>10832239
i hope you enjoy imagining this
because that's all it will ever be

>>10832242
Stay mad ULA shill

>>10832248
>stay mad
im not the one shitposting about NASA getting one-upped by SpaceX at 1 in the morning

>>10832253
>1 in the morning
>Implying everyone lives in fat cunt land

kys

>>10832242
u jelly

Buzz Aldrin probably has the right idea about how to keep the Gateway pork flowing but make it not a complete pile of shit: put it in Earth orbit, and have the final facility planned to be much larger, with the larger parts being commercial additions (including for-lease research modules to replace ISS, and a fuel depot capable of supporting at least one full lunar expedition per fill-up).
The gateway contractors get their money, the congressmen get their jerbs, ISS advocates stop sperging out, Newspace completely shits all over the four SLSes that will ever be built, and the gateway goes from being a shitty series of tin cans to a respectable gas station/research outpost that's used for more than one month out of the entire fucking year.

>>10832330
I thought the problem was the Gateway was an unnecessary stop that distracted NASA from the surface? Now the problem is that it's not crewed constantly and more resources should be devoted to adding modules? Those positions are mutually exclusive.
How are you going to move a full station from LEO? You'll need to develop a tug. That's expensive.
Just be honest and admit the real issue is that SpaceX = Good, everything else = bad.

>>10832330
>four SLSes that will ever be built
they started building the engines for the 5th one last year

>>10832229
pathetic.jpg

>>10832349
That doesn't mean they'll ever be mounted to a vehicle. The soviets had a surprisingly large stock of unused engines from the N1 left over and sitting in warehouses for decades.
>>10832345
Orion has one major problem: it's too heavy to carry a lander and itself to the moon with the service module it has. The idea for moving Gateway to LEO allows you to either gas up a modified SLS second stage, solving the weight issue, or say to hell with Orion we're flying to the moon and back in something else that ferries between the lunar surface and the Gateway.
That something could be Zubrin's super/reusable LEM from his Moon Direct proposal, a Blue Origin LEM with full reusability, or even Starship if NASA is nervous about launching and recovering crews on a vehicle with no escape system and no parachutes from the Earth.

>>10831433
why cant we just stop doing that, please? Just for once, have a major program that can run for more than 8 years without someone having to change it?

>>10832408
Trump didn't change that much with NASA's plan. NASA had been wanting to go back to the Moon for a while, but Obama didn't want them to for political reasons. So when Trump came in, they were like
>oh what a coincidence that all our stuff designed for vague "deep space" missions can be repurposed for a lunar return. it's almost like we've been waiting for this
for instance, the engine module from the cancelled asteroid redirect mission is basically the Gateway PPE.

>>10832384
>That something could be Zubrin's super/reusable LEM from his Moon Direct proposal,
which only leaves a few hundred kg for life support. good if you just want to stay for a day or two a la Apollo, bad for anything else
NASA's architecture BASELINES a 6.5 lunar surface stay. and that's just for the first mission.

>>10832384
>>10832416
*6.5 DAY lunar surface stay. I accidentallyed a word

>>10832417
>>10832416
That's if you don't read the rest of his plan, which is to set up a surface habitat and ISRU plant with cargo sent ahead on commercial rockets during the first few missions. The lander just needs enough margin to set up the surface base.
Or alternatively, if NASA chose a larger vehicle (like Starship), you can perform a very similar mission profile to Moon Direct and not worry about payload much at all.

Playing KSP, been experimenting with shuttles, have come to the conclusion of fuck the shuttles.

How the fuck did NASA keep these things under control during launches?

>>10832425
NASA's betting on ISRU too. Why else use a hydrolox first stage on the lunar lander? The difference is that they're not cocky enough to assume they'll be able figure out the engineering challenges in two or three years.

>>10832432
KSP's controls suck.
IRL, they had a bunch of computers hooked up to the gimbaled SSMEs on the back of the shuttle, constantly adjusting the angle of the engines to keep the thrust directly through the shuttle's CoM.
For KSP, the poor man's replacement is MechJeb. May the Kraken have mercy on your soul if you try and fly one MANUALLY.

>>10832436
I did it semi-manually. I was doing good too until the SAS started swinging the engine around like crazy, and it was a wild ride from there.
Made it to orbit, but fuck trying to launch these things again. I'll see if I can convert the design into a workable SSTO spaceplane. Only need it to ferry passengers up and down.

>>10832111
this better be true

>>10832486
For some reason I get Shuttle vibes from this even though they're nothing alike.

>>10832504
Its the gimballing. Shuttle engines could gimbal through huge ranges as well.

>>10832504
>>10832524
The arrangement of engine bells makes me think of a hybrid of Soyuz and Proton.

>>10832540
Also gives some N1 vibes with its engine rings.

>>10831995
No, Elon has said that it's simply faster to develop the Booster with legs and have it land right next to the pad than it is to try to achieve in-clamp pad landings right off the bat. Later, once they've worked their way up to it, transitioning from landing next to the pad to landing on the pad itself wouldn't even require any hardware changes, and later they can optimize the booster for this recovery method by stropping off the legs and the internal support structures they pushed against.

>>10832055
>if they have to land somewhere else, then truck it all the way to the launch mounts it's going to take a ridiculous amount of time
Sure, but 'somewhere else' doesn't have to require a truck, they could build a landing pad literally right next to the launch pad and have a single permanent crane structure to lift it up and put it into the launch clamps. Takes substantially longer than landing directly into the pad, but only takes hours instead of days. They already need a crane at the launch pad anyway to put up Starship onto the Booster, so this shouldn't be a huge deal. Getting approvals to drop the most powerful single rocket stage ever designed towards, and right into the middle of, a gigantic launch complex that SpaceX only owns a fraction of? That may be a hurdle, and is honestly the reason I think they may be better off just building their own pad from scratch.

>>10832060
It's gonna be funny to see what the Gateway gets re-purposed for once Starship is flying regularly and making propellant deliveries to LEO. When the writing on the wall is blatantly and obviously telling you that your program is a waste of time and money as it is, it's going to be an untenable position to be in if you insist on staying the course and maybe getting an Orion+LOP-G assisted Lunar landing by 2026 when Starship has already been making 100 ton cargo deliveries to the Moon's surface every three months since 2023.

>>10832074
>here's your airlock, bro

>>10832554
No major Aerospace program has ever been finished less than 2 years behind schedule

>>10832229
THE VEHICLE THAT WAS MOGGED TO DEATH

>>10832554
Doesn't Starship require refueling to get to the Moon? Do you REALLY think they'll be able to set that all up in a little over 3 years? They haven't even begun designing, much less purchasing, refueling craft.
All NASA needs for Gateway is a satellite bus and a cygnus.

Where the hell were you fanbois last thread anyway?

>>10832560
>Combining airlock and the septic tank

Ingenious

>>10832560
>Using spare neet Martian piss bottles to fill your airlock

Excellent, top tier design, will recommend to Elon Musk

>>10832592
>not gamer girl bathwater

>>10832595
>Using actual water to fill your airlock

While I appreciate your dedication to Belle Delphine, that is a gross waste of water resources.

>>10832384
Because N1 had like 14 flights planned or something before they pulled the plug because it kept exploding.

>>10832560
Now you need another S bend against the smell.

>>10832568
Apollo

>i will never be an astronaut
>even if I do I'd still just be a LEO cuck

>>10832669
You may not be the perfect kind of person, but at least you fucking tried!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJoexZBMcA

>>10832628
There's a liquid designed to sit on top of the piss in traps so it doesn't stink.
https://specialtyproductsusa.com/product/mineral-oil-based-p-trap-primer/
>has a pleasant cherry scent.

>>10832486
DAT ASS

>>10832806
traps don't sink when I fuck them

>>10832806
So they mineral oil gives you a cherry smell before you swim in the pee?

>>10832121
SpaceX is """private""". The entire operation depends on government contracts and subsidies. Congress could kill it at any time.

>>10832806

>>10832432
I've been tempted to try to make something like in this image in KSP. But it's hard to control one stage for a return while the other is flying to orbit without using mods.

>>10831507
This is a dumb picture, as you can just use water and a thin layer of oil floating on the surface.

>>10832330
This is the right idea indeed. Earth orbit is a natural place for orbital refueling, so you may as well put the station there and add propellant depot module. Then you also need a station anyway, as there is value in having permanent human presence in Earth orbit. Instead of a pointless Gateway, have a commercial ISS replacement with a depot.

>>10832576
>They haven't even begun designing, much less purchasing, refueling craft.

Starship is the refueling craft.

>>10832384
honestly, doing all three of Earth Orbit Rendezvous, Lunar Orbit Rendezvous, and Lunar Surface Rendezvous all at once is the only way

>>10832879

>>10831896
jannies do have the authority to delete threads
it's banning that they cannot do

deleting threads is literally the reason for their existence

>>10832883
I hope we can start manufacturing spacecraft in orbit/ on the moon.

>>10832432
shuttles are a bad idea in KSP, if you want to fly a spaceplane you need to either do it dreamchaser style, as a payload in a fairing; starship style, as a complete second stage; or Buran style, with external boosters to orbit or nearly (but make them symmetrical)
the true patrician option is SSTO, due to the small size of Kerbin it's actually viable, because you can do airbreathing to nearly halfway to orbital velocity or better
it's tempting to use the vacuum engines for this, but you need the thrust, so use aerospike
>>10832883
it's not about the delta V, it's about infrastructure
Lunar Orbit Rendezvous is kind of unnecessary but would make me feel better
>>10832894
I've had some interactions on /co/ that indicate that they couldn't delete threads, where one ass-pained Janitor would sit around and delete posts for no good reason but nobody would get banned until the thread got deleted

>>10832832
Use mods

>>10832912
maybe there's a ranking system for jannies, where fresh ones can only delete posts, but can later be promoted to have more powers
it would make sense, since mods are picked from among jannies, that's a big jump in power if they could only do post deletions before

>>10832912

They can delete threads if the threads get reports. Otherwise they can only delete posts. It's why /tv/ has certain kinds of threads for long periods of time: no one reports them.

>>10832958
I used to report threads on /tv/ but gave up when the sne*dspam ramped up, there's just no point now as everyone simply ban-evades right back again anyway. The board is lost.

>>10832960
At least it wasn't c*nny.

>>10832961
They mostly come out at night, mostly.

Any news from the Lightsail 2 probe?

>>10832937
kek
https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2013/01/09/things_i_wont_work_with_azidoazide_azides_more_or_less

>>10832960
>/tv/
I know its off topic, but what happened? All of a sudden I'm hearing about how much /tv/ has gone bad on other boards. I also heard a rumor that a mod got mad and opened the shitposting floodgates.

>>10832669
>533 people reached Earth orbit
do you have any any idea how lucky you would be to get to LEO in your life time
i would give my left ball to get there

>>10832985
/tv/ has been shit for years, has it gone even more rotten recently?

>>10832436
Nigga I had a functional STS that I could fly to orbit like 4 years ago when they first released the new shuttle components and the SLS parts, it's all about angling the main engines on the orbiter towards the CoM of the orbiter and the external tank when it's roughly 1/2 to 1/3 full.

The external boosters then serve to carry the remainder of the external tank's mass, and by the time they burn out, the main tank is now 1/2-1/3 full and you can continue on to orbit with little to no controllability issues. On my stock parts build, that would get you to within ~50-100 m/s of orbital velocity, and I'd jettison the tank on a re-entry trajectory and perform orbital insertion with the OMS engines, which were angled towards the shuttle's CoM.

Tbh, my stock parts Shuttle was easier to fly to orbit than my stock parts Buran was, if only due to the lower parts count. The stock Buran flew better in orbit, though, due to the lower mass, making it much easier to dock with my space stations.

Someday, I'll post all of my stock parts builds, I'd probably be legendary on Reddit if I did.

>>10832991
I don't visit /tv/ often, but I've noticed a sudden uptick in porn posting after I heard the rumor of a mod messing things up for everyone else.

>>10832985
>>10832991
Just go take a look for yourselves. I apologize in advance.

>>10832994
Have you tried making a reverse Shuttle?

>>10832998
I don't know why I bothered, but it didn't look that bad
I just hate their memes

>>10832994
I just built an SR-71 and then slapped two aerospikes on the butt

>>10833010
I had a bunch of spaceplanes, though my favorites were the ones based off of rumored classified platforms.

>>10832592
lol,imagine a bored martian neet who posts his bottles of cum in the interplanetary web askling what to do with it...

-throw it into the airlock oil! DO IT FAGGOT

-oh my god he absolutely did it hte absolute madman

>>10832164
not infinite. This is literally what we have on earth. A gas airlock, why doesnt the air on earth escape into space? because its held down by the weight of the air on top of it, it's more or less 10 km.

Martian gravity is about one third, so it would have to be 3 times longer to exhert the same force.

So dig a 30 km long hole and fill it with air and sure, you could have a village at the bottom

>>10832560
>>10832589
>Pissing into a doorway of ever-more concentrated piss

>>10831908
>The real punchline will be when SpaceX is selling lunar surface cargo services. 100 tons of surface equipment on Starship, then astronauts landing to meet it on some dinky Lockheed Martin disposable lander

I think this will force the hand of the goverment to finally cancel their programs. Because for now they dont want to do it because it would be an admission that literally many tens of billions of dollars have been literally wasted.

Like, literally almost 100 billion dollars down the drain of corruption, no benefit from them.

That is a tough pill to swallow.

But it will be even harder if there's a concrete evidence of their incompetence.

If there's a luxury hotel with a swimming pool on the moon built with reusable starships and it costs 1000 bucks to get there but right next to it nasa is spending ten trillion million dollars to send 3 dudes in a tin can so small they have to be lubed to get in and if they sneeze then they risk cutting the rcs and dying, then its likea blaring undeniable alarm that nasa should be trialed.

seriously it could very easily warrant that most of old space loses their power forever or they might even go to jail.

I think the most reasonable path is to somehow merge the old space money into newspace ideas.

gosh if those fuckers could just give 10% of their budget to the glorious musky musk we would have the europa submarine in no time

>>10833041
I highly doubt the numbers you're giving, but I do hope BFR forces a paradigm shift in spaceflight towards cheaper access.

>>10831481
>the virgin Orion
>the chad Starship

>>10833038
>4chan mischief in 2026

>>10833057
The Virgin Orion
>Years late
>Uses outdated Apollo design
>Tiny internal volume
>Makes crew poop in baggies like dogs
>Uses toxic cancer propellants

The Chad Starship
>Will always be on time in Elon years
>Revolutionary design
>Volume surpassed only by Skylab
>Will have full toilets
>Powered by oxygen and braaaps

>>10833093
>has no concept of time, is simply ready when it's ready (before you)

>>10832345
1. Build new spess station in LEO with refueling capabilities
2. Build reusable space vehicle and reusuable lander, meaning one stage for ascent and descent, that travel together from LEO to lunar orbit, and then to the surface and back with the lander
3. Use established technology to get to LEO, an easy task
4. ??????????????????
5. Profit
The problem with Gateway is that lunar orbit is a shitty place for a space station required for lunar trips until the Moon has the ability to refuel and resupply said station with it's own resources. LEO is not, and it would allow you to keep the hardware for going from LEO to the Moon in orbit, and wouldn't need to waste rocket payload every flight.

>>10833133
>reusuable lander, meaning one stage for ascent and descent
One thing that you have to keep in mind is that the reason why NASA is going for a three stage lander is so that it'll be harder to kill politically. The next administration could cut NASAs moon landing program back and NASA could just reuse one of the designs for one of the stages for something else. I know, its a stupid thing to have politics dictate designs, but it is something that needs to be respected until private spaceflight is sufficiently independent of direct government oversight.

>>10833133
Seriously, gateway is a good idea, it's just in the wrong fucking orbit. having a LEO station for refueling and staging people/materials could be useful for many types of future missions, not just lunar shit.

>>10833145
It was probably due to the Obama administration not wanting anything to do with a moon landing program, so NASA chose a lunar station so that they can be as close to the moon as possible without landing on it.

>>10833093
The Virgin Orion
>has to rely on a Service Module that will leave it forever when the mission is over
>has to be fished out of the water when it "lands"

The Chad Starship
>relies on a totally bro booster that it will fly with again after it returns
>lands on ground next to launch pad, standing proudly upright

>>10831466
They don't. Baikal is a meme, the idea was around since 80's (for the Energia boosters) but got nowhere. They've tested some models in a wind tunnel in 2011, that's all.

>>10831221
>And roscosmos is probably doing the same, but they are still too proud to admit that.
Not quite. The geography of Russia makes a direct Falcon 9 copy unfavorable. It could be done but they'll have to land at the launch site every time, reducing the payload capability, because their downrange is an uninhabited wasteland (no highways, no ocean to easily transport the stages back). Besides, the high latitude will make the boostback maneuver even harder. There always was a VTVL lobby in the Soviet/Russian industry, but it's really weak and they always wanted to copy the retarded Delta Clipper (Corona).

Anyway, they won't make anything at all, because they are stuck in the pork cycle and are corrupted to the core. Imagine if NASA with their endless cancellations handled commercial launches - that's how bad it is in roscosmos, because most of the russian space industry is directly owned by the government (with a few exceptions), they aren't just subsidiaries in most cases.

>>10833157
at least Soyuz works, most of the time

>>10833133
A LEO station, a LMO station, a dedicated lunar lander, a dedicated tug to go between both stations and a starship to go from the ground to the station would eventually be very plausible and a good idea if theres enough travel volume. Particularly if the inter station tug and the lander are nuclear.


But for now, once starship is demonstrated it will agresively fuck in the ass until it bleeds any other kind of architecture.

You launch one vehicle to orbit. Then all you have to do is refuel it.

The vehicle that refuel it are the same vehicle, so there's less to design and less potential for failure.
And in any case, the most critical moment occurs in LEO , where the spacecraft could be uncrewed, or if crewed its the only place were it would be reasonable to send help.

This gets you crewed to the moon or mars moons and back WITHOUT REFUELING. mars surface and back with onsite refueling. But seriously, judging by the amount of money they were willing to spend it would be perfectly feasible to just send the return fuel on a different bfr

>>10831106

>>10833157
>because most of the russian space industry is directly owned by the governmen
thats bullshit

america is way more corrupt, Nasa and old space aren't "handled" by the goverment, they ARE the goverment. Only way america could compete during the apollo years was to be more communist than the soviets (ultra centralized state that takes all decisions by itself and directly controls production). So im sorry but america had to adapt the superior communist model (which it still has to this day) to make up for losing the space race.


Any fallback the russians have in regards to the americans is because they invest much, much less money on their space program. Like, it's 100% intelligence and genius lateral thinking, like the sliding soyuz boosters.

With like 1/1000000000 the budget they won the space race and made the safest rocket in history.

>>10833172
EML1 station is a good idea, as is lunar surface base

>>10833178
the communist model is good for accomplishing big things but bad for managing big things, you can see this because the capitalist general economy succeeded while the communist general economy collapsed

>>10833151
It was to make a possible asteroid redirect for in-depth study politically and logistically safe. It's less of a risk to hurl a giant boulder toward the Moon than it is to hurl it toward Earth.

>>10833180
1 Vehicle done by one manufacturer gets done all cheaply in a clean go and return simple maneuver without unneded complications. Oh, and also the hardware is reusable, which means following missions will be a small fraction of the original cost which is already much smaller than anyone elses.

vs

A clusterfuck of different modules in which each bolt is designed by one person from a diffferent country, it costs trillions mainly because of the bureaucratic costs, its ultra complex, expendable and has a lot of instances in which oxygen crew fuel and supplies must be transfered from one vehicle to the other.

GEEE I WONDER WHICH IS THE SUPERIOR OPTION

>>10832840
Water would still freeze below the thin layer. The best option is to have water immediately before the pressurized chamber that is kept at room temperature, so that as you travel from the surface to the chamber, the oil that had stuck to the transport vessel would be washed out by the water and decant.

>>10833183
>the communist model is good for accomplishing big things

that part of the communist model was never put under discussion by america.

America is as communist as they come. Free market? dont make me laugh. If youre a small business youre driven to the ground by regulations in no time.
If youre a big company you can legaly bribe the goverment (lobby) to let anything go, dont pay shit to your employees, put toxic shit in your food, whatever the fuck you like, oh and also you literally cannot go bankrupt, ever, for any reason. If that happens the state will lend you money at whatever rate you need until you get out.

That's way more dictatorial than the soviet union, in which at least they had secure access to food shelter healthcare and education.

In america what do you have? free market? no i demonstrated that corporations run the show, they are the goverment. Freedom of speech? dont make me laugh youre puppets to the joke of bipartidism. healthcare? haha better not get sick, if youre not a millionaire and get sick then you die. education? costs a shit ton. shelter? hahaha for a country that claims to be the best you sure have a shit ton of homeless people, even starving people too.

so get the fuck out of your head the idea that the american model is superior in any way.

free market capitalism does not exist. State intervention is just the natural way of things since the XX century and it was done way more intensively by the US than the USSR, only that in the first case it didn't serve the people.

>>10831507
how did you make that pic looks very aesthetic, did you use a uacom tablet?

>>10833196
Put it back in your pants Marx, this ain't /pol/.

>>10833183
>>10833178
>communist model
>Russia
Something tells me you have zero idea you're talking about. Russian model is like if NASA itself built rockets, without subsidiaries.
>Any fallback the russians have in regards to the americans is because they invest much, much less money on their space program.
Yeah, you definitely have zero idea about how the russian space industry works. I bet you don't even speak the language, and there's very little details available in English.

>Nasa and old space aren't "handled" by the goverment, they ARE the goverment.
NASA is the government, ULA and Orbital alikes aren't, they are being fed by the government and also launch stuff into the orbit for other commercial clients. That's a corrupt model but it gets nowhere near Khrunichev (for example) which is literally Roscosmos. The notable exception is Energia and some others, but they don't have launch vehicles right now.

>>10833187
Yes, now take those fuck-huge vehicles, bolt a bunch of standard modules to them, and call it an EML1 refueling depot station
>>10833213
I'm talking about the Soviets, who were communists

Reminder to report autistic communist screeching as off topic.

>>10833215
>I'm talking about the Soviets, who were communists
And I was talking about modern Russian space industry and explaining why a Falcon 9 copy is unlikely to happen

>>10833178
>russian shill at it again

USA won the space race in no small part due to well developed sector of private contractors, contrary to corrupt Soviets. Apollo was unquestionably the highest technical achievement in space by far, and you are a certified moron if you try to imply otherwise. But even without Apollo, US objectively dominated in spaceflight achievements except for a short period in early 60s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight_records

>>10833213
>Something tells me you have zero idea you're talking about. Russian model is like if NASA itself built rockets, without subsidiaries.
both models are the same.

Ohh, poor little boy, you must be fresh out of elementary school. You think aerospace companies are independent from the goverment?= BuahhaGHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHa

oh my god, i mean it angers it me that i must explain such basic stuff to someone who supposedly has the intelligence to operate a keyboard but its also delicious to destroy your ass so badly in an argument.

Listen, its a centralized structure, theres no distinction between boeing, lockheed martin or any of those companies and the goverment. They call the shots. Or do you think fucking anyone could get away with literally losing 40 billion dollars in an investment and still automatically get business.

Its called the industrial military complex, it was denounced by an early XX century AMERICAN president, and its shameful that you must learn from it from a foreigner that knows more about your history than you do. The absolute state of american education.

You have bank bailouts and you think youre capitalist? hahaa my balls laugh

>>10833221
>USA won the space race
you mean the manned moon race right?
because the space race, the manned space race, the moon race and the venus race were all won by soviets.

Also, if you think theres anything "private" about a company that gets blank checks from the goverment, that theres anything capitalistic about that then you ate one too many big macs burguer boy

>>10833213
>ULA and Orbital alikes aren't

The industrial military complex is more goverment than the goverment themselves.

Presidents come and go but this guy with absolute power since the 1950 stay.
Even tough they made HUGE fuck ups, no consequences happen.

They can legally bribe senators with millions of dollars (lobbying)

and magically all of their competitors get shut down.

You'd need to have serious mental retardation to even believe that "free enterprise" or "competition" is even remotely at play here.

Literal same shit as teh soviets. Big companies run by the state, nothing more.

>>10833224
>because the space race, the manned space race, the moon race and the venus race were all won by soviets.

Manned moon race includes first three of those as part of it, and then goes on to exceed them all. So US won the space race, period. You can have your consolation price in the form of a probe on Venus, tough.

>>10833221
>USA won the space race
Doesnt matter the fact people question it is enough

Just quit replying to him, he's only doing it for attention.

>>10833230
>So US won the space race,
No the race to space was won by the soviets. period

What is space according to american definition? 100km karman line

who got there first

soviiiettttskaaiii soviettiiiii SOViiieeeeeeeeeet communist eastern srrruusiaaan SOOOOOOOOOOVIEEEEEEEEEET UNIOOOOOOOOOOON THATS RUIGHT LADIES AND GENTLEMEN LETS HEAR IT FOR THE OBJECTIVE WINNERS OF THE RACE AS DEFINED BY THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE OBJECTIVE PARAMETERS THAT YOU MUST ACCEPT UNLESS YOU WANT TO BE THE VERY DEFINITION OF A GOALPOAST MOVER, DING DING DING WE HAVE A WINRARRWINNNEERR


When americans lose a race do they do shit like this? like, do they say OK YOU GOT FIRST TO THIS FINISH LINE, BUT IF THE FINISH LINE WERE THAT ONE?? hahaha


Even ryas gosling admits it in that shitty apollo 11 movie, hes there in his shitty american sofa about to beat up his wife probably and he says shit the russians won me to the space.

>>10833245

Based schizo poster

HOP WHEN

>>10833245

LabPadre Hopper livestream here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XQM1bF6nA

>>10833323
who are these retards talking, how long till the launch why is the picture so shitty quality what the why fuck why

>>10833337
just watch Tim Dodd's stream instead
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0XQM1bF6nA
upsides: no stream until something happening
downside: need to listen to Tim Dodd

>>10833337
>why is the picture so shitty quality
because it's on a telescope from BCV, I think it's on BocaChicaGal's roof
it was worse when it was on a telescope from South Padre

>>10833343
the south padre telescope is still up, by the way

>>10832997
mods are the big gay, more news at 11

Looks like the hopper tanks are full and the roads are now closed in Boca Chica.

Hop should be any time now.

>>10833544
You know, I make joke posts on this board every so often but sometimes I get tempted to do an "out there" shitpost, up until I stop by a board like /tv/ or /v/. Then I feel like /sci/ doesn't deserve that kind of stuff.

>>10833568
If it happens and I don't see a webm of the hop with the R2D2 screech dubbed over on this board, then I'm going to be really disappointed in you all.

why's the estronaut stream not up?

>>10833592
because nothing's happening yet, it'll start to spew big clouds of liquid oxygen before it's ready to hop

>>10833597
>big clouds of liquid oxygen
Lies, we all know what that cloud really is.

Martian Kush

Sticky time
>>10831894
get your launch day snacks out

>Apollo 11 "Eagle" Ascent stage: jettisoned from the Command Module on July 21, 1969 at 23:41 UT (7:41 PM EDT). Impact site unknown
Better check Rick Harrison's Gold & Silver Pawn Shop lmao

>>10833670
meanwhile with Apollo 12...

>>10833692
wasn't it Snoopy with 10 that it's lost in space?

>>10833699
that too. The GIF is of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J002E3

>>10833692
>that long zoom in on that little circle that we've never gone beyond
Ooof.

>>10833692
What a cool gif.

>>10833699
that too, but that's the 3rd stage of apollo 12 not the apollo 10 lem

>>10833810
cool

>>10833882
>>10833882
>>10833882

>>10833892
fuck off

nice, lightsail confirmed deployed

they're gonna postpone the hop, aren't they

>>10834117
I mean they already loaded prop

Everyday Astronaut is live
https://youtu.be/Rfb0cd17IAY

Looks like today is the day

4K livestream
https://youtu.be/cn5j_E2CcqE

SpaceX hopfeed where?

>>10834207
other thread >>10831894

>>10832840
No you can't, without the pressure of the outside atmosphere the water inside the shaft would boil, bubbles would be able to form that would not be re-collapsed by ambient pressure and thus the surface area fo the water would go up superexponentially and most of the water would be vaporized, with the rest evaporatively cooled all the way to freezing.

Soo... was today a non-starter all around?

>>10834442
I have a terminal case of blue balls

>>10834450
I'm going to go jack off

GODDAMNIT SPACEX

>>10834456
Same

>>10834442
Yeah sadly, even my own work has hit abit of a speed bump.

>kill the thread instantly instead of letting it die

>>10834463
Standard mod faggotry.

>>10833093
>Volume surpassed only by Skylab
Actually starship will have more than 3x the habitable volume of Skylab, ~1000 m^3 vs ~319.5 m^3

Launch thread 2: FUCKING HOP edition will be up tomorrow, assuming we have a GO for the 2nd F9 attempt and another hopper event scheduled.
What a completely underwhelming day.

LabPadre reporting that something is going to happen in about five minutes.

Betting that there won't be a hop attempt tomorrow

>>10834471
Pressing X to doubt since SpaceX already gassed their stream.

>>10834460
RIP

>>10834472
Abort wasn't serious from early words.

>>10833199
Wacom, yes, and if you hold shift you draw a straight line.

NASASpaceflight chris bergin says "This has NOT yet been scrubbed for the night."

>>10834480
It's just hard to find plumbing fittings without a propellant tank. The tanks will have to be ordered, but since I'm due to move soon, I'm going to have to wait until I'm settled back down before ordering new stuff.

A recycle tonight has not been ruled out yet. They are going to reconnect the QDs (Quick Disconnects) and consider options.

news from ln(e):
>Testing a possible Starship windward side ceramic tile. Maximizing emissivity is best for conductive/particle heating. Nice thing about steel is that tiles can be very thin, unlike carbon fiber or aluminum airframe.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1154194820929212419

>>10834495
>mfw it hops after all and mods nuked the sticky prematurely

>>10834504
If he's on twitter right now, maybe he'll explain what happened with the hopper

>>10834504
ln(e) is going to turn into a fucking "we are number one" joke isn't it

>>10834511
this is what happened

Jack Baer
https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1154190932583034885?s=20

>>10834525

>>10834495
Oooh, a nighttime hop then.

Reloading commodities and looking at the potential of an in-window T-0!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elSH6yo9ozw

venting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rfb0cd17IAY

happening resumed?

LabPadre camera is better suited for night
https://youtu.be/dsBr9JJNrBw

>>10834600
not when it hops!

>>10834600
1 fps tho

>>10834602
It's an error. they have noticed it and are trying to fix it

>>10834603
tell them they're gay

New thread:
>>10834610

the link below me is to a dumb thread

>>10834614
fuck I was off by a couple seconds

>>10834612
when will you people learn. This thread will still be around for like five hours

>>10834612

Wait untill page 8 or something next time, this is a bit premature IMHO.

>>10834617
>>10834616
Sorry anons. I didn't see this one was still fairly high up

>>10834623
THERE'S A PROTOCOL TO FOLLOW YOU GOOF
STICK TO THE SCHEDULE

IT'S HOPPENING

Sorry for dumping this question here, but I need an outside opinion. Which NPT pipe size should I use for a small liquid propellant rocket engine? 1/8 or 1/2? I'm leaning to 1/8 because that's the size the pipe needs to be before it connects to the decomposition chamber and thus having all my piping in this size means that I don't have to get reducers, but 1/8NPT valves and solenoids seem rarer. 1/2NPT seems to be more common and it's used on some small rocket engines already.

Just for context, I don't know what pipe size my propellant tank connects to so either size is equally likely to require an adapter. Thanks in advance.

>>10834675
1/8th NPT is super fucking rare, I'd find your prop tank first

>>10834675
>small liquid propellant rocket engine
Use units when describing the size of your thing.

HOP YOU SILLY FUCK

>>10834695
Thanks. I guess it won't hurt to go by AutoZone and see what they have.

>>10834721
Sure thing.
N2O monoprop with a silver wire catalyst starter
Thrust SL: 0.776 kN
Isp SL: 60.946 s
Chamber Pressure: 13 bar
Chamber ID: 76.2 mm
Throat ID: 25.4 mm
No Nozzle (yet)
No Cooling

I know the performance seems poor, but I'm assuming a C* efficiency of 50% which is pretty low. I'm hoping that I was being too pessimistic and the rocket engine performs better than that.

>>10834739
You need to go to a hardware store, not autozone.

>>10834623
See those numbers at the top and bottom of the thread? Right now they are "373 / 59 / 92 / 7" That 7 means page 7. Wait until it's at least page 9, preferably page 10.
Fucking newfriends.